Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond, I don't understand the question. The reason I don't understand the question is that the specification of independence here is so comprehensive that it guarantees independence.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, on page 177, the qualified entities are defined, and they are the ones that make the determination of the independent reviewer. And a qualified entity is defined to be: (I) an independent external review entity licensed or accredited by a State; (II) a State agency established for the purpose of conducting independent external reviews; (III) any entity under contract with the Federal Government to provide independent external review services; (IV) any entity accredited as an independent external review entity by an accrediting body recognized by the Secretary for such purpose; or (V) any other entity meeting criteria established by the Secretary for purposes of this subparagraph. I think that language answers the question of the Senator from New York about independence and expertise.

Mr. SPECTER. The defense lawyers do not have lifetime appointments.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. The fact that the insurer pays the reviewer does not impugn or impinge upon the reviewer's objectivity when there are specific standards for the selection of the reviewer and specific standards that the reviewer has to follow. If I could use an analogy from a practice that I engaged in for a long time as district attorney of Philadelphia, the State paid the fee for the defendant in first-degree murder cases. But there was no doubt that notwithstanding the fact that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania paid defense counsel, the defense counsel worked in the interests of the defendant. When you have a determination as to what the HMO ought to be doing, that is something they ought to pay for. But there ought to be a structure to guarantee objectivity by the decisionmaker. Similarly, if I can amplify, if you have a Federal judge paid by the Federal Government, and the Federal Government is a party to the process, nobody would say that Federal judge is going to be biased toward the Federal Government simply because the Federal Government pays his salary.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator restate the question?

Mr. SPECTER. I ask the Senator, where are you reading from?

Mr. SPECTER. I am yielding for a question.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. This list contains, I am advised, some 280 products which are dumped in the United States where our dumping laws, simply stated, are not enforced. There is a groundswell in America today protesting the failure to enforce the antidumping laws. Dumping is a situation where, for example, steel coming from Russia will be sold cheaper in the United States than it is being sold in Russia. That is flatly against the laws of the United States. It is flatly against international trade laws. The United States has laws against that kind of dumping. But they are, simply stated, ignored. The groundswell of opposition to dumping is reflected in the very strong vote in the House of Representatives on the so-called steel quota bill; 289 Members of the House voting in favor of it, 141 in opposition, more than enough votes to override a veto. When the issue came to the Senate last week, there was considerable speculation as to whether there would be 67 votes to override a veto and whether there would be an excess of 60 votes for cloture. Then, as a result of some very intense, last-minute lobbying by the administration, a great many Senators changed their votes, reversed their announced intentions, and we had 42 votes in favor of the steel quota bill. Even so, it was a large vote in the Senate--considering all the circumstances--because of the very strong public policy against quotas, remembering the problems in the Smoot-Hawley era. I think the effort at the quota bill was really to attract the attention of the administration, to show how serious the problem was. In my capacity as chairman of the steel caucus, I have convened a number of meetings of our caucus. I have met with Treasury Secretary Rubin and Commerce Secretary Daley and Trade Representative Barshefsky. We have made the case of the need for enforcement of our trade laws. While not exactly a deaf ear, there was certainly little by way of any positive response. I had an opportunity to talk personally with the President during a long plane ride from Andrews to Tel Aviv last December. The plane ride was more than 10 hours, an opportunity to talk about a great many subjects. I discussed with the President the very serious problems with the steel industry. He was sympathetic but nothing really has come from the administration to deal effectively with the problem of dumping. The fact of life is, where it comes to considerations of foreign policy or defense policy, American industry is traditionally sacrificed and the antidumping laws are not enforced. This is an issue which has concerned me, as a Pennsylvania Senator, since 1981 when I took my oath of office. In 1984, there was a favorable ruling by the International Trade Commission supporting the steel industry. It was then up to the President, President Ronald Reagan, to determine whether or not that International Trade Commission ruling would stand. My then colleague, Senator John Heinz--the late Senator