Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths (those exempt from attending school) between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I introduced an identical measure at the close of the 105th Congress and am hopeful that the Senate can once again consider this important issue. Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House this year. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer employment where they live. The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish community. Last year, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. They explained that while the Amish once made their living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand into other occupations as farmland disappears in many areas due to pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish culture expects youth upon the completion of their education at the age of 14 to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and lifestyle of the Amish. In the 105th Congress, the House passed by a voice vote H.R. 4257, introduced by Representative Pitts, which was similar to the bill I am introducing today. I am aware that concerns to H.R. 4257 existed: safety issues had been raised by the Department of Labor and Constitutional issues had been raised by the Department of Justice. I have addressed these concerns in my legislation. Under my legislation youths would not be allowed to operate power machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that they are enforced. The Department of Justice stated that H.R. 4257 raised serious concerns under the Establishment Clause. The House measure conferred benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities. I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. Yoder held that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise clause. The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self- reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish do not need the final two years of public education. I offer my legislation once again with the hope of opening a dialogue on this important issue. This is a matter of great importance to the Amish community and I urge its timely consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths (those exempt from attending school) between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I introduced an identical measure at the close of the 105th Congress and am hopeful that the Senate can once again consider this important issue. Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House this year. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer employment where they live. The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish community. Last year, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. They explained that while the Amish once made their living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand into other occupations as farmland disappears in many areas due to pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish culture expects youth upon the completion of their education at the age of 14 to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and lifestyle of the Amish. In the 105th Congress, the House passed by a voice vote H.R. 4257, introduced by Representative Pitts, which was similar to the bill I am introducing today. I am aware that concerns to H.R. 4257 existed: safety issues had been raised by the Department of Labor and Constitutional issues had been raised by the Department of Justice. I have addressed these concerns in my legislation. Under my legislation youths would not be allowed to operate power machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that they are enforced. The Department of Justice stated that H.R. 4257 raised serious concerns under the Establishment Clause. The House measure conferred benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities. I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. Yoder held that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise clause. The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self- reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish do not need the final two years of public education. I offer my legislation once again with the hope of opening a dialogue on this important issue. This is a matter of great importance to the Amish community and I urge its timely consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Delaware for yielding. I support the treaty because I think the balance of risks are in favor of ratifying this treaty. It is not without risk, but it is not in perpetuity. The United States may withdraw at any time that it chooses. If we reject this treaty, it is an open invitation to other nations to test. I think that is a greater risk than the risks involved in ratifying the treaty. The events of the last 24 hours in Pakistan show the undesirability of having the Pakistanis test in their race with the nation of India, not to speak of the other nations, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. I suggest the President of the United States call the majority leader of the Senate and try to work this out. More than that, of the Senators here, many who are opposed to the treaty think we should not vote it down. It is not over until it is over. I believe it is possible for the President to say to the majority leader what would satisfy the majority leader to take this treaty out of the next Congress. And I believe the majority leader could convene the Republican caucus--and we can do that yet this afternoon or into the evening on this momentous matter. I think it is still possible to avoid this vote to give extra time for security measures, to give extra time for testing, but not to cast a vote which will be a vote heard around the world to the detriment of the United States.