Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce legislation today to grant a Cost-of-Living-Adjustment (COLA) increase, to take effect at the beginning of next year, to recipients of certain Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. Mr. President, this legislation is simple and straightforward. It would grant a COLA increase to recipients of various VA benefits--most notably, compensation benefits received by veterans with service- connected disabilities, and the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation or ``DIC'' benefits received by the survivors of veterans who died in service or died after service as a result of service-connected injuries or illnesses. The COLA to be awarded under this legislation would be, as in past years, the same COLA awarded to recipients of Social Security benefits. It is a matter of great importance that VA compensation checks keep pace with inflation. I know this from personal experience; in Depression days, all that kept the wolf from the door of the Specter household was a small veterans disability check. The Congress has not failed to grant cost-of-living adjustments in past years, and I know it will not fail now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to return to my Senate duties today after a relatively brief period of convalescence following by-pass surgery at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, one of our nation's great medical institutions. This experience has again led me to marvel at our health care system and to make me more determined than ever to support federal funding for biomedical research and to make health care available to all Americans. At Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, I was the beneficiary of outstanding hospital care and a superbly qualified medical team headed by renowned cardiologist, Dr. Howard Weitz and distinguished surgeons Dr. Richard Edie and Dr. James Diehl. (Dr. Weitz has assisted me for many years going back to his student days when he volunteered for my campaign for Mayor of Philadelphia.) My concern about health care has long pre-dated my own personal benefits from the MRI and other diagnostic and curative procedures. My concern about health care began many years ago and has been intensified by my service on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education which I now have the honor to chair. As the Record shows, I have introduced and cosponsored legislation going back to the 98th Congress designed to provide health care coverage to all Americans. Among my proposals were the Health Care Cost Containment Act of 1983 (S. 2051), the Community Based Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Projects Act of 1985 (S. 1873), the Health Care Affordability and Quality Improvement Act of 1992 (S. 3176), the Comprehensive Health Care Act of 1993 (S. 18), the Health Care Assurance Acts of 1995 and 1997 (S. 18 and S. 24), and the Healthy Children's Pilot Program Act of 1997. In conjunction with the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee, Senator Tom Harkin, our Subcommittee has taken the lead to increase NIH funding from $11.3 billion in FY95 to $11.9 billion in FY96 to $12.7 billion in FY97 to $13.6 billion in FY98. This year we are targeting an increase of $2 billion which will be difficult considering the Subcommittee's other priorities; but, I think, attainable. I have long been convinced that our Federal budget of $1,700,000,000,000 could provide sufficient funding for America's needs if we establish our real priorities. The real question is whether we have enough doctors, hospitals, medical personnel, etc. to take care of Americans in need of medical attention. I am convinced that we do. The part which has yet to be accomplished is to work out the financing for the delivery of such health care. As specified in the legislation which I have introduced, I am convinced that sufficient savings are possible within the current system to provide health care to all Americans within the current expenditures. I return to the Senate today with renewed commitment that every American should have the quality medical care I had at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University. In recognition of health care providers everywhere in America, I consider it appropriate to identify, compliment and thank members of the medical team which provided my superb medical care at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University: Dr. Stephen McNulty, Dr. Michael Savage, Dr. Herbert Patrick, Dr. Beckie Michael, Dr. Geno Merli, Dr. Arnold Greenspon, Dr. A. J. DiMarino, Dr. Rodney Bell, Dr. Phyllis Flomemerg and the following nurses: Leslie Amme, Grace Baillargeon, Tara Baldino, Jenna Briggs, Kathleen Bryan-Donahue, Susan Burton, Joanne Cannon, Mary Cavanaugh, Stephanie Cozzi, Danielle Delpais, Nancy Derivan, Linda Dib, Pam Dioguardo, Tim Dunn, Diane Ellingsworth, Robin Estadt, Marcia Gazdzinski, Debbie Granese, Karen Hartnett, Suzanne Henrick, Kelly Hollenbach, Charles Huckel, Suzanne James-Harmon, Leonida Josue- Peralta, Eileen C. Kelly, Eileen M. Kelly, Matt Kuhar, Kate Kuhns, Tracey Lee, Hermie Lichtman, Esther Loyola, Debra Lynn-McHale, Ida Magee, Nancy McCash, Dennis McFadden, Kathy McGurk, Tricia McNichol, Mark Metropole, Michelle Munday, Tim Peal, Kellyanne Petrone, Don Rank, Tim Schultz, Margaret Shanks, Lori Smith, Meg Smith, Valerie Winn, Mina Yasuoka, Nancy Masterson, Wil Crew, Jason McConomy, Colleen Schuh, Bill Nicholl, Jackie Robinson, Karen Crisfulla, Elly Negron-Lopez, Pauline Heater, Diane Falk, Terry Meehan, Dolly Kowal, Dan Zaborowski, Joyce McGrory, Kathy Peterson, Patty Lynch, Rene Ekeland, Michelle Hellstem, Barb Salapata, Kathy Byrne, Erin Moran, Marlowe Macapagal, Cindy Miller, Susan Cook, Angela Dages, Nicki Hoffman, Bill Hepner, Chuck O'Toole, Dan Cifelle, Rose Shaffer, Selina Frazier and Mary Seals.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this measure expresses the sense of the Congress regarding the murder of U.S. citizens by Palestinian terrorists. This resolution addresses specific concerns that I have regarding the failure of the Palestinian Authority to apprehend and bring to justice perpetrators of terrorist acts involving American citizens who have been killed in recent months and years in terrorist attacks in Israel. A companion resolution, introduced by Congressman Jon Fox, passed the House by a vote of 406-0 on May 5, 1998. Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, at least nine American citizens in Israel have been killed by Palestinian terrorists. They are our parents, our children, and our citizens. The traditional policy of our nation has been to pursue and apprehend any terrorists who have killed American citizens abroad. This in no way contravenes or conflicts with either international or constitutional law. While criminal jurisdiction is customarily limited to the place where the crime occurred, it is well established constitutional doctrine that Congress has the power to apply U.S. law extra territorially if it so chooses. United States versus Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 98 (1922). It was on the basis of this doctrine that I spearheaded efforts to enact the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986, which extended the reach of U.S. criminal jurisdiction to acts of violence perpetrated against Americans anywhere in the world. But, making murder committed by terrorists a U.S. crime will not, on its own, protect Americans abroad. We must also demonstrate our seriousness by applying the law regularly and consistently. At the heart of the Anti-Terrorism Act was the fundamental notion that international terrorists are criminals and ought to be treated as such--they should be promptly located, apprehended, and brought to trial for their heinous crimes. The United States government in conjunction with the government of Israel knows the location of 10 of the 20 terrorists suspected in the murders of these United States citizens. I am aware that from March 6-10, an interagency task force comprised of individuals from the Department of State, Justice Department, FBI and National Security Commission was in Israel in the Palestinian controlled areas to investigate the deaths of these Americans. Cooperation from the Palestinian Authority is critical as investigative authorities attempt to discover and develop evidence for prosecution. However, the Palestinian Authority has failed to cooperate and has not honored requests for the transfer of many of these suspects. The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986 provides the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute those who attack U.S. citizens abroad. But, to obtain personal jurisdiction over the culprits themselves, the suspect must first be seized or arrested and brought to the United States to stand trial. Under current constitutional doctrine, both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals can be seized and brought to stand trial in the United States without violating due process of law. Frisbie versus Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952). My resolution calls for the United States to demand the prosecution of all suspected perpetrators of these attacks against United States citizens by seeking the cooperation of the Palestinian Authority and all other appropriate authorities in the prosecution of these cases. In addition, my resolution calls for these suspects to be tried in the United States unless it is determined that such action is contrary to effective prosecution. We must utilize all our laws properly and remain persistent in seeking justice for these American families. We must remain vigilant in our search for all suspected perpetrators of these atrocious attacks against U.S. citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and to help push for justice in this important matter.