Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a few moments ago, a conference on the appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education was completed. It was a rather unusual procedure because the conference report was incorporated into the conference of the District of Columbia appropriations bill. That arose in light of the fact the House of Representatives had not passed a bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education--an appropriations bill for those three departments, but the Senate did. The procedure was adopted to have an informal conference with Senator Harkin, ranking member of the subcommittee, and myself representing the Senate, and Congressman John Porter, chairman of the House subcommittee representing the House. I had talked to the ranking Democrat, Congressman Obey, and had invited him to participate. He did come to one of the meetings but said he did not intend to participate because of his objection to the nature of the proceedings, in light of the fact that the House had not passed an appropriations bill. This is not the ideal, proceeding in the manner I have described, but it is the best that could be done under the circumstances. There is a real effort to complete the 13 appropriations bills and submit them to the President before the close of business tomorrow so it all would be on the President's desk before the current continuing resolution expired. It may be that the President will veto the District of Columbia bill and the inclusion of the appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human Services. If that is to follow, then we will be proceeding to try to reach an accommodation as to what the bill ought to be. My suggestion is the bill, which has been submitted, is a good bill, not a perfect bill--I haven't seen one of those in the time I have been in the Senate--but, I submit, a good bill. It contains a program level of $93.7 billion, which is about $2 billion less than the program level passed by the Senate. This bill was crafted by Senator Harkin and myself on a bipartisan basis, crafted in a way to obtain the signature of the President of the United States. We have directed very substantial funding to the three departments where the total bill is $6 billion over fiscal year 1999 and an increase of some $600 million over what the President requested. Education is a priority in America of the highest magnitude. This bill contains a program level of $35 billion for the Department of Education, constituting an increase of $2 billion over fiscal year 1999 and some $300 million over the administration's request. I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks, and for the purposes of this oral statement, I will summarize the highlights.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a bill to provide federal assistance to States and local governments for drug courts to provide treatment rather than expensive imprisonment for drug addicted nonviolent offenders. This legislation would reauthorize and improve upon a novel program by which States and localities may obtain Federal funds to assist in the implementation of a ``drug court'' within the State and local criminal courts. Drug courts are designed to select from the general criminal population nonviolent offenders who test positive for drugs, and put them through a program of court supervised drug treatment and rehabilitation. In this way, we can both aid first-time drug offenders by preventing them from becoming career criminals and provide localities the funds to enable them to control the serious backlogs in their criminal court caused by the drug crime wave. In the long-term, this solution to the drug plague promises to be less expensive than incarcerating these nonviolent offenders. In 1991, I introduced similar legislation (S. 648), which was proposed by a 1990 study commissioned by the Philadelphia Bar Association entitled, ``Clearing the Road to Justice.'' This study found that state and local courts are overwhelmed by a large number of drug related crimes committed by first time offenders. The study concluded that a separate drug court division could both speed processing of drug related cases and provide mandatory drug screening programs to target first-time nonviolent drug offenders, and at the same time free up the rest of the court system to focus on violent criminals. Congress enacted legislation to authorize a federal drug court grant program as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. However, in an action without any debate and that I believe reflected poor judgment, Congress repealed such authority in the Omnibus Consolidation Recessional and Appropriations Act of 1996 (PL 104-134). Although Congress rescinded the authority for this program, it has had been good sense to continue to appropriate some funds to the program by increasing funding from $11.5 million in 1995 to $40 million in 1999. As a result of this federal funding, there has been a considerable increase in the number of drug courts in the United States. Since 1994, the total number of operating drug court program has grown from 42 to approximately 300. However, there is still not enough funding to adequately support the program despite the increased interest. Last year the Department of Justice received 216 grant applications, but was able to award only 88 grants. Justice reports that there were at least 38 additional programs that would have received grants had there been funding available. During my travels in Pennsylvania, I have confirmed that there is a great deal of interest in implementing this program. Currently, there are six counties (Allegheny, Chester, Lycoming, Philadelphia, York, Erie) that are in various stages of planning and implementing drug court programs. I had the opportunity to speak to a number of prosecutors, judges and participants of these programs. They are very positive about their initial progress