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset, I compliment my distinguished colleague from Mississippi for the outstanding work that he has done as chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee of Appropriations. I have had the pleasure to work with Senator Cochran for some 19 years now. We have been on the subcommittee together for that time and the full committee for that time. There is no more difficult area in the Senate than working out a farm bill on the Agriculture appropriations bill because, candidly, the farmers are faced with so many problems. These are subjects very near and dear to my heart because I grew up in farm territory in the State of Kansas. I was born in Wichita and moved to Russell County, KS, when I was 12, worked on a farm as a teenager, drove a tractor, and have some firsthand experience with the problems which the agricultural community has. I am very much concerned with a number of provisions in the bill. I declined to sign the conference report, and with great reluctance because of the hard work that the chairman has done and others have done. I intend to vote against the conference report, although I think there are enough votes present to pass it. There is a cloture motion pending. The issue has been raised as to whether there would be an attempt to filibuster. It may be that the issues can be worked out without a filibuster. I hope the issues can be worked out. But if the filibuster vote comes up I will vote against cloture to continue the consideration of this issue, even though I realize fully the importance of resolving our appropriations bills in the very immediate future. The reasons that I am concerned about the provisions of the bill relate to two issues. First, it is my view that Mid-Atlantic States, and my State of Pennsylvania specifically, have not gotten a fair share of the disaster assistance. The Agriculture appropriations bill provides for $8.7 billion in disaster assistance. But the vast majority of this money goes to farmers in the Midwest to compensate for low commodity prices. It may be that the disaster assistance is a broader category than you might expect, or perhaps the disaster assistance is modified by the fact that some $7.5 billion goes to the Midwest to compensate for low commodity prices. Only $1.2 billion is provided for natural disasters. That $1.2 billion must compensate not only for the drought but also the disasters including Hurricane Floyd, flooding in the Midwest, livestock loss, and fishery loss. Pennsylvania alone has sustained $700 million in drought loss. The Mid-Atlantic States have suffered $2.5 billion as a result of the drought this summer. Year after year, Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic Senators have supported massive aid packages to farmers in the Midwest--some $17 billion between August 1998 and June 1999. Now that the Mid-Atlantic farmers are facing a real crisis, my view is the Congress has not provided sufficient compensation. There is another issue of concern; that is, the amendment which I was prepared to offer in the conference. Senator Cochran has accurately described the conference. It was rather anomalous. At about 7:15, the House conferees asked for a recess of 10 to 15 minutes. And more than an hour and a half later they had not returned. Although many of the conferees wanted to vote to extend the Northeast Dairy Compact and to allow Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia to join, the leadership in the House was opposed. I believe the Northeast Compact ought to be reauthorized, and a number of States, including Pennsylvania, ought to be permitted to join. Without going into elaborate arguments, this is to provide price stability without any cost to the Government, but to the benefit of consumers. The price fluctuated from as much as $17.34 in December of 1998 to a little over $10 in January of 1999. With that kind of instability, it is very difficult on the farmers. There is another issue about option 1-A which some 60 Senators and 240 House Members have recommended; contrary to that very large majority, the Secretary of Agriculture proposed a rule which was different, 1-B. Dairy compact legislation was offered on April 27, 1999, by Senators Jeffords and Leahy. I joined with 40 cosponsors. When the Senate considered the issue of dairy pricing and compacts on August 4, 1999 on a vote for cloture, we received 53 votes--short of the 60 majority. It is my hope yet we will work out the compact for the Northeastern United States and also the 1-A pricing. These are matters which impact very heavily upon my State and upon the farmers far beyond my State as a national matter. With reluctance, I intend to vote against the conference report and to support the postcloture for extended debate to try to bring about greater equities. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I believe I asked one question.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the question that I have for the Senator relates to the letter from President Clinton to our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, where President Clinton has asked that the Senate not consider consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I believe it is very much in the national interest that we not vote on the treaty today because it would undermine national security by sending a message to the world that we are not for this treaty. I think it would encourage nations such as India and Pakistan, and perhaps rogue nations such as Libya, Iraq, and Iran, to test. But the first of two questions which I have for the Senator from Delaware is whether the President might go further. The Senator and I attended a dinner last Tuesday night with the President. We both had occasion to talk to the majority leader and have heard the public pronouncements. The majority leader has set a threshold, asking that the President commit in writing that he would not ask to have the treaty brought up next year. I believe we have to find a way to work this out so the treaty is not voted on. The first question I have of the Senator from Delaware is, What are the realities of getting the President to make that request? He has come pretty close in this letter. Why not make that additional request?

