Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Friday, September 11, 1998, to conduct a markup of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1998.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to express my views on the vote we are taking today regarding the Child Custody Protection Act. I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of this legislation because I believe it is an issue that merits consideration by the full Senate. Based on my conversations with Pennsylvanians throughout the Commonwealth in recent weeks, I am well aware of the strong views on either side of this issue. It is the responsibility of the Senate to deliberate over proposals concerning matters as complicated as an individual's right to an abortion, particularly when minors are involved and there are substantial State interests at stake as well. While I am troubled by some of the implications of this bill, I believe it is important that this is debated by the entire body, not just the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the matters now pending before the Congress as the House of Representatives considers what to do with the Starr report. I suggest that we are guided now by the genius of the Constitution, which is the most important, most efficacious, and most brilliant document ever written as to how our country should handle the issues and the problems which we now confront. The Constitution establishes the blueprint for what we are to do next, and that is for the House of Representatives to consider the Starr report, bearing in mind that it is a report which contains charges to which there will be a reply and, perhaps, depending upon what the House of Representatives decides, we will move to a stage of hearing evidence. The question of evidence is one of enormous importance because that is the determinant as to establishing the facts. In our judicial system and in our congressional system, and in the system on impeachment proceedings, the facts are established by witnesses who testify as to what they have seen or observed--or generally witnessed. It may be that we will hear people who will come forward who will tell us what they saw and what they observed as witnesses, contrasted with what appears in the news media, which is hearsay--sometimes reliable, sometimes unreliable--almost universally the source is leaks, a sustained line of source material, but one which is the common parlance. But when it comes to a proceeding as in a court proceeding or as in an impeachment proceeding, it is a matter of evidence, and the rules of evidence in an impeachment proceeding may be entirely different. There are some hearsay declarations which are admissible under complex rules. There may be broader rules of evidence established. At least we come to the point of evidence as opposed to reports and as opposed to charges. I think it is very important, as others have said on this Senate floor and as others have said in the public milieu, that we not rush to judgment but that we consider what the evidence is and make a considered judgment, and that the interests of fairness are paramount, as they have been reflected in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, and really improved upon in the American--the U.S. judicial system on what is due process and what is fair treatment. And deliberation is a critical part, and not rushing to judgment is a critical part. We will see what the House of Representatives decides to do and what the House Judiciary Committee decides to do. It may be, as the constitutional procedure specifies, that the matter will be before this body and each of us in the U.S. Senate will be, in effect, a juror. It is a complex matter which portends great problems for our Government if the House takes up the matter of impeachment proceedings. It will tie up the House. If the Senate deliberates as a jury, it will obviously tie up this body. And what is not generally recognized is that the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside, so it ties up the Supreme Court of the United States. But the Constitution, that brilliant document, sets forth the ground rules, and we have that as, really, the strength of our American institutions to guide us in these very, very troubled times. I think it is very important that the Senate, and the House, too, focus on very important legislative matters which have come before us in the course of the balance of September. Those are the appropriations bills which fund the Federal $1.7 trillion budget. I have the privilege to serve as chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor. Traditionally, this bill has been left to the end because it is so contentious. Senator Harkin, the ranking Democrat, and I have conferred and have formulated a plan to try to bring our bill to fruition early on this year. If we wish to get something done--something I learned a long time ago in the Senate is that if you want to accomplish what is in the public interest, we have to cross party lines to do it. Senator Harkin and I have worked on that line. Our staffs did an excellent job in pushing ahead on an expedited basis to prepare a subcommittee report during the month of August, and on the second day that we were back, September 1, a week ago Tuesday, the subcommittee acted, and then, under Senator Stevens' leadership, the full committee acted on Thursday. So the bill, appropriations for Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, is now ready to come to the floor. The distinguished majority leader has stated that our bill can be considered immediately after the Interior bill, so that we do not wait until the very end of September. But Senator Lott has articulated a fair admonition, that if the bill becomes cluttered with so-called killer amendments or becomes highly politicized, that we cannot keep the bill on the Senate floor but it will be taken down. I think that is a fair consideration. So we have our own institutional prerogatives. It goes without saying sometimes politics dominates what happens on the Senate floor, but it is our hope that we will be able to avoid killer amendments and will be able to proceed to consider the merits of the bill. Senator