and very optimistic about the results that they will achieve in the future. As a member of the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees, I have been an advocate of increasing funds for this program. I am committed to a balanced federal budget and realize that we must be careful in how we make federal expenditures. With this in mind, I have chosen this program carefully as one in which we should invest federal funds. I believe that Congress must step up to the plate and commit to this program by authorizing it and appropriating sufficient funds to meet the growing demand for drug court alternatives. It is necessary that the criminal justice system and Congress face up to the fact that realistic rehabilitation must be a part of the process of drug treatment and crime reduction. I believe that the drug courts are extremely effective in breaking the cycle of substance abuse and crime and will save large amounts of money that otherwise would have been spent on incarceration. With this program, first-time drug offenders may be prevented from becoming career criminals, and localities will be provided with funds to minimize the serious backlogs in criminal courts caused largely by drug crimes. The most recent Drug Court Survey Report, published by the Office of Justice Programs' Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University found that the drug court programs reported low recidivism rates between 2% and 20%. The survey also found significantly reduced drug use even among those who did not graduate from the programs, with as many as 93% of participants testing negative for drugs. Further, this alternative promises to be less expensive than incarcerating nonviolent offenders. Drug courts offer significant cost savings as compared to incarceration. According to the Drug Court Survey Report, the average cost for the treatment component of a drug court program ranges between $900 and $1,200 per participant, and savings in jail bed days have been estimated to be at least $5,000 per defendant. Additional reported savings include reductions in police overtime, witness costs and grand jury expenses. While these statistics are very promising, they are not necessarily representative of all of the drug court programs. In 1997, GAO issued a report entitled ``Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics and Results,'' which found that nearly half of the drug court programs do not maintain follow-up data regarding recidivism or relapse to drug abuse. Accordingly, GAO recommended that the Attorney General require drug court programs to collect and maintain follow-up data on recidivism and drug use relapse. This legislation includes a requirement for such follow-up so Congress can better determine the program's efficacy. This legislation would authorize up to $200 million per year for this innovative program, the original level from the 1994 law. Additionally, in order to create greater flexibility for states and local governments to fund the drug court programs, this legislation would allow federal funds that are received from sources other than the Drug Courts Program Office to be counted as a part of the 25% grantee matching contribution requirement. The current Justice policy requires the grantee to contribute 25% of the total program costs--none of which can come from a federal source. Additionally, the 1994 law required the Department of Justice to consult with HHS concerning administration of the drug court program, and although the drug court provision was rescinded, Justice has continued to consult with HHS in an informal manner regarding treatment programs. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize the important role that HHS can play in improving the treatment aspect of the drug court program. Accordingly, this bill would reinstate the requirement that Justice consult with HHS regarding administration of the drug court program and would authorize $75 million to be appropriated to HHS to be used for drug treatment services associated with drug court programs. I urge my colleagues to support this important program which provides an effective alternative to imprisonment for drug addicted nonviolent offenders.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a bill to provide federal assistance to States and local governments for drug courts to provide treatment rather than expensive imprisonment for drug addicted nonviolent offenders. This legislation would reauthorize and improve upon a novel program by which States and localities may obtain Federal funds to assist in the implementation of a ``drug court'' within the State and local criminal courts. Drug courts are designed to select from the general criminal population nonviolent offenders who test positive for drugs, and put them through a program of court supervised drug treatment and rehabilitation. In this way, we can both aid first-time drug offenders by preventing them from becoming career criminals and provide localities the funds to enable them to control the serious backlogs in their criminal court caused by the drug crime wave. In the long-term, this solution to the drug plague promises to be less expensive than incarcerating these nonviolent offenders. In 1991, I introduced similar legislation (S. 648), which was proposed by a 1990 study commissioned by the Philadelphia Bar Association entitled, ``Clearing the Road to Justice.'' This study found that state and local courts are overwhelmed by a large number of drug related crimes committed by first time offenders. The study concluded that a separate drug court division could both speed processing of drug related cases and provide mandatory drug screening programs to target first-time nonviolent drug offenders, and at the same time free up the rest of the court system to focus on violent criminals. Congress enacted legislation to authorize a federal drug court grant program