Heinz, who we all miss so very much--and I made the rounds of key administration officials. Then-Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige was in favor of upholding the International Trade Commission order. Then-Trade Representative Bill Brock was in favor of upholding the International Trade Commission order. Then-Senator Heinz and I met with Secretary of State George Shultz, separately with Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and were told in no uncertain terms by the Secretary of State that our foreign policy was such that the ITC decision had to be reversed by the President. That was Secretary Shultz' recommendation. Secretary of Defense Weinberger said about the same thing, that defense policy required the ITC ruling be overturned, which the President had the right to do. So, in fact, in September of 1984, President Reagan did overturn the International Trade Commission ruling. That was just symptomatic and characteristic of what had happened with respect to dumping and the harm of lost jobs to the industry. Since the early 1980s, the steel industry has poured $50 billion of capital into modernization efforts and has pared the payrolls, as I noted earlier, from about 500,000 to about a third of that. There is no way that the American steel industry can compete with dumped steel; where Russians or Brazilians or others are prepared to steal--dumping is a form of stealing, spelled different from steel--the product. There is no way the American steel industry can compete with dumping. On June 18 of this year, the Washington Post contained a notation that Secretary of Commerce Daley had declared the steel crisis was over. Outraged by that conclusion, 12 chief executive officers of American steel companies wrote to Secretary William Daley, in part as follows: The steel crisis is still very much with us. Cold rolled imports are up dramatically, 24 percent above the level for the first 4 months of last year. Imports of cut-to-length plate are up dramatically, 25 percent year-to-year in for this period. The prices remain extremely depressed. Operating rates have plunged from 93 percent to 80 percent on an annualized basis. A 10 percent change in operating rates equals about $5 billion in revenue, so that decrease would be in the $7 to $8 billion range in decreased revenue. Within the next week, after the letter of June 18 to Secretary Daley from the steel executives, the statistics released by the Department of Commerce showed a tremendous additional surge. From April to May, imports went up by almost 700,000 metric tons, more than 30 percent. Imports of cold-rolled steel products from Russia were 7,296 metric tons in April 1999, and almost 41,000 metric tons the following month of May, an increase of more than 450 percent. So we have seen the problem aggravated. The steel companies have brought seven antidumping cases with the Department of Commerce. Six of those have been subjected to suspension agreements by the Department of Commerce. When a complaint is brought, the Department of Commerce has the authority to end the complaint with a suspension agreement. I had an opportunity to talk at some length just yesterday to Secretary of Commerce Daley to try to get an update on enforcement of the antidumping laws, and more particularly, the enforcement of the antidumping laws with regard to steel. Secretary Daley, at least to my way of thinking, was not at all on target with what the Department of Commerce is doing. I confronted him with the specifics on the suspension agreement that the Department of Commerce entered into with Russia on February 22 of this year. That agreement permits unfair traders to avoid liability for millions of dollars in penalties due on steel dumped since November of 1998. The terms of the suspension agreement result in imports rising to a level of 750,000 metric tons per year and further displace very substantial domestic production. With respect to the proposed Brazilian antidumping suspension agreement, the fixed exchange rate locks in unrealistic low prices without allowing for future changes in the exchange rate. On another proposed Brazilian countervailing suspension agreement, it is 37 percent above the prelevel crisis. So here we have efforts made under section 201, where the President has the right to rescind the remedy. That is consistently done. Here we have these countervailing duty cases brought, where the Department of Commerce has the authority to enter into a suspension agreement to the detriment of the American steel industry. That is consistently done. The remedy which I suggest on pending legislation is to provide for a private right of action so the injured parties--whether they are the steelworkers who have been demonstrating and protesting in Washington, D.C. in major rallies or whether it would be the steel companies who have written to administration officials--the injured parties would have an opportunity to go into Federal court to get justice. You have the trade laws of the United States which prohibit dumping; you have the international trade laws, which prohibit dumping. The laws prohibiting dumping are entirely consistent with GATT, our international trade agreements. But those antidumping laws are, simply stated, not enforced. In my discussions with Secretary Daley yesterday, he raised the question about the very substantial trade, the lower prices to consumers, and noted that in an era where there is overcapacity