Harkin and I have discussed this with the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, who is sympathetic to our point of view and, without making commitments, has stated he would like to see that proceed. We discussed the issue of time limits, and I have already started to talk to Senators who have amendments where we can consider a time agreement, an hour equally divided or perhaps an hour and a half equally divided, so that we take up issues which have to be debated and have a resolution of them, hopefully omitting the highly politicized matters where there is going to be deadlock and which might require that the bill be taken down. Our subcommittee has had a good working relationship with the House. We worked through with Congressman Porter, the subcommittee chairman on the House side, my counterpart, and with Congressman Livingston, the chairman of the full committee. It is our realistic hope, realistic expectation, that we can work through the process there. I had a chance to discuss the matter previously with the President-- yesterday. It was an event in the White House, where Pennsylvania was a recipient. As is the custom, I received an invitation to attend, and did so, and had a chance to talk for a few moments with the President about this bill, Labor-HHS-Education. The President stated that he thought our Senate bill was a significant improvement over what has come out from the House Appropriations Committee. I pointed out that, while it did not have everything the President had asked for, it was important to focus on the fact that the bill was $1.9 billion short of what the President had projected on income because we do not have the receipts from the tobacco bill, which was never acted upon, and we did not have the user fees, which had not been authorized. Senator Harkin and I, then, earlier this week, took a rather unusual step of convening a meeting of governmental affairs people, also known as lobbyists, who have an interest in this bill, especially those who have increases, as we have significant increases on the National Institutes of Health, Head Start, and the National Labor Relations Board, in order to secure their assistance. Because, if we go to a continuing resolution, then those matters will be funded at last year's level and they will not have the advantages of the additions. So there is some very keen potential interest on their part seeing this bill move. Our request to them was to exercise their best efforts--they have a lot of contacts in the Senate, the House and the White House--to help us move the bill. So I speak about this subject at some length, although I think not at excessive length here today, to urge my colleagues to focus on the appropriations process and not to be distracted by what is happening with the Starr report and the collateral problems which our country faces at this moment. One of our colleagues said last week that when the Starr report hit, those issues were au courant in Washington, that it would suck all the oxygen out of every room in Washington, DC, which is a dramatic characterization, but one which I think is realistic; sucking all the oxygen out of every room in Washington, so that that is the sole focus of attention. From the conversations in the Cloakroom and on the floor, that is a realistic problem. I do believe we have to maintain a focus on these appropriations bills which are so important, as we look to what is going to happen with the National Institutes of Health in cancer research, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, et cetera, what happens with education on increases for Head Start, guaranteed student loans, what happens on worker safety. We are going to push very hard to bring forward our bill, hopefully next week, and debate the issues under time agreements to let this body work its will and try to work the matter through the House and then through the White House and then take up the other appropriations bills, so that while we have this grave national problem which we have to consider at the same time, we do not lose focus that September is the critical month for appropriations bills. I ask all of my colleagues who anticipate amendments for this bill to let us know at an early date so that we can make a decision on what might be accepted, what might be compromised, or what might be subjected to time limits so that notwithstanding the problems which the President faces and which, in turn, the country faces, that we can focus on the appropriations process and complete the people's business during the month of September. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, although it is late in the session, I am introducing legislation to rectify a problem facing one of my constituents, Mr. Paul Finnerty of Scranton, and his wife concerning his federal retirement benefits. It is necessary for Congress to become involved in this case because Mr. Finnerty has exhausted administrative relief and lost an estoppel claim in the 3rd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, which ruled that ``regardless of the possibility of agency error in this case, we have no authority over the disbursement of funds that has been assigned by the Constitution to Congress alone.'' I am advised that Mr. Finnerty and his wife are entitled to employee and spousal annuities based on his more than 30 years in the railroad industry. They were misinformed by federal employees as to the actual retirement benefits they would receive and relied to their detriment on the higher figure in deciding that Mr. Finnerty should retire in 1993. Specifically, there is documentation which reflects the failure of the Scranton Field Office of the Railroad Retirement Board to advise Mr. Finnerty appropriately regarding the impact of a statutory maximum of $1200/month in retirement benefits if he remained in the federal CSRS pension system instead of switching into the FERS system. I have enclosed an example of such documentation for the Record. While the private relief legislation is a last resort used sparingly by the Congress, the Finnertys have provided enough documentation to suggest that their request merits careful review by the Labor Committee, which has