as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. However, in an action without any debate and that I believe reflected poor judgment, Congress repealed such authority in the Omnibus Consolidation Recessional and Appropriations Act of 1996 (PL 104-134). Although Congress rescinded the authority for this program, it has had been good sense to continue to appropriate some funds to the program by increasing funding from $11.5 million in 1995 to $40 million in 1999. As a result of this federal funding, there has been a considerable increase in the number of drug courts in the United States. Since 1994, the total number of operating drug court program has grown from 42 to approximately 300. However, there is still not enough funding to adequately support the program despite the increased interest. Last year the Department of Justice received 216 grant applications, but was able to award only 88 grants. Justice reports that there were at least 38 additional programs that would have received grants had there been funding available. During my travels in Pennsylvania, I have confirmed that there is a great deal of interest in implementing this program. Currently, there are six counties (Allegheny, Chester, Lycoming, Philadelphia, York, Erie) that are in various stages of planning and implementing drug court programs. I had the opportunity to speak to a number of prosecutors, judges and participants of these programs. They are very positive about their initial progress and very optimistic about the results that they will achieve in the future. As a member of the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees, I have been an advocate of increasing funds for this program. I am committed to a balanced federal budget and realize that we must be careful in how we make federal expenditures. With this in mind, I have chosen this program carefully as one in which we should invest federal funds. I believe that Congress must step up to the plate and commit to this program by authorizing it and appropriating sufficient funds to meet the growing demand for drug court alternatives. It is necessary that the criminal justice system and Congress face up to the fact that realistic rehabilitation must be a part of the process of drug treatment and crime reduction. I believe that the drug courts are extremely effective in breaking the cycle of substance abuse and crime and will save large amounts of money that otherwise would have been spent on incarceration. With this program, first-time drug offenders may be prevented from becoming career criminals, and localities will be provided with funds to minimize the serious backlogs in criminal courts caused largely by drug crimes. The most recent Drug Court Survey Report, published by the Office of Justice Programs' Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University found that the drug court programs reported low recidivism rates between 2% and 20%. The survey also found significantly reduced drug use even among those who did not graduate from the programs, with as many as 93% of participants testing negative for drugs. Further, this alternative promises to be less expensive than incarcerating nonviolent offenders. Drug courts offer significant cost savings as compared to incarceration. According to the Drug Court Survey Report, the average cost for the treatment component of a drug court program ranges between $900 and $1,200 per participant, and savings in jail bed days have been estimated to be at least $5,000 per defendant. Additional reported savings include reductions in police overtime, witness costs and grand jury expenses. While these statistics are very promising, they are not necessarily representative of all of the drug court programs. In 1997, GAO issued a report entitled ``Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics and Results,'' which found that nearly half of the drug court programs do not maintain follow-up data regarding recidivism or relapse to drug abuse. Accordingly, GAO recommended that the Attorney General require drug court programs to collect and maintain follow-up data on recidivism and drug use relapse. This legislation includes a requirement for such follow-up so Congress can better determine the program's efficacy. This legislation would authorize up to $200 million per year for this innovative program, the original level from the 1994 law. Additionally, in order to create greater flexibility for states and local governments to fund the drug court programs, this legislation would allow federal funds that are received from sources other than the Drug Courts Program Office to be counted as a part of the 25% grantee matching contribution requirement. The current Justice policy requires the grantee to contribute 25% of the total program costs--none of which can come from a federal source. Additionally, the 1994 law required the Department of Justice to consult with HHS concerning administration of the drug court program, and although the drug court provision was rescinded, Justice has continued to consult with HHS in an informal manner regarding treatment programs. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize the important role that HHS can play in improving the treatment aspect of the drug court program. Accordingly, this bill would reinstate the requirement that Justice consult with HHS regarding administration of the drug court program and would authorize $75 million to be appropriated to HHS to be used for drug treatment services associated with drug court programs. I urge my colleagues to support this important program which provides an effective alternative to imprisonment for drug addicted nonviolent offenders.