around the world and there is a world depression, the United States is an obvious target for this dumping, to the benefit of our consumers. But that is not an adequate answer. That is not an adequate answer when thousands of steelworkers are laid off, or when the farmers are having a disastrous economic time, when the Congress has to appropriate billions of dollars in farm relief because of the dumping of wheat, the dumping of hogs, and dumping of lamb. I recall as a teenager working in the wheat fields in Kansas before moving to Pennsylvania. I grew up in a small community, Russell, KS, in the heart of America's breadbasket, the heart of America's wheat basket. The wheat that has been dumped on the American markets has had a tremendously devastating effect on the American farm community, as so much of the other dumping of the commodities I have noted. There is a remedy that would provide a private right of action to go to court, where the courts would be concerned with what the law is against dumping and would be concerned with what the evidence is-- strong evidence to prove that dumping exists. Then the court, under the legislation I have introduced, would enter what is called an ``equitable order,'' to assess a duty or a tariff that is consistent with GATT, based upon the difference between what the goods ought to sell for and the price at which they are dumped. There is, obviously, concern by the administration about the use of the court system when the administration wants to have the power to make decisions as the administration chooses. But when the administration acts in the interest of foreign policy, or in the interest of defense policy, to the prejudice of so many workers in America who are not getting justice, that simply is not right. The equity action would not submit the case to a jury. Rather, it is decided on traditional principles of the law of equity by a judge alone. It is possible to have a temporary restraining order issued on the basis of affidavits submitted. It is not a complicated matter to prove dumping. A judge then has the authority, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to issue what is called an ex parte order just on the application of one party--without even the other party being present--where the affidavits are sufficient. The duty then arises for the court to have a hearing within 5 days on a preliminary injunction. Then these equity matters can be tried in a matter of a few days, or a couple of weeks at the outside. When some administration officials have complained that court cases take a very long time, it simply is not true. Where a court of equity issues an order, that order stays in effect even when an appeal is taken, unless there is an issuance of a supersedeas. To get a supersedeas, there has to be a bond posted in twice the amount of the damages. The fact is that once these enforcement actions would be taken, the dumpers would find it more expensive to violate the law than to comply with the law. This would be a remedy that would have a very profound effect. This is not an idea I have proposed for the first time in the legislation filed this year. During the 97th Congress, I introduced Senate bill 2167. In the 98th Congress, I introduced similar legislation under the number of Senate bill 418. In the 99th Congress, it was S. 236. In the 100th Congress, it was S. 361. In the 102d Congress, it was S. 2508. In the 103d Congress, it was S. 332. On March 3 of this year, I introduced the pending legislation as Senate bill 528. Votes have been held, with one vote as close as 51-47, losing on an effort to attach that as an amendment. One of the bills was reported unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee and, as noted before, a considerable group of colleagues have sponsored one or more of these bills: then-Senator Gore, Senators Thurmond, Byrd, Cochran, Helms, Inouye, Murkowski, Hatch, Kennedy, Levin, Santorum, Mikulski, and Sessions have all been supportive of this legislation. I must say that the hearings in the Finance Committee have not produced a consideration of this legislation in a markup. So it is my intention to find a vehicle on which to offer this legislation, some other bill that comes to the floor. In discussions with many colleagues, there is very considerable interest in many quarters because when the matter is discussed, so many of my fellow Senators say, well, that is a wheat issue that prejudices the farmers of my State; or that is a hog issue or a lamb issue that prejudices the farmers of my State; or with the enormous list of products involved, so many jobs are being taken. So the essence of the issue is: What will happen on enforcement of antidumping laws in America? The bitter fact of life is that administrations that are both Republican and Democrat have not been interested or diligent in enforcing our antidumping laws. Instead, they have preferred to bend to the interests of the foreign policy considerations, or defense policy. When Russia dumps in the United States--and Russia's economy is in a precarious shape--the administration enters into a suspension agreement badly prejudicing the American steel industry, causing the loss of thousands of jobs on the administration's conclusion that it is more important to have a solid economy in Russia and not to have instability with Boris Yeltsin than it is to lose thousands of jobs of the steelworkers. When wheat, or lambs, or hogs, or orange