jurisdiction over such bills. Accordingly, I am introducing this bill today to begin that review process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Railroad Retirement Board letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to submit a Resolution that seeks the President's assistance in recovering three Americans--Mark Rich, David Mankins, and Rick Tenenoff--who were abducted by the Colombian terrorists known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) on January 31, 1993, from the Kuna Indian village of Pucuro in the Darien Province of Panama. I first became aware of this situation at a Lancaster County open house town meeting at the Lancaster City Council Chambers on February 9, 1998. At the meeting, Ms. Peggie Miller urged me to get involved in the situation. Also present at the meeting were Chester and Mary Bitterman. Mr. Bitterman stood and spoke passionately about his son, Chet Bitterman, III, who was a missionary translator with Wycliffe Bible. Chet Bitterman, III, was kidnapped in Bogota, Colombia, in January, 1981, held hostage for 48 days and then found brutally murdered by Colombian terrorists on march 7, 1981. Not only did Mr. and Mrs. Bitterman lose a son, but Chet left a wife and two very young daughters. A book entitled ``Called to Die'' written by Steve Estes describes the horrible situation. Upon the urging of these constituents, I met with New Tribes Mission, the State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency to see what we could do about recovering these kidnapped men. This resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the President and his representatives should raise the issue of the kidnapping of Mark Rich, David Mankins, and Rick Tenenoff of the New Tribes Mission and other American victims in Colombia to all relevant foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, and religious institutions at every opportunity until a favorable outcome is achieved. The international community should encourage groups believed to have information on this case to come forward. The legislation urges that all the appropriate information obtained should be turned over in a timely basis to the New Tribes Mission crisis response team. Most importantly, the resolution proposes that the President of the United States and the Secretary of State offer reward money for information leading to the release of Mark, David and Rick. President Clinton should also encourage the cooperation of newly-elected Colombian President Pastrana to assist in the publication of the reward information. Without cooperation between our two governments, we may never see the return of these men to their families in the United States. There are indications that Mr. Rich, Mr. Mankins, and Mr. Tenenoff have been held in Colombia for over five years; therefore, they would be the longest held American hostages in Colombia. The United States government should do all it can to protect its citizens against terrorist acts; I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting adoption of this resolution.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, although it is late in the session, I am introducing legislation to rectify a problem facing one of my constituents, Mr. Paul Finnerty of Scranton, and his wife concerning his federal retirement benefits. It is necessary for Congress to become involved in this case because Mr. Finnerty has exhausted administrative relief and lost an estoppel claim in the 3rd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, which ruled that ``regardless of the possibility of agency error in this case, we have no authority over the disbursement of funds that has been assigned by the Constitution to Congress alone.'' I am advised that Mr. Finnerty and his wife are entitled to employee and spousal annuities based on his more than 30 years in the railroad industry. They were misinformed by federal employees as to the actual retirement benefits they would receive and relied to their detriment on the higher figure in deciding that Mr. Finnerty should retire in 1993. Specifically, there is documentation which reflects the failure of the Scranton Field Office of the Railroad Retirement Board to advise Mr. Finnerty appropriately regarding the impact of a statutory maximum of $1200/month in retirement benefits if he remained in the federal CSRS pension system instead of switching into the FERS system. I have enclosed an example of such documentation for the Record. While the private relief legislation is a last resort used sparingly by the Congress, the Finnertys have provided enough documentation to suggest that their request merits careful review by the Labor Committee, which has jurisdiction over such bills. Accordingly, I am introducing this bill today to begin that review process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Railroad Retirement Board letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go into executive session and that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations, and the Senate then proceed to their consideration: Senator Rod Grams, Senator Joseph Biden, former Senator Claiborne Pell.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of our distinguished majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 3. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, there be a period for the transaction of morning business until 11:30 a.m., and further that the time between 9:30 and 10:30 be divided as follows: Senator Breaux for 15 minutes, Senator Torricelli for 15 minutes, Senator Daschle or his designee for 30 minutes. I further ask that the time between 10:30 and 11:30 a.m. be under the control of Senator Thomas or his designee.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the statements made earlier today by Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy relating to an independent counsel because there is a specific course of action which can be taken to break the impasse, in my legal judgment, and that is with an action for mandamus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel Attorney General Reno to appoint an independent counsel. There is no doubt about the serious allegations and scandals in campaign financing. The Governmental Affairs Committee on which I serve conducted extensive hearings last year which showed beyond any doubt irregularities of a most important sort, and some even involving contributions coming from foreign sources traceable to the Government of China. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, the Attorney General has declined to appoint an independent counsel. The remedy is present for a mandamus action, which would be directed on two legal lines. One is where Attorney General Reno has failed to carry out a mandatory duty, where the independent counsel statute says that she shall act on covered persons, and an alternative legal approach where there is an abuse of a discretionary duty where there is a conflict of interest, and there is both an actual and an apparent conflict of interest. Importantly, Attorney General Reno, when questioned during her confirmation hearing, was a great advocate of an independent counsel on precisely the kind of circumstances which are presented here. The mandamus action was pursued on three individual occasions, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia did order mandamus. All three of those cases were reversed for reasons which are not applicable here, where there was lack of standing which was delineated in extensive discussions in the court of appeals on two of those cases. But those three cases by district court judges did confirm the legal approach which I am advocating here today, and which is encompassed in an extensive lawsuit, which has been prepared against Attorney General Reno, calling for a mandamus action. In two of the cases they were reversed because of lack of standing, and that is a legal issue which poses a hurdle which I believe can be overcome by action by a majority of the majority of the Judiciary Committee of either the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. The independent counsel statute gives a majority of the majority of each Judiciary Committee unique positioning to have the requisite standing to require an answer by the Attorney General on a statement of facts and a request that independent counsel be appointed. That does not mean conclusively that there would be standing for a mandamus action, but it is a very strong argument in support of that standing. And, in two of the cases where the court of appeals reversed an order for independent counsel to be appointed, the special standing of Congress and the special standing of the Judiciary Committee was noted. In one of the cases, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia referred to congressional oversight, which this would be, and in another case the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia referred to the special positioning, which the Judiciary Committee had. There is another issue, laying all the cards on the table face up, as to separation of powers, on matters which were raised in the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Morrison v. Olson, upholding the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute. Some of the language of the Supreme Court there has been cited, from time to time, as raising a hurdle for this kind of a lawsuit. But I would point out that, on two of the issues which were raised by the Supreme Court of the United States, the legal argument runs in favor of this kind of an action. The Supreme Court there referred to a provision of the statute which said that there could be ``no judicial review of an action by the Attorney General appointing independent counsel.'' But the negative implication there is that review would be possible where the Attorney General declines to appoint an independent counsel. There is also a provision in the statute which says that there may be no judicial review by the special three-judge panel where the Attorney General decides not to appoint an independent counsel, and again, by negative implication, there can be review by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The three-judge panel is a special panel created to make the actual appointment of an independent counsel. Mr. President, in outlining these legal hurdles, there is no doubt that there are problems here. But, in my legal judgment, each of these hurdles and any other can be surmounted. And certainly, where there is such a pressing reason to move because of what has happened here on a compelling factual basis, I strongly believe that this effort ought to be made and that it can be made by a majority of the majority on the Judiciary Committee of the Senate or a majority of the majority in the House. And perhaps it would be appropriate for both the House and the Senate to join together as parties plaintiff to solidify and enforce the standing issue and the importance of this action. My views are not those which I express lightly. They did not arise in the course of the last few days or the last few weeks. My initial concerns were expressed in a Judiciary oversight hearing back on April 30 of 1997, when Attorney General Reno appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was questioned extensively by a number of Members, including myself. At that time I pressed Attorney General Reno on some of the so-called issue advertisements which were really, by any legal interpretation, express advocacy. Now, if they are express advocacy, and if there is coordination with the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee, then they violate the law; they violate the Federal election law. And, in articulating this concern, on a number of occasions I have said that there is fault on both sides, both by the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. But the activities by the Democratic National Committee stand on a different level because of the active participation by President Clinton himself in micromanaging the campaign and in working on these commercials. We know that from the testimony, statements of Mr. Leon Panetta, Chief of Staff of President Clinton, and from the statements of Mr. Dick Morris, who was the President's principal adviser on these campaign matters. This is illustrative of what these commercials had to say. This appeared on advertising: Head