Mr. SPECTER. I had one more. I believe I asked one question. I had one more. I would like leave to ask one more question. The question I have for Senator Biden is, Is there any other way procedurally that this vote can be put off? We are considering the treaty. There is a unanimous consent request, and while I do not agree with what the Senator said in his first response--I believe the President can say more without being against the treaty. And I believe there are political considerations which are behind not having the matter brought up in fair consideration to Senator Lott's request there be a commitment not to take it up all year. I think it highly unlikely that there would be a shift among Republicans on a procedural matter to find 51 votes--50 votes plus the Vice President. But we are dealing here with matters of extraordinary gravity. I hope this matter can be worked out short of a procedural vote. But I direct this question to the Senator from Delaware, whether there is any other procedural alternative to getting this vote off the Senate agenda.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Delaware yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. To repeat my last thought, which might have been lost in the UC request, the failure of the United States, up to date, to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty has caused a ripple of wonderment. A vote by the Senate rejecting the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty would cause a tidal wave of astonishment. It might set off a chain reaction around the world, which would be even more serious than the chain reaction of the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. When we take a look at what is scheduled for next Tuesday, where we have the vote, it is my hope that we will find a way yet to work our way out of the unanimous consent request. I believe that a vote of rejection on Tuesday--and I have used this word before, and I use it advisedly, but I think it is accurate--I think rejecting the treaty would be catastrophic. We are in a situation where our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, is unwilling to defer the vote if he is going to have to face a crescendo of demands during next year. Senator Lott did not want to schedule the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty vote at this time. I know because I had asked him to do so. I had asked him to do so in private conversations. When he had given me his reasons, I awaited his judgment. There was substantial urging, maybe even agitation, maybe even goading on the Senate floor by some that Senator Lott should schedule this vote. He finally responded to it. He responded to it in a context where the treaty is assured to be defeated. President Clinton held a dinner last Tuesday evening, which was attended by a number of people here, including Senators Warner, Biden, Hagel, myself, and others. I think it is fair to comment, as it has been in the media. The President declined to ask that the vote be deferred on the condition that the President not ask that it be taken up all during the year 2000. I think the President felt that would signify backing off, and he thought some events might develop where he had to call for the treaty to be ratified. He said, candidly, he would have a hard time explaining it to our allies. Well, I can understand Senator Lott not wanting to see this matter become a political football in the year 2000. It has that potential, whether the parties intend it or not. If there is a crescendo of demand for the treaty to be ratified, taken up in the spring, fall, or summer of next year, it could have an affect on the election in 2000. I think it is realistic to take it out of the election. Senator Levin, the distinguished ranking member of Armed Services, made a public comment in the hearings that he thought the treaty should not come up for ratification before the election. I think that is a sound judgment. There may be a way out of that dilemma by scheduling the treaty debate and vote on November 15 of the year 2000. That will take it out of the election cycle and it would allow President Clinton, who has advocated the treaty, to be a spokesman and have it decided on his watch. There is another alternative, which is not as good as doing it in November of 2000, but that would be to schedule the debate and vote between January 3 and January 20 of 2001. We would not have a lame duck Senate, and it would be out of the election cycle. I think it is very important to take this treaty out of politics and out of partisanship. There is an overhang that we should not ignore--a partisan overhang to this debate. All 45 Democrats are said to be in favor of the treaty. The number of Republicans is unknown precisely, but very, very limited. That is bad for America and that is bad for the world. When we had the vote on the use of force in the Gulf in January of 1991, it was largely partisan, where 42 Republicans and only 10 Democrats backed a Republican President. When we had a vote on the use of airstrikes in Yugoslavia earlier this year, it was 58 to 41. Only 17 of 55 Republicans joined the Democrats. That partisanship is highly undesirable. I ask for one additional minute.