juice, is dumped, there again, the avalanche of those cases is beyond the capacity of the administration to handle. There is a solid precedent in our legal procedures for private rights of action. We have the antitrust laws that are enforced by private parties, who are authorized under Federal statutes to get not only damages, but treble damages, three times the damages. You have the securities laws of the United States that are enforced by private rights of action. The Securities and Exchange Commission simply can't handle all of the enforcement of our securities laws, just as the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission cannot handle all of the antitrust laws. This has been a subject of deep concern to me, since my days as a law student when I wrote an extensive article in the Yale Law Journal, appearing in 1955, on private rights of action. It was directed at the criminal process, but the analogies are the same. If we enact legislation that enables the steelworkers, or the steel companies, or the farmers, or the wheat companies, or the electronics industry, or the telephone industry, or the long list of industries that have been victimized by dumping to go into court, the judge will not look at what is our foreign policy or what is our defense policy, but will see the U.S. law that prohibits dumping, and will analyze the GATT provisions which authorize the enforcement of antidumping laws. The legislation calls for these actions to be brought in the U.S. International Court of Trade in New York City. So this is not a matter of the steelworkers going to a friendly judge in Pittsburgh, or the wheat farmers going to a friendly judge in Wichita, but it will be handled by the International Court of Trade which sits in New York City and has the expertise and the detachment to look at the law--to look at the facts--and to do justice. But justice is not being done in America today where you have the failure of the administration to enforce these laws. During the almost two decades that I have served in the Senate, it has been the same whether the administration was of one party or the other, and that it is easy to slough off the loss of jobs and the loss of American industry. But that, simply stated, is not fair. It may be that if we mobilized a group of Senators to vote against the nomination of Mr. Summers, or if I voted against the nomination of Mr. Summers, it would attract more attention than a 22-minute floor statement. But after having considered the matter for the intervening almost 2 weeks since I met with Mr. Summers, I thought that it would be not fair to him. He has an excellent record, a good academic record, and a strong record in the Department of the Treasury. But when I discussed with him the enforcement of the antidumping laws, I did not find the concerns that I thought the Secretary of the Treasury- Designate ought to have. But we have agreed to talk further. Yesterday, when I talked to Secretary of Commerce Daley, again I did not find the kind of sensitivity or concerns that I thought the Secretary of Commerce ought to have. When I reviewed the suspension agreements that Secretary Daley's Department entered into, I thought that they were prejudicial to the interests of the American steel industry. But in America, we have had so many illustrations where the legislative bodies don't act, or where the executive branches don't act but where the courts do. It is nothing like life tenure for a Federal judge and the dispassionate application of the rule of law but, rather, the facts to the case. But were that to be done, it is not a matter of protectionism. It is a matter of enforcing the basic rule of free trade. Anytime someone takes up the cudgel to complain about what is happening for failure to enforce antidumping laws, the financial publications are always saying that is a cry for protectionism. But the fact is that it is not protectionism. It is enforcing the basic tenet of free trade, which means no dumping. If you have dumping you do not have free trade. We are going to continue to work with the coalition of Senators. We will not use this occasion to protest the administration's failure to enforce the antidumping laws by a protest vote against Mr. Summers but to try to bring a coalition together, and perhaps even to persuade the new Secretary of Treasury, the existing Secretary of Commerce, and perhaps even the President, that justice and fairness and equity requires enforcement through the judicial process, which is the only way to get appropriate relief. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had asked for a reservation of some 30 minutes to speak on the pending nomination of Mr. Larry Summers for the position of Secretary of the Treasury. In considering the nomination of Mr. Summers for the position of Secretary of the Treasury, I have reviewed the many facets of the work of that particular office and have focused with particularity, at this time, on the administration's policy on nonenforcement of the antidumping laws. I had met with Mr. Summers on Friday, June 18th, and told him at that time that I was giving consideration to a protest vote against his nomination because of the administration's failure to enforce the antidumping laws after having discussed with him his own views. Since that time I have decided to direct my efforts, instead, to try to put together a coalition of Members of Congress, both in the House and the Senate, to