Start, student loans, toxic cleanup, extra police, anti-drug programs--Dole-Gingrich wanted them cut. Now, they're safe, protected in the 1996 budget because the president stood firm. Dole-Gingrich-- deadlock, gridlock, shutdowns. The president's plan--finish the job, balance the budget, reform welfare, cut taxes, protect Medicare. President Clinton gets it done. Meet our challenge, protect our values. Under no stretch of the imagination could that kind of advertisement be classified as articulating an issue only contrasted with articulating advocacy for the President's campaign. I asked Attorney General Reno about that specifically on April 30 of 1997. Her response to me was that based on a memorandum of understanding with the Federal Election Commission, it was up to the Federal Election Commission. On the next day, May 1, 1997, I wrote to Attorney General Reno with a long list of specific advertisements which were conclusively advocacy ads which, when designated and designed and worked on by the President himself, would constitute a violation of the law. On June 17, I received a reply from Attorney General Reno and then from the Federal Election Commission saying that the Attorney General was saying it was up to the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Election Commission said that they would give advisory opinions. That is something for the future but not something that had already been done. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter of May 1, 1997, the reply from the Attorney General, and the letter from the Federal Election Commission be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks and I see staff bringing me the concluding papers, which I shall present.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I returned to this issue with Attorney General Reno when she came in for an oversight hearing on July 15 of this year and confronted Attorney General Reno with the very basic fact that the Federal election law, with criminal provisions, is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to enforce and the responsibility of the chief enforcement officer, the Attorney General, to enforce, so that by no stretch of the imagination would it be plausible for the Attorney General to say that it was a matter for the Federal Election Commission. Notwithstanding that, the Attorney General continued to articulate this argument that it was a matter for the Federal Election Commission, which I submit, and I say this respectfully, is spurious and facetious on its face. How can it be a matter for the Federal Election Commission when it is a criminal law, criminal sanction which is the responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice? This was a very, very material matter. Mr. President, I think it is relevant at this point to display a couple of charts, one of which is on the issue of covered persons. Referring to the coordination of advocacy advertisements, President Clinton made a statement on December 7 of 1995 at a Democratic National Committee lunch, which is really more than a smoking gun, it is a firing gun, that is on these advertisements. This is the President's voice on tape: Now we have come way back. . . . But one of the reasons has been. . .we have been running these ads, about a million dollars a week. . . . So I cannot overstate to you the impact that these paid ads have had in the areas where they've run. Now we're doing better in the whole country. . . . [I]n areas where we've shown these ads we are basically doing ten to fifteen points better than in areas where we are not showing them. . . . The chart shows Leon Panetta confirmed that President Clinton helped direct expenditures of $35 million in DNC ads, and Dick Morris confirmed that President Clinton micromanaged the TV ad campaign. This chart was presented during the Judiciary Committee hearing. In addition, the instance of the covered persons where a Mr. Warren Meddoff on October 22, 1996, personally handed President Clinton a business card with a written message suggesting a $5 million contribution. Two days later on October 24 and again on October 26, deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes solicited Mr. Meddoff, including a call from Air Force One. On October 29 and 30, Mr. Ickes called Mr. Meddoff and asked for an immediate contribution of $1.5 million within 24 hours. There are two other instances depicted on this chart, and this chart only covers a very limited amount of information which was disclosed in the hearings of the Governmental Affairs Committee. One of them was a coffee which was held in the Oval Office. The President had received a memorandum from the Democratic National Committee which bore the President's writing, so we know that it was actually seen by the President. This memorandum identified five individuals who, according to the memo, would be good for a contribution of $100,000 each. They were accorded a coffee in the White House. On May 1, there was this coffee in the Oval Office. Within the course of the week, four of the individuals contributed $100,000 each. That is not in the living quarters. That is not in any way, shape or form justifiable. When I asked Attorney General Reno about this specifically--and bear in mind that at Judiciary Committee hearings, we have a very limited amount of time. It is not like a speech on the Senate floor where there is unlimited debate. Attorney General Reno said to me, when I asked her if this did not constitute where four people came in--bear with me. Let me read the specific information as to the question I put to the Attorney General, whether this wasn't specific and credible evidence which would satisfy the test of the independent counsel statute. At page 193 of the record: Attorney General Reno: I will be happy to review it with the task force and get back to you, Senator. Senator Specter. Well, OK. I would ask you to review the balance of it. We will provide you with more of the specific and credible evidence, but don't you have a judgment today, Madam Attorney General? Attorney General Reno: I will review it with the task force. The other specific bit of evidence was a June 18, 1996, coffee. In the presence of President