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, listening to Senator Baucus, I am reminded of a couple of other items about Senator Chafee which I think ought to be mentioned. One is that he served as Secretary of the Navy, and, secondly, he served in the Marine Corps during World War II and was part of the invasion of Guadalcanal, the largest of the Solomon Islands in the Pacific. He was recalled during the Korean war. I had always wondered about the fairness of the World War II veterans being recalled during the Korean war. I served myself during the Korean war stateside as a special agent in the Office of Special Investigations of the Air Force. At that time, so many of my colleagues avoided military service by going off to law school or graduate school. I had noted at that time that so many veterans were so called. Ted Williams stuck in my mind, a great baseball player, who served during World War II and went off to the Korean war, cutting short his playing time. I had a discussion with John Chafee about that one day. I asked him about his views on being recalled to active service during the Korean war when so many were not serving at all. In his characteristic patriotic way he said, no, there was a job to be done and he was going to do it. He was glad to serve again in Korea, a marine in the toughest kind of work. That was John Chafee; always a great patriot and a great American.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I come to the Senate Chamber this morning to comment about the untimely passing of our distinguished colleague, Senator John Chafee. Senator Chafee died last night of heart failure, and I learned about it when I arrived in town this morning, at, I must say, a considerable shock. Senator Chafee sat next to me in the Senate. In addition to proximity, we were very close on many, many other lines. Senator Chafee leaves behind an extraordinary record as a great humanitarian, a great Senator, and a really great American. His political career is legendary--four terms in the Senate, elected in 1976, 1982, 1988, and again in 1994. Prior to that, he served three terms as the Governor of Rhode Island. His biography on the web site states that Senator John Chafee is the only Republican to be elected to the Senate from Rhode Island in the past 68 years. He brought a unique perspective to the Senate as a protector of the environment and as a firm advocate for expanding health care to every American. During the contentious days in 1993 and 1994 when the Senate was considering the extension of health care, Senator Chafee organized a small group of centrists to meet in his office every Thursday morning at 8:30, and came forward with a very solid bill on health care. More recently, Senator Chafee was the leader of a group of centrists, both Republicans and Democrats, to come forward with a Patients' Bill of Rights. He had an understanding and a political breadth that led to accolades from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and from the American Civil Liberties Union. He was the leader of a small group of centrists, also known as moderates, and he brought a degree of civility to this body and this Congress at a time when civility was sorely lacking. John Chafee could walk into a room full of controversy and arguments, strike a middle course, and bring Senators and Members on all sides to a position of coalescence and accommodation. John Chafee was a strong family man, very close to his wife Ginny, and was also an active squash player. I tried to lure him to the squash courts early in the morning. He would have nothing of 7 a.m. squash. My wife lives in Philadelphia; John Chafee's wife lives in Washington. He insisted on first things first. You could find him in the afternoon frequently playing squash with John Warner, both coming in for a vote freshly showered. John Chafee brought his son to our centrist meeting recently, who is a mayor of Rhode Island's second biggest city and who is seeking to succeed John Chafee in the Senate. I noted last Thursday afternoon that John Chafee missed three votes. We were on a bill and had three controversial votes at 5:30, and I worried a little bit about John Chafee but had no idea that the situation was as serious as it developed with his passing last night of heart failure. John Chafee leaves a powerful legacy in many lives, a real giant in the Senate, and he will be sorely missed on legislative lines and on compassionate lines because he was such a good friend to all 99 of his fellow Senators. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk due for their second reading. I ask that they be read consecutively.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I object to further proceeding on the bills at this time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to comment about a distinguished American who is retiring from service in the U.S. Senate. Charles Battaglia has been associated with me in the Senate for the past 14 years. He came to help me as an assistant when I served on the Intelligence Committee and stayed with me to become staff director of the Intelligence Committee during the 104th Congress when I chaired that committee, and then, in the 105th Congress, moved over with me to be the staff director when I chaired the Veterans Affairs Committee through the first session of the 106th Congress. Mr. Battaglia has a distinguished record. Following graduation from Boston College, he served 25 years in the U.S. Navy, serving in the offices of the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, and the Naval War College. In 1978, Mr. Battaglia was selected by the Director of Central Intelligence, Adm. Stansfield Turner, to be his special assistant at CIA. He received his MBA from Bryant University, and in 1991 completed the Kennedy School of Government's international security program, was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and has an extraordinarily distinguished military record in the Navy, in the intelligence community and CIA, as an assistant on the Intelligence Committee, and later as staff director there. He has earned retirement status. I might say we are making some effort to bring him back on a contract part-time basis to help with our inquiry into alleged espionage and other matters on oversight at the Department of Justice. He has had an extraordinary record and become a personal friend of mine in the intervening 14 years. He has done great service for the military and as a member of the Senate family. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked to make the opening comments on behalf of our distinguished majority leader. This morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 434, the African trade bill. As a reminder, cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill was filed on Friday. Therefore, pursuant to rule XXII, that vote will occur tomorrow 1 hour after the Senate convenes unless an agreement is made between the two leaders. Later today, the Senate is expected to proceed to executive session in an effort to debate several nominations currently on the calendar. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 293, S. 1652.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2841 and the Senate now proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the committee substitute be agreed to, as amended, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. There is a managers' amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 275, H.R. 974.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Edwards and my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I voted in favor of cloture on the amendment denominated the Daschle amendment, which was the Shays-Meehan bill, because I believe comprehensive campaign finance reform is highly desirable. The bill, as embodied in the Daschle amendment, would eliminate soft money for all issue advertising. I believe that is sound. I voted to oppose cloture to the Reid amendment, which would curtail soft money for issue advertising for only six committees: The Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Republican House Campaign Committee, and the Democratic House Campaign Committee. It is my view that if soft money is to be prohibited on issue advertising, then soft money should be prohibited across the board. To approve the lesser provisions of the Reid amendment, which would affect only six political campaign committees, would be unfair, because other organizations could use soft money for issue advertising. That is the distinction on my vote on the Daschle amendment where I voted for cloture contrasted with the Reid amendment where I opposed cloture. Furthermore, I believe the comprehensive reform embodied in the Shays-Meehan bill is what ought to be adopted. The bill has another very important provision; and that is the provision relating to the changing of the definition of ``express advocacy'' and ``issue advocacy.'' At the present time, issue advocacy would incorporate an advertisement, which could detail the ways one candidate is bad, and his opponent is good. But as long as the ad did not say, ``Vote for the opponent; vote against the candidate,'' it is considered issue advertising. That is totally unrealistic. Shays-Meehan would make an important change on that provision. I would add one caveat as to constitutionality. All of this is subject to some very stringent tests under the Buckley decision. I believe before we are going to get comprehensive campaign reform, we need to overrule the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Buckley v. Valeo. Senator Hollings and I have proposed constitutional amendments now for more than a decade. I would not consider amending the language of the first amendment, but I disagree when a Supreme Court decision, made by a divided Court--says that money is equivalent to speech for the individual person but not for contributors. I ran in 1976 in a contested primary against my good friend, the late Senator John Heinz. In the middle of that campaign, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that an individual can spend millions, where my opponent spent a considerable amount of money--but as my brother he was limited to a $1,000 contribution. His speech as an individual contributor, was limited in the context, where my brother could have financed a campaign. Ultimately, we are going to have to change the Buckley decision. To repeat, I would not change the language of the first amendment. But, I think other legal judgments, perhaps mine included, would be as good as the Supreme Court Justices who decided Buckley v. Valeo. But I do believe that if there is to be a curtailment of soft money, it ought to be done as Shays-Meehan did it in the Daschle amendment; not with the Reid amendment, which would limit only six political committees and leave others in a position to finance soft money campaigns, which would be an uneven playing field and unfair. Mr. EDWARDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to S. Res. 190 be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 190 be discharged from the Judiciary Committee and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the partial-birth abortion bill tomorrow morning. By previous order, a vote on the motion will occur after 20 minutes of debate. Therefore, Senators can expect the first vote at 9:50 a.m. If the motion is adopted, it is anticipated the Senate will continue debate on the bill throughout the day. It is the hope of the majority leader an agreement can be reached with regard to amendments so that the bill can be completed prior to the close of business on Thursday. The Senate may also consider any appropriations conference reports available for action.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 20. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume debate on the motion to proceed to S. 1692, the partial- birth abortion bill as under the previous order.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand Senator Reed has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 199 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.