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I would like to engage the Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato in a colloquy regarding a Pennsylvania mass transit project. It is my understanding that the project under the transit new start program entitled ``Philadelphia-Pittsburgh High Speed Rail'' is intended to be for initial planning, design and engineering costs for a high speed magnetic levitation public transportation system in Pennsylvania. Having ridden such a system in Germany in January of this year, I believe a system of this nature will revolutionize the steel industry and could provide an excellent means of mass transit in the 21st Century.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while I am very pleased with the allocations for Pennsylvania, I am voting against the ISTEA conference report because the offsets hit the veterans' accounts so hard. I compliment House of Representatives Chairman Bud Shuster and Senate Chairman John Chafee on their extraordinary diligence and accomplishments as lead negotiators on this mammoth bill. I work closely with them in Pennsylvania's infrastructure's needs and I thank them for the accommodations on Pennsylvania's roads, bridges and mass transit systems. In seeking total offsets of $17.7 billion, the veterans' accounts have been hit for $15.367 billion and 86.8% of the total offsets. As the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and a chief advocate for veterans' interests, I believe this is excessively disproportion. There is an additional $25 billion in the highway trust fund. I am advised that $25 billion will yield approximately $6 billion in interest over the next six years. Those funds could have been used for the offset or at least part of the offset; or other funds could have been found for a part of the offset. Accordingly, I register this protest vote. My concern for this veterans' offset is consistent with my position during consideration of the FY '99 Budget Resolution when I opposed this large offset in the veterans' accounts. I shall work to try to recoup these offsets from the veterans' accounts as we move forward in the appropriations process.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in introducing the Biden-Specter ``Violence Against Women Act II'' (VAWA II), a bipartisan effort to continue and strengthen the many vital Federal programs which work to combat violence against women. I thank Senator Biden in particular for his leadership in crafting this important legislation. Clearly, violence against women knows no social, economic, or geographic bounds. It affects rich and poor, young and old. Women are assaulted in their homes, on the streets, in the workplace, and on campuses. In 1992, I cosponsored the original ``Violence Against Women Act'' (VAWA), which amended other anti-violence legislation to include acts of violence against women as crimes. Although it did not pass that year, we worked hard to include this vital legislation in the 1994 omnibus anti-crime legislation. Since enactment of the Violence Against Women Act, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have worked to ensure that programs under this law are funded adequately. Domestic violence in particular is an epidemic which VAWA programs seek to address. Within the last year, 3.9 million American women were victims of physical abuse and another 20.7 million were verbally or emotionally abused by their spouse or partner. A recent study found that the medical costs associated with these attacks amount to over $857.3 million. In my State of Pennsylvania, more than 500,000 citizens will be victims of domestic violence each year, and the estimated medical cost exceeds $326 million. In 1995 and 1996, I held hearings in Pennsylvania on the issue of domestic violence and violence against women in general, and have visited battered women's shelters in Pittsburgh and Harrisburg to see first-hand the kind of physical and emotional suffering so many women endure. Within the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, which I chair, Violence Against Women Act programs received $128.7 million for fiscal year 1998. I have also supported Violence Against Women Act programs funded within the Department of Justice, which totaled $270.7 million for fiscal year 1998. The Biden-Specter VAWA II legislation extends and expands the vital VAWA programs supported by my Subcommittee. Currently funded at $76.5 million, Shelters for Battered Women and Their Children would double its authorization in four years. The National Domestic Violence Hotline, which has received over 120,000 calls since February 1996, is another successful resource which would receive a substantial increase in its authorization. The VAWA II proposal would authorize an additional $15 million over four years for the Rape Prevention and Education Program, currently at $45 million, and would institute new coordination between the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to administer the CDC Prevention and Intervention Research to Combat Violence Against Women. The Biden-Specter VAWA II legislation also includes provisions to address the issue of violence against women on college campuses across the country. Recognizing the grave importance of battling this problem in a targeted manner, I introduced the ``Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998'' (S. 2100) on May 20, 1998. Sexual assaults throughout the United States, including sexual assaults on campuses, are on the rise. Independent research and studies show that 20 percent of college-aged women will be victims of sexual crimes at some point in their postsecondary academic career. Studies also show that rape remains the most underreported violent crime in America, with approximately one in every six rapes reported to police. The Campus Crime Disclosure Act, tightens existing campus security law to discourage higher educational institutions from the underreporting of offenses covered by the 1990 Campus Security Act. I have also continuously worked to ensure that women receive the benefit of the Federal investment into public health programs. I helped establish the Public Health Service's Office of Women's Health in 1991, which develops, coordinates, and stimulates women's health programs and activities across all Federal agencies. Funding for this program has increased from $450,000 in fiscal year 1991 to $12.5 million in fiscal year 1998. Even in an era of constrained spending, these expenditures are well worthwhile on this important subject. I believe that by the passage of legislation such as the Biden- Specter Violence Against Women Act II, we are on the right track to helping women to combat the incidence of domestic violence, and victimization in general. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998. My legislation amends the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, Educational institutions were once safe havens where we sent our children. Unfortunately, today we are all aware of the increase in violence that has reached as far down as our elementary schools to our youngest and most innocent victims. I would note that just recently, in the rural Pennsylvania community of Edinboro, a young teenager lamentably shot a teacher to death at an 8th grade graduation dance and wounded other students. While there is much that Congress can do to reduce violence in our society and across all levels of educational institutions, my legislation is focused on our national commitment to improving public safety on college and university campuses, where young adults are often away from their homes for the first time and living in unfamiliar surroundings. The legislation I am introducing today builds upon the fine work of my distinguished colleagues, Representative Goodling of Pennsylvania and Senator Jeffords of Vermont, who as chairmen of the authorizing committees having jurisdiction over higher education, have included campus crime amendments in the legislation reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. However, I believe that their amendments to the 1990 Campus Security Act do not go far enough. Accordingly, my legislation includes provisions which are not included in the reauthorization bill and are necessary to bring schools into full compliance with the law, such as a more detailed definition of ``campus'' and new civil penalties. Based on my experience as District Attorney of Philadelphia, and my frequent involvement with educators and college students, I know that safety on campuses is a very serious issue. I want to recognize one family in particular for helping keep me and my colleagues informed on the important issue of campus crime, Howard and Connie Clery, and their son Ben, of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania for their continued work on campus security policy. As my colleagues may know, in 1988, the Clerys' daughter, Jeanne, was beaten, raped and murdered by a