Clinton, John Huang solicited the attendees saying: Elections cost money, lots and lots of money, and I am sure that every person in this room will want to support the re- election of President Clinton. This language is important because it was stated in the presence of the President in the White House. We know that from the testimony of a former official in the National Security Council who was sitting on one side of the President, a greater distance from the individual who made the statement and the comment was heard. Again, when confronted with this specifically, the Attorney General declined to give an opinion but said she would get back to me. That was on July 15 of this year. And more than 45 days have passed, and we still do not have the information. Very briefly--I will not belabor the point--this was another chart presented at Judiciary Committee hearings which shows the alternative approach on the legal issue, and that is, conflict of interest, where you have Johnny Chung, who contributed some $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, you have the connection with the President, Vice President, and Mr. Glicken. You have a connection with President Clinton and Pauline Kanchanalak, the connection between President Clinton and John Huang, the connection between Vice President Gore and Maria Hsia, the connection between President Clinton and Charlie Trie. In all of these matters there is a conflict of interest where these individuals have been indicted. All except for Mr. Huang, there is the delicate matter of plea bargaining and a matter where there ought to be independent counsel not being directed by the Attorney General, who is the appointee of the President. As outlined in some detail earlier by Senator Hatch--and I will not go over that ground--this evidence has been so compelling that FBI Director Louis Freeh has taken the public position that independent counsel ought to be appointed, not an easy thing to do for the FBI Director, who is a subordinate of the Attorney General. But the FBI Director made that statement. Then you have the legal judgment of Mr. Charles LaBella, who is the chief prosecutor, also to the effect that independent counsel ought to be appointed. Then when Mr. LaBella was expected to be appointed as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, he was skipped over--a question which needs to be answered in terms of whether his candid approach, disagreeing with the Attorney General of the United States, was a causal factor in his being passed over. Mr. President, what I have outlined here is a very, very brief statement of very, very compelling evidence of irregularities in campaign finance. And when you deal with the issue of how Federal elections for the Presidency, for the Senate, and the House of Representatives are financed, that goes right to the core of our democratic institutions. There is an enormous amount of skepticism in America today with the way we have political activities. I just finished, during the course of August, some 12 to 15 town meetings. In every meeting I was asked about campaign finance reform. And there was obvious cynicism by my constituents and really disgust with the way the system is run. And I was asked whether there would be campaign finance reform. On a number of occasions it was noted that the House of Representatives had taken the bull by the horns and had passed campaign finance reform. And when asked whether it would be done in the Senate, I candidly said it was highly doubtful that 8 additional Senators could be found to join the 52 of us who have voted for cloture in order to have campaign finance reform. If independent counsel were appointed and we got to the bottom of these issues--and many, many more--I think there would be a tidal wave of public insistence on campaign finance reform which is very necessary for the integrity of the electoral process. When Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, speaks at great length about his frustration in what the Attorney General has not done, that is a frustration I think shared by most of Americans. Certainly it is a frustration which I share, and I think is shared by most of the members of the Judiciary Committee and most of the Members of the Congress of the United States. In preparing this complaint in mandamus, we have a course of action which has a realistic chance of success. Is it a guarantee? No. There are many lawsuits which are filed, litigation, matters which are initiated which are not absolute guarantees. But when you have very, very compelling factual circumstances, as you do here, it is my legal judgment that the hurdles which have to be overcome can be overcome. And certainly it is an alternative which ought to be tried. It is my hope that the Attorney General will respond and appoint independent counsel. When she has, again, taken steps to have an additional investigation for 90 days, it is not totally insufficient, but it is a sharp indication that she has no intention to go to the core problems, some of which I have outlined here today. When she activates a 90-day period of an investigation of Vice President Gore on the telephone calls, that is really a red herring, an effort to show some action which is totally--totally--insufficient. When she activates, as she did the day before yesterday, a 90-day period on Deputy Chief of Staff Ickes on a very limited phase, that again is totally insufficient. What is necessary is to pick up the broad range of investigative leads identified by to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Louis Freeh, and the broad range of leads identified by the chief counsel on the matter, Charles LaBella, to proceed. And if the Attorney General does not proceed, then it is my strong recommendation that the Judiciary Committee, a majority of the majority, take the bull by the horns and move to take action to compel the appointment of independent counsel through a mandamus act. The draft copy of the complaint of mandamus--may I add that this is not carved in stone, that we are actively working to update it and to improve the complaint of mandamus, will outline the legal bases and is an outline of the evidentiary base for such an action. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 1, 1997. Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Reno: Following up on yesterday's hearing, please respond for the record whether, in your legal judgment, the text of the television commercials, set forth below, constitutes ``issue advocacy'' or ``express advocacy.'' The Federal Election commission defines ``express advocacy'' as follows: ``Communications using phrases such as ``vote for President,'' ``reelect your Congressman,'' ``Smith for Congress,'' or language which, when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, can have no other reasonable meaning than to urge the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate.'' 11 CFR 100.22 The text of the television commercials follows: ``American values. Do our duty to our parents. President Clinton protects Medicare. The Dole/Gingrich budget tried to cut Medicare $270 billion. Protect families. President Clinton cut taxes for millions of working families. The Dole/ Gingrich budget tried to raise taxes on eight million of them. Opportunity. President Clinton proposes tax breaks for tuition. The Dole/Gingrich budget tried to slash college scholarships. Only President Clinton's plan meets our challenges, protects our values. ``60,000 felons and fugitives tried to buy handguns--but couldn't--because President Clinton passed the Brady Bill-- five-day waits, background checks. But Dole and Gingrich voted no. One hundred thousand new police--because President Clinton delivered. Dole and Gingrich? Vote not, want to repeal 'em. Strengthen school anti-drug programs. President Clinton did it. Dole and Gingrich? No again. Their old ways don't work. President Clinton's plan. The new way. Meeting our challenges, protecting our values. ``America's values. Head Start. Student loans. Toxic cleanup. Extra police. Protected in the budget agreement; the president stood firm. Dole, Gingrich's latest plan includes tax hikes on working families. Up to 18 million children face healthcare cuts. Medicare slashed $167 billion. Then Dole resigns, leaving behind gridlock he and Gingrich created. The president's plan: Politics must wait. Balance the budget, reform welfare, protect our values. ``Head Start. Student loans. Toxic cleanup. Extra police. Anti-drug programs. Dole, Gingrich wanted them cut. Not they're safe. Protected in the '96 budget--because the President stood firm. Dole, Gingrich? Deadlock. Gridlock. Shutdowns. The president's plan? Finish the job, balance the budget. Reform welfare. Cut taxes. Protect Medicare. President Clinton says get it done. Meet our challenges. Protect our values. ``The president says give every child a chance for college with a tax cut that gives $1,500 a year for two years, making most community colleges free, all colleges more affordable . . . And for adults, a chance to learn, find a better job. The president's tuition tax cut plan. ``Protecting families. For millions of working families, President Clinton cut taxes. The Dole-Gingrich budget tried to raise taxes on eight million. The Dole-Gingrich budget would have slashed Medicare $270 billion. Cut college scholarships. The president defended our values. Protected Medicare. And now, a tax cut of $1,500 a year for the first two years of college. Most community colleges free. Help adults go back to school. The president's plan protects our values.'' Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Thursday at 9:30 a.m., there will be a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate may turn to consideration of any available appropriations bills or other legislation or executive items cleared for action.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, if there is no further business to come before the Senate--and there appears to be none--I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on May 14, 1998, I wrote to Senator Helms as follows: I write to urge you to act as promptly as possible to conduct a hearing or hearings and to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate floor for a ratification vote. In my judgment, the events of the past several days make that the Senate's number one priority. Following India's nuclear tests, Pakistan is now preparing for similar tests. North Korea has stated its intention to move forward to develop nuclear weapons and Iran and Iraq are lurking in the background. At a hearing before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday, Secretary of Defense Cohen urged Senate consideration and ratification of the treaty. As you know, the President submitted the treaty to the Senate on September 22, 1997, and the only hearings which have been held were conducted by the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services on October 27, 1997, and March 18, 1998, and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development on October 28, 1997. I noted the comment in your letter to the President on January 21, 1998, that this treaty is very low on the Committee's list of priorities, and I also heard your staffer on National Public Radio this week state that the Foreign Relations Committee did not intend to move ahead on the treaty. I am concerned that inaction by the Senate may have led the government of India to think that the United States is indifferent to nuclear testing which, I believe, is definitely not the case. The events of the past several days threaten an international chain reaction on the proliferation of nuclear weapons and an imminent threat to world peace. From comments on the Senate floor and in the cloakroom, I know that many, if not most, of our colleagues share my concern about action on the treaty. I realize that there is some opposition to the treaty; if it is the will of the Senate not to ratify, so be it; but at the very least, the matter should be submitted to the full Senate. Sincerely, Arlen Specter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Helms has not responded to that letter. I think it appropriate to note Senator Helms has been absent for some time because of important medical reasons--a knee replacement, I believe. On May 19, Senator Biden and I circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' letter