Mr. SPECTER. We may come to that. I will repeat the assurances that Senator Warner gave me, that while he said there was an adequate record for a negative vote, he also said there was an adequate record for an affirmative vote, depending on how one looked at the evidence. So my view is, it comes down to a judgment call. It comes down to an issue which is essentially a political question as to how the national security of the United States is better served by relying on our superiority today and stopping other nations from achieving superiority. I believe the United States would be well advised to move ahead to ratify this treaty and to show the world we still have a preeminent role of world leadership in moral terms as well as in armament terms. We have the unprecedented event just this morning, where we have the op-ed piece appearing in the New York Times with the Prime Minister of Britain, the President of France, Chancellor of Germany, all urging this Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. I had occasion to travel to Ukraine in August; I talked to the President of Ukraine, Foreign Minister, and other ranking officials. The ratification of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty was high on their agenda. Ukraine has taken a unique attitude in giving up nuclear weapons. Many nations around the world seek nuclear weapons as a sign of their national power. Ukraine is prepared to give them up. I asked the leader of that country why. President Kuchma responded: Well, we prefer the Japanese model of economic strength. Also, we have had the terrible experience at Chernobyl, and we do not want to have nuclear weapons for fear of what happened at Chernobyl. But high on the agenda of the Ukraine top officials is ratification by the United States. Senator Hank Brown and I had occasion to travel to the subcontinent in 1995. We talked to Indian Prime Minister Rao. He told us that he would be very interested in seeing the subcontinent nuclear free. A day or two later, we were in Pakistan talking to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and we related to Prime Minister Bhutto what Premier Rao had to say. She said, ``Did you get it in writing?'' We thought it was a little flip, perhaps. We said, ``No,'' and countered with, perhaps, an equally flip question: ``When was the last time you talked to the Prime Minister of India?'' She said, ``We don't talk.'' Senator Brown and I said, ``Well, we think you should.'' The next day, August 28, we had departed for Damascus. Senator Brown and I sent a letter to the President urging him to call into the Oval Office the Prime Minister of India and the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. There is great power in the Oval Office. No one declines an invitation to the Oval Office--at least, I don't know of anybody who has declined an invitation to the Oval Office. I had occasion to speak to the President about it later in 1995, and he said he thought it was a good idea, but he wanted to defer it until after the 1996 election. I talked to him after the 1996 election, and he said he still wasn't ready to do it, and what would happen with China and India. I am not going to criticize the President for not calling them in. I hope he will yet. But I think when India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in the spring of 1998, it was a very dangerous sign for the world. How can the United States ask India and Pakistan not to test nuclear weapons when we won't ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty? It simply doesn't make any sense. And that is why I think the national security of the United States would be enhanced on a balance of risks. It may not be perfect on verification, or it may not be perfect on the stability of our stockpiles, but whatever risk is involved there, I believe it is minimal. It is a small risk compared to having India and Pakistan test nuclear weapons and set off an arms race there that can be duplicated around the world. The failure of the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty has caused a ripple around the world. People wonder why the United States has not ratified this treaty. But if the Senate were to reject the treaty on a Senate vote, there would be a wave around the world, and it would be a tidal wave. What is now a ripple of wonderment would turn into a tidal wave of disbelief and could cause a chain reaction, which would be----

Mr. SPECTER. Love doesn't last very long if it is only up to a minute. I think there ought to be a recognition of another problem, which I will state in 20 seconds. There is a certain lack of trust between Capitol Hill and the White House, and that is a fact that we have to take into account in our calculations. Within 20 seconds, I can't recount why. In conclusion--the two most popular words in any speech--I think we ought to avoid playing nuclear roulette with the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. Russian roulette is a great sport, played with a revolver in which one chamber has the bullet. But I think in this matter, we are playing with nuclear roulette if we go to a vote next Tuesday and reject this treaty. I urge my colleagues to work hard to find a way to debate and vote this issue at a later time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am delighted to respond to that question from the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee on a number of levels. First of all, the clause is there, so that when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others support the treaty because of the presence of that clause, that is a very important factor. And that clause is worth relying upon. That is the reason, if there should be a problem either with the stability of our stockpile, or with the verification, and we felt it was necessary for national security to invoke that clause and withdraw, that we would do so. With respect to other nations which might ratify