find a remedy where a private right of action could be used to enforce the antidumping laws. This is a subject that has been of great concern to me during my entire tenure in the Senate, having introduced a variety of bills-- which I shall discuss in due course--going back as early as 1982. In the course of a number of legislative proposals, I have had cosponsorship from a wide variety of my Senate colleagues, including then-Senator Gore, Senators Thurmond, Byrd, Helms, Cochran, Hatch, Inouye, Murkowski, Kennedy, Levin, Santorum, Mikulski, and Sessions. The problem of dumping is an extraordinarily acute problem in America today. It has come into very sharp focus with what has been happening in the steel industry, which has been decimated over the past two decades. Steel, two decades ago--in 1979--had employees numbering approximately 500,000. Today, we have about a third of that number. In the course of the past several months, some 10,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs because of dumping from many foreign importers. But in reviewing the issue of dumping, I have found that it is extraordinarily widespread. Here is a partial list of the products which are dumped in the United States, in addition to steel: wheat, hogs, lamb, cotton, sugar, orange juice, raspberries, flowers, salmon, mushrooms, paper clips, pencils, garlic, brake rotors, telephone systems, brass, pasta, picture tubes, rubber, industrial belts. And the series goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the antidumping duty orders in effect as of March 1, 1999, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I agree to yield for 15 seconds, which the Senator asked for, for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked to request on behalf of the leader that the deadline for failing first-degree amendments on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill be extended until noon.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just one further comment. Some of our most worthwhile floor discussions is when there is an exchange of ideas. So often comments go from protection of speech out into a vacuum. Like the old saying about college lectures in classes, it goes from the notes of the professor to the notes of the student without passing through the head of either. But when you have a discussion, it may be a little more informative. The executive branch is where it ought to start. But if there is not relief from the executive branch, then I look to the judicial branch. The one conclusive item that I will note, because I don't want to take more than another 45 seconds, is in the enforcement of the civil rights laws. We could never have gotten desegregation in America if it was left up to the Congress or to the State legislatures or to the Presidents and the Governors nibbling at the edges a little bit. But when the case went to court, justice was done.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Connecticut for those comments. I dare say that if we polled all of our colleagues, the other 98, there would not be a Senator who would not have problems in his own State on dumping. Some may object saying that they do not want to have anything to impede the flow of commerce, but there are some limits. When it comes to the law, I know my colleague from Connecticut is as concerned about the rule of law as I am. If we want to eliminate the antidumping provisions, I will keep quiet. But when the law prohibits dumping and there is so much of it to the prejudice of so many people-- talk about victims' rights--this is an injustice that is being perpetrated day in and day out. If it goes to court, justice will be done.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for 2 additional minutes to comment about an amendment which I will seek to add when this statute is considered. It is one where I am proceeding by myself. That is a provision to have a mandamus action to compel the Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel where there is an abuse of discretion. It is my view that independent counsel should have been appointed on campaign finance reform, as recommended by FBI Director Louis Freeh and special counsel Charles LaBella. I will ask consent that at the conclusion of the remarks which I am now making, there be included a draft complaint which I had prepared to compel the appointment of independent counsel. This draft complaint was never filed because at each stage where it appeared warranted to pursue mandamus, the Attorney General would take some action on extension of investigation, and then it became interwoven with the impeachment proceedings so the time was never quite right. There was a complex issue on standing, although at one time we almost had an agreement by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to have their sponsorship, perhaps if not all of the Republicans in each committee, a majority of the Republicans, which would have provided standing for a report and, by analogy, perhaps, standing for such a lawsuit. I do believe that when independent counsel is again considered and this statute sponsored by the four of us will be ready, willing, and able to proceed, the issue of a mandamus action ought to be considered. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this draft complaint be printed in the Record to preserve the factual allegations for later reference on the general principle of the need for a mandamus provision.