requesting cosponsors for a resolution urging hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and debate on the Senate floor. There are at this moment 36 cosponsors. On July 21 of this year, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year foreign operations bill to remove the prohibition on funding for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission. That amendment was accepted. Mr. President, I believe that the inclusion of these funds is very, very important so that the Preparatory Commission can move forward. But I believe that this amendment has further significance as a test vote, so to speak, as to the views of the Senate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I have discussed with my distinguished colleague, Senator McConnell, the chairman of the subcommittee, my interest in having a vote on this matter. I do so not only to strengthen the position in conference--as a practical matter, if a matter is accepted on a voice vote, there is not quite the punch as if there is a very substantial vote in favor of the amendment. And I do recognize that calling for a vote on the amendment--that any vote on the Senate floor is risky business to an extent, but I believe that a vote will have significance beyond the specific dollars and cents which are involved here. It is my sense that arms control is a very, very important international issue at the present time, if not the most important issue. As we speak, President Clinton is meeting with Russian President Yeltsin in a very unstable situation in Russia. There are concerns as to what the future of the Government headed by President Yeltsin will be. There are concerns that the Communist Party may gain power in Russia. There are obvious concerns about what may happen to the Russian Government in the future and whether militaristic forces or reactionary forces might take control there, which could plunge the world into another arms race. So this issue with Russia is a very, very important one as we take a look at arms control. We have the issues with China, an emerging power, and the need to limit, to the extent we can, activity by China on nuclear testing. We have the situation in North Korea where the reports are that they are moving back for their nuclear weapons. We have Iran and Iraq, emerging powers, with nuclear weapons. We have missiles being sold to Pakistan. There is a very dangerous, very unsafe world out there, to put it mildly. I think it is an unfortunate situation that we have the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty not moving forward in the Senate. Under the Constitution, Senate ratification is necessary if a treaty is to take effect. It would be my hope that the Foreign Relations Committee would hold hearings on the matter or make its own judgment, or bring the matter to the Senate floor, and let the full Senate work its will. In the absence of activity there, this amendment--to repeat--has the effect of being a test vote, so to speak, although you can support the Preparatory Commission without necessarily being for the treaty, because we have to take these steps in any event. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Biden be listed as my principal cosponsor on the pending amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. For the moment, I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I outlined the purpose of this amendment earlier today. What it does is provide for some $28.9 million of funding for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission. There is not a problem with the funding coming out of unobligated funds of prior years. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is pending before the U.S. Senate. Senator Biden and I had submitted a resolution sponsored by some 36 Senators which called for hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee and a vote by the Senate on ratification of the constitutional procedure. The matter now pending is somewhat different, and that is to provide funding for the Preparatory Commission. The problem with testing, which is going on now, has become very acute during the course of the past several months--when India initiated nuclear testing, followed by Pakistan--those two countries with all of their controversy are on the verge of real problems. I said earlier this morning that when Senator Brown and I traveled to India back in August of 1995 and talked to Prime Minister Rao, he was interested in having the subcontinent nuclear-free. Shortly thereafter, we visited Pakistan and saw their political leader, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who had a similar view, but that situation has deteriorated materially. In asking for a vote on this matter, it is not only to strengthen the position in conference where we know that on a voice vote, sometimes the position in conference is not as strong. But, also in the absence of the Senate taking up the Treaty, to have a show of support for the Treaty as I think will be reflected at least in part; although, you could support this amendment without necessarily committing to the Treaty. Mr. President, at this time I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I outlined earlier, my cosponsor is the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden. He has come to the floor. At this time, I yield to him. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. No one has risen to speak in opposition to the amendment as of this point. And in the event nobody does, I think the debate is concluded. The distinguished Senator from Delaware spoke; and I have spoken on two occasions. I think the issue is before the body. So, in the absence of any opposition, I think we are ready to go to a vote when that is convenient for the managers.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Youth Violence, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 1, 1998 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Building, on: ``Fixing a Broken System: Preventing Crime Through Intervention.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services to meet on Tuesday, September 1, 1998, at 2:00 p.m. for a hearing on ``Use of Mass Mail to Defraud Congress.''