the treaty based on our leadership, they do so with the full knowledge that that clause is present, and that we have the right to withdraw in our supreme national interest, so that if we should exercise the right of this entire affair in our dealings with those nations because they have known from the very outset that is a distinct possibility, there is nothing hidden about that. When you ask the pointed question at the very end of the series of implicit questions, when you ask the question, how would it look for our national security if we made a concession that we had a test, and withdrew from the treaty, I would say to my distinguished colleague from Virginia that is no worse than if we did not have the treaty and we started to test. The only reason we would exercise that clause and withdraw from the treaty would be so that we could start to test. Assume that we don't have the treaty. Assume down the road that we start to test. That is going to be a loud signal, an explosive signal, to the world that we are not satisfied with the status quo when we have to test. I think that exercising that clause would be no more emphatic or no more of a problem for the United States than not doing so. But I think when you take a look behind General Shelton, and other Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs--General Shalikashvili, Colin Powell, David Jones, Bill Crowe, only Admiral Vessey, Chairman Vessey, was on the other side. I think that is a very weighty consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond briefly, I think that Japan is well advised to rely on the United States and our nuclear deterrent for whatever risk there may be of pulling out. But Japan has, up to the present time, as the Senator from Virginia knows, relied upon the United States. Japan has had ample opportunity to develop whatever nuclear system they could have wanted. They have made the decision to the present time not to. There is no reason to believe they are about to change, regardless of what the United States does. However, when we talk about the withdrawal provision, that is not unique to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We have debated repeatedly on the floor of this Senate the provisions of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which allows withdrawal on notice--again, for supreme national interests. So the insertion of this clause in the treaty is no signal that we are considering using it. I think that is a standard provision.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Delaware for yielding me time at this time. Mr. President, this debate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty may one day be classified as a historic debate. The issue which is being framed today, in my opinion, is the most important treaty issue, international issue which has faced this Senate since the Treaty of Versailles, which was rejected by the Senate, setting off an era of isolationism and, for many, enormous international problems resulting in World War II. It is my hope this treaty will be ratified. I do not expect it to be ratified in a vote on Tuesday because the picture is clear that there are not enough Senators to provide the two-thirds constitutional balance. But it is my hope before that scheduled vote arises on Tuesday that we will have worked out an operation to defer the vote on this treaty. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, that a nuclear deterrent is vital for the national security of the United States. When he cites the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as being negotiated by the Clinton administration--really an idea of the Clinton administration--I would point to the statements of President Eisenhower more than 40 years ago when he articulated the national interest in a comprehensive test ban treaty. In a speech on August 22, 1958, President Eisenhower said this: The United States . . . is prepared to proceed promptly to negotiate an agreement with other nations which have tested nuclear weapons for the suspension of nuclear weapons tests. . . . In a very succinct statement in a letter to Bulganin, on January 12, 1958, President Eisenhower said: . . . that, as part of such a program which will reliably check and reverse the accumulation of nuclear weapons, we stop the testing of nuclear weapons, not just for two or three years, but indefinitely. It is hard to give a more emphatic bipartisan flavor than President Eisenhower's specific statements. When the Senator from Arizona cites a list of six preeminent former Secretaries of Defense, I say that is, indeed, impressive. I would look to the assurances which we have today from Gen. Hugh Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, in analyzing the two basic issues which have been set forth in the parameters by Senator Kyl. And they are: Can we assure stability of our stockpile? Can we reasonably verify compliance by others? There is a balance of risks. There is no test which will be absolute in its terms. But the essential question on balancing the risks and balancing the judgment is whether we would be better off with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or without it. The United States has an enormous lead on nuclear weapons. We have the nuclear deterrent. We have seen other nations--India and Pakistan-- starting the test process. We have reason to be gravely concerned about North Korea's capacity with nuclear weapons. We worry about rogue nations such as Iraq, Iran, Libya, and others. So that, at least as I assess the picture, on a balance of risks, we are much better off if we limit testing than if we proceed to have testing. The Stockpile Stewardship Program, I think, is reasonably effective. Is it perfect? No, it is not. The issue of verification, I think, is reasonably effective. It does not get some of the low-yield weapons. And activities are underway to try to solve that. Secretary of Energy Richardson was in Moscow within the past week working with the Soviets on the so-called transparency test-- illustrative of one of the efforts among many being undertaken to narrow the gap on verification. But again, it is a matter of balancing the risks. With or without the treaty, where are we better off? I had an occasion to talk to Gen. Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, earlier this week. I asked General Shelton the details of these questions, about the stability of our nuclear stockpile and the verification procedures. General Shelton said that we were in good shape on both issues. Then I asked General Shelton the obvious question: Was his view, was his judgment colored to any extent by being in the administration of President Clinton as President Clinton's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? It is not unheard of for even four-star generals to be a little concerned about what the Commander in Chief might prefer. General Shelton looked me in the eye and said: Senator, these are my honest views. If they weren't, I wouldn't state them; and rather than state views I didn't believe in, I could always retire. I had occasion to talk at some length with Secretary of Defense William Cohen. It is true, as the Senator from Arizona outlines, at one point then-Senator Cohen had a different view. And as Secretary Cohen testified in hearings this week, a number of factors have led him to a different conclusion. The question might also be raised as to whether the Commander in Chief of the Secretary of Defense might color, to some extent, his views. I am satisfied that Bill Cohen, with whom I worked in this body for some 16 years, would not put America at risk if he didn't believe what he said, that this Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, balancing all considerations, was appropriate. Once moving beyond the study of the treaty, which I have done, having announced my support for the treaty some time ago, after study and after looking at some of the experts, the question, in my judgment, is essentially a political question. I believe the lessons of history support arms control. That is a view I have held for some time. I started my own personal studies of the United States-Soviet relations as a college senior, majoring in international relations at the University of Pennsylvania, and wrote my college thesis on United States-U.S.S.R. relations. One of the first resolutions I offered, coming to the Senate in early 1982, was a resolution for arms control. In 1982, Senators were pretty well lined up on philosophical grounds, those who favored arms control and those who did not favor arms control. I recall that as a very tough debate against the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Tower. Who is Arlen Specter to tell the President what to do in pushing for a summit agreement? Senator Tower put me through the paces, so to speak, and we talked about our nuclear deterrence. Fortunately, I had been to Grand Forks, ND, taken a look at the Minuteman silo, absolutely terrified to see that enormous missile, looked down; about 100 feet into the ground it went. I had gone to Charleston, SC, to take a look at our nuclear submarines. I had been to Edwards Air Force Base to take a look at some of our latest bombers. The Senate decided with my position, on a vote of 90-8, we ought to have a summit. President Reagan was a major proponent of arms control, and President Reagan then pushed the summit concept. So the idea of arms control is not an idea which has originated with President Clinton, with President Eisenhower, President Reagan foursquare behind it. I have not hesitated to buck the arms control concept if I thought the United States had some technical advantage to be gained by stepping out on our own, if that would promote our national security. Attending the Geneva arms control talks in the mid-1980s, I became persuaded that the Strategic Defense Initiative was a sound proposition, though very controversial, that turned on our ability to develop the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, as to whether the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was subject to the broad interpretation or the narrow interpretation. There were some very heated debates on the floor of the Senate. Senator Moynihan was involved. Senator Nunn, a leading expert in the entire field, argued very strenuously for the narrow interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I argued for the broad interpretation, which I thought was legitimate, because it would give leave to develop the strategic arms initiative. That was a complex issue. Many people said it was Star Wars, spy in the sky, couldn't be done. I recollected, historically, that Vanevar Bush, a leading expert in the field, testified before Congress during World War II, actually in 1945, that it would be ``impossible to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.'' Fanciful as it may have been in 1945, we now know they have been developed. Then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said, in 1945, that the United States had such a tremendous lead, the Soviets could never catch us. He was wrong, too. They caught us and surpassed us. We know the story that is not apocryphal, that a clerk in the Patent Office resigned at the turn of 19th century because there was nothing new to be discovered. I agreed with President Reagan's vision on the Strategic Defense Initiative that we spent a lot of money on it, and I don't think the money was wasted because we still are working and, more recently, with some success on missile defense. In that context, President Reagan had an idea for control. President Reagan spoke out about sharing what we would learn with the Soviets to give them our defense system so there would not be an imbalance, so the nuclear deterrence on both sides, that balance of power, would not be affected. I had occasion to have a long discussion with President