fellow student in her campus dormitory room at Lehigh University. Soon after the tragedy, Howard and Connie began to work on getting campus safety laws passed in the States and the U.S. Congress. In fact, the campus security law enacted in 1990 is often referred to as the ``Clery Bill.'' The Clerys founded Security on Campus, Inc., which serves as a watchdog of campus crime policies and procedures administered by our nation's colleges and universities. Based on continued conversations with the Clerys, it became apparent to me that there was a critical need for Congressional oversight of how the Department of Education has implemented the 1990 Act and whether the Department's financial resources are adequate for enforcement of the reporting requirements. On the fifth of March of this year, I held a hearing on security on campus as chairman of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, to examine the Department of Education's enforcement of campus crime reporting requirements. The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education for the U.S. Department of Education, David Longanecker, testified that: ``Generally the issue of campus is one of the foremost difficult areas that we have found campuses are having a difficult time with, and it is a particular issue for an urban institution.'' Secretary Longanecker went on to say that sidewalks and public lands are excluded from the Department's current definition of campus. Further, testimony at the hearing showed that buildings which are used for commercial purposes where other parts are used for educational purposes do not fall within the Department's interpretation of ``campus,'' which, my own personal view, is an incorrect one. As one of the authors of the 1990 law, I believe that the omission of such information violates the spirit of the law and is a disservice to parents and students, especially for parents who send their children to college in urban settings, where commercial property such as food shops and retail stores and city streets thread through the entire campus. I believe it is preposterous to suggest that if a student fell victim to a crime say on a sidewalk which he or she was using to get to class would go unreported. The Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998 clarifies the law as to what constitutes a college or university campus. From now on, institutions would have to report to parents, students, and other members of the general public a more precise assessment of the criminal activity on campus. Specifically, a campus will be interpreted to mean: any building or property owned and controlled by the institution or owned by a student organization recognized by the institution, any public property such as sidewalks, streets, parking facilities, and other thoroughfares that provide access to the facilities of the institution, and any property owned or controlled by the institution that is not in close proximity to the campus must still be reported on. The bill also makes clear that all dormitories and residential facilities, whether on or off-campus, which are owned or operated by the institution, fall under the definition of campus. My legislation gives the Secretary of Education stronger enforcement authority. Should an institution fail to report crime data, the Department of Education can fine that institution up to $25,000. According to a study conducted by the General Accounting Office, 63 institutions of higher education were in violation of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990. Yet, the Department of Education did not take any punitive action against these institutions. The inclusion of fines will provide the Department with the necessary tool to ensure that all schools fulfill the intention of the law. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998 to enhance security on campus. The bill is urgently needed to steer the U.S. Department of Education in the right direction as it monitors crime on America's college campuses. Quite simply, everyone benefits from clear and accurate reporting of the risks facing college students. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the text of the bill be printed in the Record as well as a section-by-section analysis.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998. My legislation amends the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, Educational institutions were once safe havens where we sent our children. Unfortunately, today we are all aware of the increase in violence that has reached as far down as our elementary schools to our youngest and most innocent victims. I would note that just recently, in the rural Pennsylvania community of Edinboro, a young teenager lamentably shot a teacher to death at an 8th grade graduation dance and wounded other students. While there is much that Congress can do to reduce violence in our society and across all levels of educational institutions, my legislation is focused on our national commitment to improving public safety on college and university campuses, where young adults are often away from their homes for the first time and living in unfamiliar surroundings. The legislation I am introducing today builds upon the fine work of my distinguished colleagues, Representative Goodling of Pennsylvania and Senator Jeffords of Vermont, who as chairmen of the authorizing committees having jurisdiction over higher education, have included campus crime amendments in the legislation reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. However, I believe that their amendments to the 1990 Campus Security Act do not go far enough. Accordingly, my legislation includes provisions which are not included in the reauthorization bill and are necessary to bring schools into full compliance with the law, such as a more detailed definition of ``campus'' and new civil penalties. Based on my experience as District Attorney of Philadelphia, and my frequent involvement with educators and college students, I know that safety on campuses is a very serious issue. I want to recognize one family in particular for helping keep me and my colleagues informed on the important issue of campus crime, Howard and Connie Clery, and their son Ben, of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania for their continued work on campus security policy. As my colleagues may know, in 1988, the Clerys' daughter, Jeanne, was beaten, raped and murdered by a fellow student in her campus dormitory room at Lehigh University. Soon after the tragedy, Howard and Connie began to work on getting campus safety laws passed in the States and the U.S. Congress. In fact, the campus security law enacted in 1990 is often referred to as the ``Clery Bill.'' The Clerys founded Security on Campus, Inc., which serves as a watchdog of campus crime policies and procedures administered by our nation's colleges and universities. Based on continued conversations with the Clerys, it became apparent to me that there was a critical need for Congressional oversight of how the Department of Education has implemented the 1990 Act and whether the Department's financial resources are adequate for enforcement of the reporting requirements. On the fifth of March of this year, I held a hearing on security on campus as chairman of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, to examine the Department of Education's enforcement of campus crime reporting requirements. The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education for the U.S. Department of Education, David Longanecker, testified that: ``Generally the issue of campus is one of the foremost difficult areas that we have found campuses are having a difficult time with, and it is a particular issue for an urban institution.'' Secretary Longanecker went on to say that sidewalks and public lands are excluded from the Department's current definition of campus. Further, testimony at the hearing showed that buildings which are used for commercial purposes where other parts are used for educational purposes do not fall within the Department's interpretation of ``campus,'' which, my own personal view, is an incorrect one. As one of the authors of the 1990 law, I believe that the omission of such information violates the spirit of the law and is a disservice to parents and students, especially for parents who send their children to college in urban settings, where commercial property such as food shops and retail stores and city streets thread through the entire campus. I believe it is preposterous to suggest that if a student fell victim to a crime say on a sidewalk which he or she was using to get to class would go unreported. The Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998 clarifies the law as to what constitutes a college or university campus. From now on, institutions would have to report to parents, students, and other members of the general public a more precise assessment of the criminal activity on campus. Specifically, a campus will be interpreted to mean: any building or property owned and controlled by the institution or owned by a student organization recognized by the institution, any public property such as sidewalks, streets, parking facilities, and other thoroughfares that provide access to the facilities of the institution, and any property owned or controlled by the institution that is not in close proximity to the campus must still be reported on. The bill also makes clear that all dormitories and residential facilities, whether on or off-campus, which are owned or operated by the institution, fall under the definition of campus. My legislation gives the Secretary of Education stronger enforcement authority. Should an institution fail to report crime data, the Department of Education can fine that institution up to $25,000. According to a study conducted by the General Accounting Office, 63 institutions of higher education were in violation of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990. Yet, the Department of Education did not take any punitive action against these institutions. The inclusion of fines will provide the Department with the necessary tool to ensure that all schools fulfill the intention of the law. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998 to enhance security on campus. The bill is urgently needed to steer the U.S. Department of Education in the right direction as it monitors crime on America's college campuses. Quite simply, everyone benefits from clear and accurate reporting of the risks facing college students. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the text of the bill be printed in the Record as well as a section-by-section analysis.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to compliment the House of Representatives on passage of legislation this afternoon to take a stand against religious persecution worldwide. And, I compliment Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia for his leadership on this very important legislation. Legislation is pending in the U.S. Senate identical with or very similar to the legislation passed in the House--I am not sure what amendments may have been crafted on the House floor this afternoon and what last-minute changes may have been made--but similar legislation has been introduced by this Senator in the U.S. Senate. And the purpose of this legislation is for the United States to take a stand against religious persecution worldwide. We have a very unfortunate situation today where Catholic priests are being incarcerated in China, Buddhists are being persecuted in Tibet, and Evangelical Christians are being imprisoned in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt. The essence of freedom of religion is a very fundamental value in the United States and a very fundamental moral value. And, the legislation which passed the House today and which is pending in the Senate will enable the U.S. Government to take a stand against this religious persecution worldwide. Freedom of religion is the first part of the first amendment. The United States was founded for religious freedom. The Pilgrims came here in 1607 for that purpose, as did my father Harry Specter, who literally walked across Europe with barely a ruble in his pocket in 1911 seeking a new life for himself and a family which he hoped to have, and religious freedom, because the Cossacks rode up and down the streets of Batchkurina, a small village in Ukraine, in Russia, where my father's brother, Mordechai Spectorski, had fought with the Cossacks, and they were looking for Mordechai Spectorski, who had fled the city. And, the Cossacks continued to look for members of the Specter family. My father immigrated to the United States, as did my mother Lillie Shanin, leaving a small town on the Russian-Polish border at the age of 5, coming to the United States in 1905. The legislation which has passed the House of Representatives has some sanctions in it. It provides that there be no weapons of torture sold, and provides limitations as to what U.S. taxpayer money can be given for, other than humanitarian purposes. And, it seems to me that if the legislation is to have any effect, there have to be sanctions, there have to be weapons in the bill--teeth--in order to promote compliance. I visited this past January in Saudi Arabia and talked to Saudi officials about concerns which I have and which others have had where Christians cannot display a Christmas tree in a window if it is visible from the outside, where Jewish soldiers are reluctant to wear their dog tags identifying themselves as being Jewish, a situation which is intolerable, where we have some 5,000 young men and women who are in Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudis. The situation in Egypt is very serious where there are Evangelical Christians who are being persecuted, where they land in jail if there is a conversion from Islam to Christianity. I was unable to visit the Sudan because of difficulties there, but visiting in nearby Eritrea, I heard stories about the persecution of Christians in Sudan. It is my hope that this legislation will be considered by the Senate in short order so that a firm stand will be taken to deal with the very serious issue of religious persecution worldwide. Again, I compliment the House and chief sponsor, Frank Wolf, and look forward to enactment of this legislation in the Senate. The bill passed by a vote of 375-41, which is well beyond the number necessary to be veto proof. The administration has been opposed to having sanctions in legislation, sanctions such as some of the ones proposed in the bill which I have offered and is pending in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from New York for his comments about the problems with nuclear proliferation. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for commenting about discussions that we have had over the years about the issues of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I intend to speak directly to a subject that I had talked to the Senator from Nebraska about, and that is the need to have activism by the President of the United States in trying to deal with nuclear proliferation on the subcontinent. In fact, Senator Hank Brown and I had visited with Indian Prime Minister Rao in August of 1995 and also with Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. I then wrote to the President on this precise subject. I intend to discuss that at some length during the course of the remarks that I am about to make. I believe that the nuclear detonation in India makes it more important than ever that the United States move ahead with leadership to try to defuse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and that the Senate should act promptly to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We have had, already, in the course of the last 24 hours, indications of a chain reaction. We have had a response from Pakistan that they may well, too, test nuclear weapons. We have had a report from North Korea, which appears in this morning's press, that ``North Korean officials have announced that they are suspending their efforts to carry out the 1994 nuclear freeze agreement that was intended to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program. United States officials said the program was intended to produce weapons in North Korea.'' So we see what is happening on the international scene. There needs to be a very positive response by the United States to the likes of these very, very threatening developments. As I started to comment earlier, Mr. President, Senator Hank Brown and I had occasion to meet with both the Indian Prime Minister and the Pakistani Prime Minister back on August 26 and 27 of 1995. It is summarized best in a letter that I wrote to the President from Damascus, dated August 28, 1995, which reads as follows: I think it important to call to your personal attention the substance of meetings which Senator Hank Brown and I have had in the last two days with Indian Prime Minister Rao and Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Prime Minister Rao stated that he would be very interested in negotiations which would lead to the elimination of any nuclear weapons on his subcontinent within ten or fifteen years including renouncing first use of such weapons. His interest in such negotiations with Pakistan would cover bilateral talks or a regional conference which would include the United States, China and Russia in addition to India and Pakistan. When we mentioned this conversation to Prime Minister Bhutto this morning, she expressed great interest in such negotiations. When we told her of our conversation with Prime Minister Rao, she asked if we could get him to put that in writing. When we asked Prime Minister Bhutto when she had last talked to Prime Minister Rao, she said that she had no conversations with him during her tenure as Prime Minister. Prime Minister Bhutto did say that she had initiated a contact through an intermediary but that was terminated when a new controversy arose between Pakistan and India. From our conversations with Prime Minister Rao and Prime Minister Bhutto, it is my sense that both would be very receptive to discussions initiated and brokered by the United States as to nuclear weapons and also delivery missile systems. I am dictating this letter to you by telephone from Damascus so that you will have it at the earliest moment. I am also telefaxing a copy of this letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher. When the news broke about the action by the government of India in detonating the nuclear weapon, I wrote to the President yesterday as follows: With this letter, I am enclosing a copy of a letter I sent to you on August 28, 1995, concerning the United States brokering arrangements between India and Pakistan to make their subcontinent nuclear free. You may recall that I have discussed this issue with you on several occasions after I sent you that letter. In light of the news reports today that India has set off nuclear devices, I again urge you to act to try to head off or otherwise deal with the India-Pakistan nuclear arms race. I continue to believe that an invitation from you to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to meet in the Oval Office, after appropriate preparations, could ameliorate this very serious problem. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Secretary Albright. Sincerely. When I discussed the meeting which Senator Brown and I had with both Prime Ministers in late 1995, the President said that was an item which he would put on his agenda following the 1996 elections. Since those elections, I have had occasion again to talk to the President about this subject, and he expressed concern as to what the response of the Senate would be and what would happen with respect to the concerns of China. I expressed the opinion to President Clinton that I thought our colleagues in the Senate would be very interested in moving ahead to try to diffuse the obvious tension between India and Pakistan on nuclear weapons. That is all prolog. What we have now is a testing of a nuclear device by India as a matter of national pride. And I think that is what it is. The new Government of India did give adequate notice, although, here again, I believe there might have been some sharp focus of attention by the CIA. Perhaps it is necessary to talk to the White House even about columns which appear in the New York Times, or some formal way to warn of this threat in a more precise and focused manner, although I quite agree with what the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, said--that it was obvious what the Government of India had intended to do. But as I say, that is prolog. Now I think there is an urgent necessity for leadership from the President to try to diffuse this situation. At the same time, Mr. President, I think there is an urgent need that the Senate of the United States proceed to the consideration and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The essence of that treaty provides that it is an obligation not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion. That treaty has been considered by a number of countries, has been ratified by many countries, but it is still awaiting action by the United States. The Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services held a hearing on this subject on October 27, of last year and March 18, of this year, and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development held a similar hearing on October 29 of last year. But as yet, there has been no action by the Foreign Relations Committee. It seems to me imperative that the matter be brought to the Senate floor as early as possible and whatever hearings are deemed necessary be held so that the Senate may consider this matter. There are some considerations as to objections to the treaty as to whether we can know in a comprehensive way the adequacy of our nuclear weapons. But it seems to me that whatever the arguments may be, they ought to be aired in a hearing process before the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor of this Senate and then brought for a vote by the U.S. Senate. This is a matter of life and death. When we talk about nuclear weapons, we are talking about the force and the power which can destroy civilization as we know it. During the tenure that I had as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I took a look at the governmental structure in the United States on weapons of mass destruction, saw that some 96 separate agencies had operations, and, in conjunction with the then-Director John Deutch, inserted the provision to establish the commission to consider the governmental structure of the United States in dealing with weapons of mass destruction. That commission is now in operation. John Deutch is the chairman and I serve as vice chairman. But it is certainly necessary that matters of this magnitude receive early attention at all levels of the government, including the President and the U.S. Senate. Where there is concern in the Senate on the subject of testing to know the capabilities of our weapons, it should be noted that article X of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty does provide for the right to withdraw if the Government decides that extraordinary events relating to the subject matter of this treaty would jeopardize the supreme interests, referring to the supreme interests of any nation. President Clinton has stated that he would consider withdrawing if we came to that kind of a situation. President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on September 24, 1996. Now we are more than a year and a half later without any real significant action having been taken by the U.S. Senate. The 149 states have signed the treaty, and 13 have ratified it as of April of 1998. There is obviously a problem with what is going to happen with Iraq, Iran, or other countries which seek to develop nuclear weapons. There is obviously a problem with other nations which have nuclear weapons. But the ban on nuclear testing would certainly be a significant step forward in diffusing the situation and in acting to try to have comprehensive arms control on this very, very important subject. I urge the President to take action, to use his good offices with sufficient preparation, as noted in my letter to him of yesterday, for a meeting in the Oval Office. Very few foreign leaders decline meetings in the Oval Office. That should be of the highest priority on the President's agenda, and similarly on the Senate agenda. Consideration and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ought to be a very high priority on the Senate's agenda. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 again sought recognition to comment on the issue relating to the conditions which have been set by the U.S. Government on a further meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the difference of opinion of what is adequate to handle the security interests of the State of Israel. It is my view that it was inappropriate and counterproductive for the U.S. Government to deliver what I consider to be an ultimatum to Prime Minister Netanyahu that he accept the further redeployment of Israeli forces as a precondition to come to Washington to meet with the President on last Monday, May 11. Secretary of State Albright briefed a number of Senators yesterday in a room, S. 407, where we have secret discussions, and at that time the Secretary of State said that she had not delivered an ultimatum but instead had stated conditions which would have to be met before the United States would continue to carry forward with the peace process on the current track. I responded to the Secretary of State that I thought it wasn't even a difference of semantics to say that a condition on further discussions did not constitute an ultimatum, that in fact it was clearly an ultimatum in those discussions. If the diplomacy is carried out in a quiet way, so be it. But when diplomacy is carried out publicly and where the Prime Minister of another country is put in the position where the Prime Minister has to back down, it seems to me totally counterproductive and unlikely to produce a result where there will be agreement or compliance even if Prime Minister Netanyahu had wanted to do that. When it comes to the question of the security interests of Israel, I do not believe that anybody can second-guess the security interests of Israel except the Israelis and their Government. The view from the Potomac is a lot different than the view from the Jordan River as it has been said on many, many occasions. And Israel has been fighting more than 100 million Arabs for more than 50 years. They have won quite a number of wars, but they only have to lose one war before it is all over. Secretary of Defense William Cohen appeared today before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and I asked the Secretary of Defense whether he or anybody in his department had carried out an analysis as to the adequacy of security for Israel if Israel agreed to the proposal of the administration. I commented in the course of that question that I would not think, even if the United States had made that kind of a determination, it would be binding and might not even be relevant as to what Israel thought was necessary for its own security. Secretary of Defense Cohen said that no such analysis had been made on his part. But it would seem to me that as an indispensable prerequisite for the U.S. Government to take a position that Israel ought to have certain withdrawal at least there ought to be a professional determination that the withdrawal would be consistent with Israel's security interests. But as I say, the Secretary of Defense had not undertaken that kind of an analysis. I submit that the issue of Israel's security is something that has to be judged by the Government of Israel. There is no doubt about the friendship and support of President Clinton's administration for Israel. I do not question that for a minute. But where you have the negotiations at a very, very critical point and public statements are made as a precondition which is realistically viewed an ultimatum, pure and simple, that is totally