Mr. SPECTER. That is about a quarter of the time. I yield to my distinguish colleague from Maine, Senator Collins.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair for the extra time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleagues, Senator Collins, Senator Levin, and Senator Lieberman, for their fine presentations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a summary of the independent counsel statute, a section-by-section summary of the Independent Counsel Reform Act of 1999, and the text of the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to join my colleagues Senators Levin, Lieberman, and Collins in introducing the Independent Counsel Reform Act of 1999. Our bill would accomplish two important goals. First, it would reauthorize the institution of the independent counsel for another 5 years. Second, our bill would make significant changes to the existing independent counsel statute to correct a number of problems which have become clear to all of us during the course of the past few years. Tomorrow, the independent counsel statute will sunset. The law is dying because there appears to be a consensus that it created more problems than it solved. Many of us have forgotten the very serious problems and conflicts that led us to pass the statute in the first place. Any problems with the law can be fixed, and our bill addresses the issues that have caused the most serious complaints. But it would be a serious error to eliminate the institution of the independent counsel. Many years have passed since President Nixon's infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Yet it is important that we remember this episode because it is such a powerful reminder of why we passed the independent counsel statute and why the statute is still needed today. Before there was an independent counsel, the Attorney General appointed special prosecutors under his control to conduct investigations of Presidents and other high ranking officials. After the Watergate break-in, Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox to serve as the Watergate Special Prosecutor. When President Nixon decided that Cox's investigation was getting too close to the truth, he sought to have Cox fired. The President was legally entitled to fire Cox, of course, since Cox was a Justice Department employee like any other. When Attorney General Elliot Richardson refused to fire Cox, Richardson was fired. When Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to fire Cox, Ruckelshaus was also fired. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork agreed to fire Cox. After Archibald Cox was fired, the White House announced that the office of the Watergate special prosecutor was to be closed and the President's chief of staff sent the FBI to surround Cox's offices and seize the records he had compiled. Henry Ruth, an old friend of mine who was working at the time as Archibald Cox's top deputy, described the following scene in his testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee on March 3 of this year: In anticipation of adverse action, we had secured copies of key documents in secret locations around Washington, D.C. and even removed some key items from the office that Saturday night hidden in underwear and other unlikely locations. We did not know whether the military would raid our homes looking for documents. Unanimously, the staff of the Watergate prosecutor's office just refused to leave or to change anything we were doing unless someone physically removed us. And if an unprecedented 450,000 telegrams of spontaneous protest had not descended upon Washington, D.C. in the few days after that Saturday night, no one really knows if President Nixon would have succeeded in aborting the investigation. In other words, we do not feel that the Department of Justice was an adequate instrument for investigating the President and other high officials of government. Eventually, as a result of these telegrams and enormous public pressure, Leon Jaworski was appointed as a special prosecutor and the Watergate investigation was continued. But this positive outcome was far from guaranteed. As Mr. Ruth reminded the committee, ``it is impossible to describe how thin a thread existed at that time, and for three weeks, for the continuation of what was going on.'' It was this dark episode, perhaps more than any other, which convinced the nation that the individual investigating the President must be truly independent of the President. This is a lesson we should have to learn only once. While recent independent counsels have made some mistakes, none of these mistakes are on the scale of a Saturday Night Massacre. With this history as our guide, let us move to fix the statute, not eliminate it. Senators Levin, Lieberman, Collins and I have all attended 5 very comprehensive hearings before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee from February to April of this year. During these hearings, we heard from former independent counsels, former targets of independent counsels, judges on the special division of the court which appoints independent counsels, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and Attorney General Reno. The four of us have also met repeatedly to discuss what is wrong with the current law and how to fix it. The bill we introduce today incorporates many of the suggestions made during these hearings and corrects provisions in the bill which lead to the most serious complaints. First of all, we all agreed that too many independent counsels have been appointed for matters which simply do not warrant this high level of review. For example, I believe that Attorney General Reno made a mistake when she asked for appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman. In Secretary Herman's case, there was really insufficient corroboration to justify the allegations made against her. To address this issue, we have raised the evidentiary standard which must be met before the Attorney General is required to appoint an independent counsel. The statute currently requires that an independent counsel be appointed