Reagan on September 17, 1987, the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. President Reagan went to my hometown, Philadelphia. We had a long plane ride and a fair-sized car ride. I asked the President how he could see to it that the Soviet Union had our secrets when it really wouldn't be a matter during his Presidency and really it is a matter up to Congress. Candidly, President Reagan had no absolute answer to that point. But it was his vision that we would have the Strategic Defense Initiative and that we would share it with the Soviet Union. When we take a look at the specifics and the technicalities, my sense is, there are reasonable assurances but it is a matter of balancing the risks. We had a remarkable closed session of 5 hours in S-407 upstairs, which is the room where we have our secret briefings. After 5 hours, there was no doubt that it is a complicated subject. The distinguished chairman of the Arms Services Committee, Senator Warner, came to the Republican luncheon caucus on Tuesday and said there is an adequate record to assure a negative vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I later had a chance to discuss with my distinguished colleague from Virginia the converse question. May the Record show he is on the floor now; nothing behind his back.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I think I can do it in 20 minutes. It might take a little longer.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would agree with Senators Lott, Daschle, and Reid on the value of the IDeA program. As Senator Nickles mentioned before, we did increase this allocation from fiscal year 1999 in order to broaden the geographic distribution of NIH funding of biomedical research by enhancing the competitiveness of biomedical and behavioral research institutions which historically have had low rates of success in obtaining funding. With their concern in mind, I would therefore like to assure my fellow Senators that when we conference, we will take a very close look at the House funding level of $40,000,000 for IDeA.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are under very heavy time constraints because some of our Members are about to depart. On two personal notes, I had said earlier that I had recused myself from consideration of the funding for the National Constitution Center because my wife is the director of development there. I want to repeat that and include, again, a copy of a letter to Senator Cochran who took over on that issue as the next senior ranking Republican. I have one other item on a personal note. Senator Inouye for some time has urged the naming of a building for me, which I had resisted. After my wife heard about it and the grandchildren, I have succumbed to the majority vote on the naming of the building the National Library of Medicine. In conclusion, I hope we will have a very strong vote in favor of this bill. This bill stretches about as far as it can and is about as low cost as it can be with the chance of getting the President's signature. This is only one step along the way toward conference, and we need a very strong vote in favor of this bill if we are to take care of the important funding, especially for not only worker safety but health and education. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. SPECTER. That time might have already been used. Why don't we proceed with Senator Harkin's closing statement until Senators, who have planes to catch, arrive.

Mr. SPECTER. I have a good bit to say, but since colleagues want to get to the airport, I shall say it after the final vote takes place. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes all action on S. 1650, it not be engrossed and be held at the desk.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the very strong vote in support of this bill. I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, ranking member, for his cooperation, for his leadership, and for his extraordinary diligence. We have had an extraordinary process in moving through this bill. It is very difficult to structure funding for the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor which can get concurrence on both sides of this aisle. The bill came in at $91.7 billion. There have been some additions. It is hard to have enough spending for some, and it is hard not to have too much spending for others. I think in its total we have a reasonably good bill to go to conference. The metaphor that I think is most apt is running through the raindrops in a hurricane. We are only partway through. We are now headed, hopefully, for conference. I urge our colleagues in the House of Representatives to complete action on the counterpart bill so we may go to conference. We have already started discussions with the executive branch. I had a brief conversation with the President about the bill. He said his priorities were not recognized to the extent he wanted. I remind Senators that the Constitution gives extensive authority to the Congress on the appropriations process. We have to have the President's signature, but we have the constitutional primacy upon establishing the appropriations process at least to work our priorities. I am hopeful we can come to an accommodation with the President. We have had extraordinarily diligent work done by the staff: Bettilou Taylor, to whom I refer as ``Senator Taylor,'' has done an extraordinary job in shepherding this bill through and taking thousands of letters of requests from Senators; Jim Sourwine has been at her side and at my side; I acknowledge the tremendous help of Dr. Jack Chow, as well as Mary Dietrich, Kevin Johnson, Mark Laisch, and Aura Dunn. On the minority staff, Ellen Murray has been tremendous, as has Jane Daye. There is a lot more that could be said, but there is a great deal of additional business for the Senate to transact. I thank my colleagues for passing this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Fine.