wholly inappropriate. It is my hope that these peace negotiations can be put back on track. I know that the Secretary of State is going to be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu later today. The Appropriations Committee has a meeting scheduled with Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow. I hope we can find our way through these negotiations and put the peace negotiations back on track. I think it is a very difficult matter because while the administration is pressing Israel for a certain level of withdrawal, there are many items which are not being taken care of by the Palestinian authority. Last year, Prime Minister Netanyahu had said that Arafat had given a green light to certain terrorist activities by the Palestinian Authority. And when Secretary of State Albright was before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I asked the question as to whether there had been, in fact, a green light given by Chairman Arafat, as charged by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Secretary of State Albright made the statement that it wasn't a green light, but there wasn't a red light either. I think it is mandatory that the Palestinian Authority give such a red light. They cannot be guarantors, but a red light and their maximum effort to stop terrorism is required. Under the provisions of an amendment introduced by Senator Shelby and myself, that kind of a maximum effort against terrorism is a precondition for getting any aid from the United States. So, these matters are obviously delicate. They require a lot of diplomatic tact. It is my hope that the current stalemate can be surmounted, but I think it can be surmounted only if there is a recognition, as former Secretary of State Warren Christopher had, that security is a matter for the discretion of Israel--it is Israel's security--and that no ultimatum be issued, or at least no precondition be issued, before the Prime Minister of Israel can proceed to have a meeting or negotiations with the United States. In the absence of any other Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. This legislation provides funding for the federal crop insurance program, important agricultural research programs and the restoration of food stamp benefits to approximately 250,000 legal immigrants. I have long been a strong supporter of federal nutrition programs that help to combat hunger. On November 24, 1997, Senator Harkin and I sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and Director of the Office of Management and Budget Franklin Raines, which was signed by forty-five of our Senate colleagues. Our letter urged the Administration to provide funding for food stamp benefits for some of the most vulnerable members of our society: legal immigrants who are children, elderly, or disabled. As the Agricultural Research bill was sent to conference, I joined with four of my colleagues in a March 23, 1998 letter urging the conferees to provide relief to poor legal immigrants and refugees who previously were eligible but had lost federal food stamps under the 1996 welfare law. I am pleased that the final conference report restores these benefits. I also joined seventy of my colleagues in an April 24, 1998 letter urging that the conference report be brought to the floor for a vote as soon as possible. Besides providing food stamp benefits to vulnerable legal immigrants, this bill also provides critical funding for the federal crop insurance program, which will allow affordable crop insurance to be offered to our nation's farmers. Agriculture is Pennsylvania's number one industry, and it is vital that we provide insurance to our farmers who work so hard to provide our country and the world with a stable food supply. The legislation will also provide $600 million over the next five years in funding for agricultural research programs, which are critical to our country's efforts to produce enough food for an ever- increasing world population. The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act is an important piece of legislation, for legal immigrants, our nation's agricultural community, and the nation as a whole. I am therefore pleased to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have sought recognition to express my support for the Medicare subvention demonstration project legislation which has been introduced by Senator Jeffords. This important legislation was approved by the Senate last year as part of the Balanced Budget Act, but the measure was stricken from the final version of that legislation in conference. I hope that this year, the House will recede from its objections, and we can send this legislation, which is supported by the Administration, to the President for his signature. This bill would begin the process of opening a new--and vitally needed--source of funding for the provision of health care services by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It would grant to VA, on a demonstration project basis, the authority to collect and retain funds from Medicare--just as VA collects reimbursement funds from veterans' private insurance carriers--for the costs associated with treating Medicare-eligible veterans' non-service-connected illnesses and injuries. The Balanced Budget Act specifies that appropriated funding for the provision of health care services by VA will be flat over the next five fiscal years. At the same time, 7.7 million World War II veterans and 4.5 million Korean War veterans--veterans who are eligible for Medicare benefits--will require extensive heath care assistance as they age. It is critical that these veterans be allowed to bring their Medicare benefits to VA so that VA might be better able to meet their needs. This legislation will surely assist VA by providing a new revenue stream. But it will also benefit Medicare. Under the plan set out in this legislation, VA would be reimbursed at a level not to exceed 95% of the rate Medicare would otherwise pay a private hospital for care supplied to a Medicare-eligible veterans. In summary, under this legislation Medicare would receive care for its veteran beneficiaries at a discount, and VA would receive a vitally needed new source of funding. Medicare subvention legislation is supported by all of the members of the Veterans Affairs Committee. It is supported by the Administration. All of the major veterans' service organizations have urged enactment of this legislation. And, as I previously noted, the Senate approved this legislation last year as part of the Senate-approved Balanced Budget Act. I am pleased to add my name to this bill as a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to start that morning business, but I will first yield to Senator Warner, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the majority leader for those comments.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business until 7:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might comment to my colleague from New Jersey, I don't intend to be very long. Perhaps it will all be incorporated. If I may have the attention of our distinguished majority leader for a moment, I compliment the managers of the bill that just passed, and the few brief remarks I would like to make on the tax issue relate to a bill that I have introduced on the flat tax. At the request of the distinguished majority leader, I did not press it a few weeks ago on the Coverdell bill, nor did I press it on the legislation that has just been enacted. But I have a very strong view, having pressed for this legislation since March of 1995, the so-called postage card flat tax, devised by two very distinguished professors from Stanford, Hall and Rabushka, that really this is the way we ought to go on legislation on taxation. When I discussed this matter with our majority leader, he said to me that there would be legislation coming down the pike soon where there would be an opportunity for the flat tax to be considered. We informally agreed that we would have a brief colloquy on that. I yield to Senator Lott, again without losing my right to the floor, for the balance of 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. This Sunday, May 10, 1998, the U.S. Senate will lose its last 30-something Member--that is someone who is in the thirties-- because our colleague, Senator Rick Santorum will turn 40. Already, in a few short years, Senator Santorum has distinguished himself by building a solid record of legislative achievement in both the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate. As Senator Santorum passes this personal milestone, I would like to make a comment or two about him. He was born on May 10, 1958, in Winchester, VA, the son of an Italian immigrant. In 1965, the family moved to Butler, PA. He had a distinguished career at Penn State, worked for Senator John Heinz, then moved on to the University of Pittsburgh where he earned his M.B.A., and then to the Dickinson School of Law where he earned a J.D. He served six years as a top aide in the Pennsylvania State Senate, and then worked four years as an associate at the Pittsburgh law firm of Kirkpatrick and Lockhart. In 1990, Senator Santorum took on a campaign for the Congress and defeated a seventh-term incumbent at the age of 32. Then in the House his legislation was very noteworthy on fiscal responsibility, health care, creative medical savings accounts, which was incorporated as a pilot project in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. He has distinguished himself in the U.S. Senate with important legislation on welfare reform, managing debate on legislation based largely on a bill which he had introduced in the House of Representatives. I have worked very closely with Senator Santorum on a personal basis. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote that when Senator Santorum won election in November of 1994 he ``cautiously" invited me to accompany him on a victory swing the next day in Scranton and Philadelphia. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported accurately, ``If you want me to go, Rick, I'll be there.'' And then the Post-Gazette noted, ``It was just another display of what has become one of the more unusual U.S. Senate alliances and odd pairing of politicians from opposite poles in the Republican Party . . .'' Senator Santorum and I have more in common than one might imagine. We are both children of immigrants. We both appreciated the value of education, and have been able to participate in the American dream because of our education. We agree on many, many items. We both support welfare reform, the balanced budget, the line-item veto, and the death penalty. On the issue of pro-choice and pro-life, Senator Santorum and I try to find ways to bring people together. It is a pleasure for me to salute Senator Santorum on one of the last remaining days of his 39 years. He will not be able to say, like Jack Benny, very much longer that he is 39. One of the items, in closing, that I would like to note is that the sky is the limit for Senator Santorum, and if he decides to stay in the U.S. Senate, he could be elected in the year 2000, the year 2006, the year 2012, the year 2018, the year 2024, the year 2030, the year 2036, the year 2042, and the year 2048 and at that point would be just as old as our distinguished President pro tempore, Senator Strom Thurmond, is today. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the issue of pre-vocational training in the context of this legislation. In March, I introduced S. 1709, the Job Preparation and Retention Training Act of 1998, which would have authorized a new Labor Department program providing grants to community-based organizations which would provide essential pre-vocational training to individuals who have not successfully entered the workforce. In my floor remarks on March 4 upon introduction of S. 1709, I noted that one such community-based organization, Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc., has found that the average hourly wage of trainees prior to pre-vocational training was $3.70, but after such training, these same participants started earning an average of $8.00 an hour, with a placement rate of 85 percent into gainful employment. After consultation with Chairman Jeffords, I have decided not to offer my bill as an amendment to the comprehensive job training bill before us, based on assurances that in Conference, he and Chairman DeWine will work with me to ensure that pre-vocational training is more accessible to individuals who are not prepared to fully benefit from the training and skills development provided in S. 1186.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after extensive study, discussions, and deliberation, I have decided to vote against ratifying the treaty to expand NATO. Since my college days, when I wrote my senior thesis on U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations, I have supported a strong U.S. role in international affairs. I oppose NATO expansion now because it does not fulfill NATO's basic purpose in countering the U.S.S.R. military threat that existed from 1945 to 1991 but, instead, creates a new potential threat from Russia. As a frequent participant in the North Atlantic Assembly meetings since the spring 1981 session in Venice, I have always felt that the United States consistently paid more than its fair share of the NATO burden. Our national interests were so substantial in countering the Soviet threat in Western Europe that it was worthwhile not to withdraw because other nations did not do their part in burden sharing. As noted in my votes and previous floor statements, I do not believe our vital national interests justify the extent of our contribution in Bosnia. In my judgment, that is a matter where European nations should have taken charge. It is always hard to say when century-old hostilities in the Balkans may threaten the peace, but the issue is sufficiently a European obligation that I do not think the United States should again be pulling the ``laboring oar''--that is, doing more than our share. The inclusion in NATO of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary is the unmistakable start of bringing in more nations than the United States should be obligated to defend. It is getting us deeper into potential quicksand, like Bosnia. Perhaps even more important, including those countries poses more of a risk of a Russian military action against them than assurances of their national security. There is the obvious risk that Russia, with a deteriorating army, may choose to use its enormous nuclear arsenal. The representations that Russian President Boris Yeltsin does not object to NATO enlargement do not answer the threat that Russia might retaliate under a new leader. President Yeltsin's government is unstable. His health may be even worse. Radical Russian elements have already used NATO expansion as a potential argument to take over the Russian Presidency. Final action on expansion of NATO may give them the political weapon to succeed. So instead of strengthening NATO, the expansion may subject NATO to attack with the possible focus on its newest members. In 1949, the United States and its allies in Europe literally joined forces to define the post-World War II world. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established with a clear mission: collective defense of its members. NATO became the centerpiece of the U.S. policy of collective security and defined our military commitment to our allies in Europe. Throughout the Cold War, NATO protected U.S. interests and U.S. allies in Europe by providing a framework through which to overcome the political instabilities in post war Europe. NATO started out as a military alliance of 12 members and eventually expanded to a military alliance of 16 members. Turkey and Greece have been members since 1952, Germany since 1955, and Spain since 1982. Then, in 1989, the political landscape in Europe changed. The Berlin Wall fell. The Cold War was over. The Warsaw Pact disbanded. In 1990, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics disintegrated. In its stead, across central and eastern Europe and in Russia itself, fledgling governments began the transition to democracy and market-oriented economies. The original goal of NATO had been fulfilled. Immediately after the fall of communism, NATO began to reevaluate its role and purpose. NATO has redefined its organization to focus not only on collective defense, but also on ``promoting stability throughout Europe through cooperation and by developing the means for collective crisis management and peacekeeping.'' Furthermore, what started out as a military organization of first 12 then 16 nations is now holding out the possibility of membership for at least 12 new members and even more if the Administration's rhetoric comes to fruition. My former colleagues Senator Howard Baker and Senator Sam Nunn, along with former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and Alton Frye from the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in February that the Administration's premise that NATO should be open to many additional members ``is a prescription for destroying the alliance'' which will antagonize Russia. In their words, NATO expansion is ``an ill-defined invitation for new members unrelated to either military threats or military capabilities.'' I agree with their interpretation that an expanded NATO is unrelated to current military threats and capabilities. I question U.S. participation in an organization increasingly devoted to ``crisis management and peacekeeping.'' While NATO was originally designed to counter the threat of communism, it will increasingly be called upon to counter new threats facing the region: particularly civil unrest and ethnic conflict in Eastern and Central Europe. Membership in NATO involves a serious commitment to defend other members if attacked. As NATO expands, the United States may well be obligating itself to become involved in a potentially great number of conflicts that are strictly European in nature and not a direct threat to vital U.S. national security interests. I do not believe the United States should commit to involvement in ethnic and civil hotspots throughout Europe, but should reserve the option to decide on such involvement on a case by case basis. Furthermore, NATO reports from the July 1997 NATO summit in Madrid state that the end of the Cold War has provided the opportunity to ``build an improved security architecture in the whole of the Euro- Atlantic area without recreating dividing lines.'' This line of reasoning is unsound. If NATO is in fact to remain a primarily military alliance, how can including new members not recreate dividing lines? It is likely that the new dividing lines will antagonize Russia. Last year, in an open letter to the President, 