when there are ``reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted.'' Our bill provides that an independent counsel must be appointed only when there are ``substantial grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted.'' This change will give an Attorney General the discretion to decide that evidence she receives is not sufficiently strong to justify an independent counsel investigation. As a further step to control the number of independent counsel investigations, our legislation limits the number of ``covered persons'' under the statute to the President, Vice President, members of the President's Cabinet, and the President's chief of staff. Accordingly, it would no longer be possible to appoint an independent counsel to investigate lower officials and staff whom an Attorney General could properly investigate on his or her own. The four of us also agreed that it is a mistake to give an independent counsel jurisdiction over more than one investigation. For instance, Kenneth Starr started as the independent counsel for Whitewater. Attorney General Reno later expanded his jurisdiction to cover Travelgate, Filegate, the death of Vince Foster, and, or course, Monica Lewinsky. Unfortunately, the Attorney General's repeated expansion of Mr. Starr's jurisdiction created the mistaken impression that Mr. Starr was on a personal crusade against President Clinton, opening new lines of inquiry when prior ones failed to bear fruit. After Attorney General Reno expanded Mr. Starr's jurisdiction to include Monica Lewinsky, I publicly commented that this was a mistake, not because Kenneth Starr was not competent to handle the investigation, but because I was afraid that the public would see this as yet further proof that Starr was on a vendetta. I'm afraid this is exactly what came to pass. Our bill would eliminate this problem by deleting the provision which allows the Attorney General to expand the jurisdiction of an independent counsel beyond his or her original mandate. Our bill further provides that the independent counsel can investigate only topics in his original jurisdiction or those ``directly related'' thereto. The four of us also agreed that some independent counsel investigations drag on too long. Lawrence Walsh's Iran/Contra investigation lasted 6 years. Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton has been going on for almost 5 years. Investigations of this length are really an anomaly in our criminal justice system. Federal grand juries are empaneled for a period of 18 months. As district attorney of Philadelphia, I had a series of grand juries on complex topics such as municipal corruption, police corruption and drugs all of which lasted 18 months. If you can't find certain facts in 18 months, I think the odds are pretty good that you will never find them. Our bill sets a 2-year time limit for independent counsel investigations. Since there are some who would try to take advantage of this time limit and ``run out the clock'' on an investigation, our bill also empowers the special division of the court to extend this original 2-year period for as long as necessary to make up for dilatory tactics. Our bill also provides that the special division can extend the original time period for good cause. Finally, the bill requires the Federal courts to conduct an expedited review of all matters relating to an investigation and a prosecution by an independent counsel. Another complaint about the Starr investigation was that his report to Congress was a partisan document making an argument for impeachment rather than providing an impartial recitation of evidence. While I believe that Mr. Starr was merely doing his job when he submitted this report, I do agree that requiring such a report inserts an independent counsel into a process--impeachment--which should be left entirely to Congress. Accordingly, our bill deletes the requirement that the independent counsel submit a report to Congress of any substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. While Kenneth Starr was blamed for many things that were not his fault, I do believe he made a mistake when he decided to continue his private law practice while he was serving as an independent counsel. The job of being an independent counsel is a privilege and an enormous responsibility--it deserves someone's full time attention. Accordingly, our bill requires that an independent counsel serve on a full-time basis for the duration of his or her investigation. It appears that a majority of our colleagues believe that it is better to let independent counsel statute die and return to the old days when special prosecutors appointed and controlled by the Attorney General will investigate the President and his Cabinet. I am confident, however, that after the dust settles and tempers abate, our colleagues will realize that the independent counsel statute provides a better way to handle investigations of the President and his cabinet than any of the alternatives. We must all remember that the independent counsel statute was passed to address a serious problem inherent in our system of government--the potential for abuse and conflicts of interest when the Attorney General investigates the President and other high-level executive branch officials. After all, it is the President who appoints the Attorney General and is the Attorney General's boss. Often the Attorney General and the President are close friends. Accordingly, there is an inherent conflict of interest in having the Attorney General control an investigation of the President or the President's closest associates. Even if an Attorney General were capable of conducting an impartial investigation, the appearance of a conflict of interest is serious enough to discredit the Attorney General's findings, especially a finding of innocence. The independent counsel statute is the only way to address this inherent conflict of interest. As memories of the Saturday Night Massacre have been supplanted by memories of Kenneth Starr, the pendulum of public opinion has swung too far against the statute. I am confident that as soon as the Attorney General begins to investigate his or her colleagues in the White House, the pendulum will swing back in the opposite direction. When this occurs, I believe that our colleagues will see that our approach is the best approach--to fix the problems in the statute, not abandon it. To reiterate, the existing independent counsel statute is set to expire by sunset provisions tomorrow, June 30. There have been a series of five extensive hearings held in the Governmental Affairs Committee chaired by our distinguished colleague, Senator Thompson. During the course of those hearings, attended by all four of the cosponsors of this legislation, we have heard extensive testimony. The four of us have met on a number of occasions to craft the legislation which we are introducing today. Our fundamental conclusion is that the Attorney General, acting through the Department of Justice, has an irreconcilable conflict of interest when it comes to investigating top officials of the administration. This is a judgment which we come to from our various points of view. My own perspective is molded significantly by my experience as district attorney of Philadelphia, knowing in detail the work of a prosecuting attorney, and the backdrop of the independent counsel statute was the ``Saturday Night Massacre,'' where President Nixon was under investigation and fired two Attorneys General until he found one who would fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. What is not recollected, but was testified to at our hearings by Henry Ruth, later the special prosecutor succeeding Leon Jaworski, was that at a critical moment, when President Nixon decided to eliminate the special prosecutor, the President's Chief of Staff sent the FBI to surround the office of the special prosecutor and to seize the special prosecutor's papers. As Henry Ruth outlined it, those in the office took key documents hidden under their clothing, not knowing what would happen next. It was only the public outrage, and some 450,000 telegrams which descended on Washington, which led President Nixon to change his position. But the importance of independence in the prosecutor's office cannot be overly emphasized. We have seen experiences with independent counsels, two to be specific, that by Judge Walsh, former Judge Walsh, who investigated President Reagan's administration in Iran-contra, and Judge Starr, former Judge Starr, who investigated President Clinton, where those two investigations have drawn the wrath on both sides of the political aisle. There does appear to be a consensus at the moment that there ought not be a renewal of the independent counsel statute. I personally believe, and Senators Lieberman, Levin, and Collins concur, that this is a fundamental mistake. So we have worked from the mistakes of the past to craft a reform bill, and we have targeted the errors. Sooner or later a crisis will arise in Washington. It happens all the time. The crisis will be about the need to investigate the President or the Vice President or some ranking official. The question will present itself about the inherent conflict of interest of the Attorney General, and this statute will be available to deal with the problem. We have dealt with the mistakes of Walsh-Starr investigations by limiting the subjects. Only the President, Vice President, Attorney General, and Cabinet members will be subject to investigation. There will not be an expansion of jurisdiction unless directly related to the central charge, which would eliminate the Monica Lewinsky investigation. The independent counsel would have to be full time. I know from my days as district attorney it was impossible to do the job full time, but that ought to be a minimal requirement. We have imposed a time limit of some 2 years to be extended for cause, or to be extended automatically for delaying tactics, or by priority given by appellate courts on any legal issues raised. The independent counsel would have to submit an annual budget. My colleagues are on the floor awaiting recognition. I inquire of the Chair how much of the 30 minutes has elapsed.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought this recognition to compliment Rabbi Sherer, who has just delivered the Senate prayer. We are recognizing the outstanding work of Rabbi Sherer's father, also Rabbi Sherer, who died a little more than a year ago. Present today in the Senate gallery are some 200 representatives of a national convocation to recognize the outstanding work of the departed Rabbi Sherer. I must say that Rabbi Sherer's comments this morning about freedom of religion and the impact on everyone in America, but with special reference to Jewish Americans, is of great significance to me because both of my parents came from foreign lands to the United States and were pleased and honored to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America. My father left a shtetl, a small community, Batchkurina, in Ukraine, to come to the United States in 1911 at the age of 18, barely a ruble in his pocket, literally walked across Europe, took steerage in the bottom of a boat to come to America to seek his fortune, as did my mother who came with her parents when she was 5 years old in 1905 from a small town on the Russian-Polish border. They settled in America. They raised their family in America. My father fought in the American Expeditionary Force to help make the world safe for democracy and, in his allegiance to his new-found country, rose to the rank of buck private. Next to his family, the greatest honor he had was serving in the U.S. Army. Freedom of religion is fundamental Americana, and the Rabbi's prayer today brings it home to us. And I wanted to express my own views of thanks for this country, what it has done for my parents and what it has done for my brother, two sisters and me, and my sons and our granddaughters. I thank the Chair, I thank Senator Moynihan, and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, for yielding 2 minutes prior to the time that his special order takes effect.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.