50 former Senators, cabinet secretaries and ambassadors, as well as arms control advisors and foreign policy experts, called for postponement of NATO expansion until other security options are explored. In their letter, they expressed concerns about drawing ``a new line of division in Europe, between the `ins' and the `outs' of NATO,'' which would actually work to increase regional instability and decrease the security of those not included. George Kennan, most noted for the policy of containment of Russian expansive tendencies, who later disclaimed the view that containment meant stationing military forces around Soviet borders, wrote in the New York Times last year that ``expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.'' He went on to ask: Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict? Kennan pointed out that the Russians are not impressed with American assurances that NATO expansion does not reflect hostile intentions. In fact, he notes, the Russians ``would continue to regard it as a rebuff by the West and would likely look elsewhere for guarantees of a secure future.'' What comes to mind is forcing Russia to move even closer to China or Iran. Michael Brown, then senior fellow at the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, cautioned early on in 1994, when NATO was first addressing the question of new members, that ``NATO expansion should be tied to strategic circumstances: If Russia takes steps to threaten Central Europe militarily, NATO should offer membership to as many states in the region as possible.'' Otherwise, Brown pointed out, correctly I think, that ``Russian aggression would be encouraged, not discouraged by NATO expansion.'' Potential Russian presidential candidates are already preparing themselves for the next Russian presidential election in 2000 and NATO expansion is already on the platform. Alexander Lebed, a likely top contender for the Russian presidency, wrote in an opinion piece last year that NATO expansion is drawing Russia into ``a process of mutual provocations.'' He cautioned that ``a reversion to old ways threatens the system of agreements which until recently had provided stability in Europe.'' One year later, the Russians remain quite clear on how they view NATO expansion. Russia's ambassador to the United States, Yuli Vorontsov, commented in the March 10, 1998 Washington Post on what he calls the ``authentic Russian view'' of NATO expansion. In his article, Ambassador Vorontsov advises that ``Russia's attitude toward NATO enlargement has been and remains unequivocally negative. The signing of the Russia-NATO Founding Act does not alter that attitude in any manner.'' He goes on to say, ``If enlargement goes forward, there are no guarantees that everything positive we have developed in the relationship between Russia and leading Western countries will not be put in severe jeopardy.'' The most telling Russian reaction to date has been the Russian Duma's delayed vote on ratification of the START II treaty. Lebed contends that the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and other arms control treaties could all be reconsidered. In my college senior thesis, I was very much impressed by the famous words of Winston Churchill, which he gave in a 1939 London radio broadcast when he was first lord of the admiralty. Commenting on his inability to forecast the action of Russia, Churchill described Russia as ``* * * a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.'' But perhaps more telling is the oft-forgotten phrase following. Churchill went on to say that ``* * * perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.'' NATO expansion is clearly not in the Russian national interest, and the West can expect Russia to react accordingly. I believe that the United States and Russia must maintain a real balance of power if we are going to coexist as peaceful nations. Clearly, if NATO is to remain a strictly military alliance, expanding NATO to the east means tilting the balance of power toward the west. If the desire is to create greater economic and political cooperation among Western and Central European nations, there are already existing organizations such as the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and others to take up this task. Many claim that there is now a security vacuum in Central Europe that NATO expansion can address. On the contrary, I believe NATO expansion is creating just such a vacuum. It is implausible to think that Russia would send conventional troops into Central Europe any time soon. While it is probable that there are lingering fears of Russian aggression in the countries of Central Europe, Russia's current Army capabilities make such an advance next to impossible. Furthermore, the West would never tolerate a repeat of past Russian aggression in these countries. On the other hand, it is plausible to think that Russia will revisit the status of its relations with the Baltic nations, Ukraine and Belarus. Oddly enough, these may be the countries most likely to be adversely affected by NATO expansion and the very nations not to be included in the first round of new members. We must also not forget Russian military involvement in Georgia and in the Armenia-Azerbaidjan conflict. How will NATO expansion influence Russian military action in the Caucasus? In 1992, I presented remarks at the North Atlantic Assembly meeting in the Netherlands while I was part of a Senate delegation visiting the Assembly, commenting then that there was an unease among the American people over the cost of U.S. foreign relations obligations. That is not to say that the predominant U.S. view would ever return to the isolationist ideology of the 1930s, but the question I posed then was: What is fair and equitable? As a longtime member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I believe many Americans still feel the same unease when it comes to U.S. contributions to areas clearly outside our vital national interests. Again in 1993, after returning from the next North Atlantic Assembly meeting, in remarks on the Senate floor, I commented on the debate under way in NATO at the time on inviting new members to join the alliance. There were signs at the time that NATO and the North Atlantic Assembly were looking more toward economic matters than defense matters. Furthermore, when we talked to the Director of the Center for Strategic Stability, he made the point that the Russians were very concerned about an expanding alliance. The concern then was what would happen with respect to Russia being isolated. I do not believe this question has been adequately addressed. Last January, I made remarks on the Senate floor concerning my participation in the 1996 North Atlantic Assembly meeting. I noted that NATO has been perhaps the most successful international collective security arrangement in the world's history, ultimately achieving its once thought unattainable goal of containing and outlasting the empire of the former Soviet Union through a vigilant deterrence rather than actual conflict. It was this successful because it was more than a mutual defense pact. It is the coming together, across the Atlantic, of the power of the ideas of freedom and democracy. However, I pointed out that NATO's very success in achieving its original aim is the basis of the present quandary of the alliance. I asked then, and I repeat now: In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union there are many reasons--including our responsibility to wisely spend American taxpayers' dollars--why we must ask what is NATO for now, what countries should be a part of the Alliance, and what roles and burdens should be played and borne by the different members of the North Atlantic community? In the year since I gave these remarks, there has been much discussion and debate on NATO expansion, here in the Senate and in the media. I believe the situation now in Bosnia gives us reason to pause and reflect on these questions before we commit the United States to even more security obligations in Eastern and Central Europe. During my visit last December to Bosnia, I asked our troops to estimate how long we would need to stay there to avoid the resumption of bloodshed which would happen if they left on Congress' schedule. The answer was a ``generation,'' given the intensity and longevity of the religious and ethnic tensions in the region. There is no doubt about the dire consequences if fighting resumes among the Muslims, Serbs and Croats. The entire region would be destabilized. Certainly, the current situation in Kosovo is cause for great alarm. Russia has come out on the side of the Serbs against the United States and Europe. In the short term, the ability of the West to work with Russia will aid in the resolution of this issue. This picture changes in the long-term. Albania, Kosovo's neighbor to the south, is on the long list of countries proposed for NATO membership. There is significant question as to how far can U.S. military resources be stretched on the current $268 billion defense budget. The top military brass in Bosnia had no answer to my question on priorities in deciding how to spend among Bosnia, Korea, Iran, Iraq and the world's other hot spots. Now we add to this the additional costs of NATO expansion. Although the Administration says the total cost of expansion will be $27 to $35 billion--the U.S. portion being $1.5-$2 billion over 10 years--other estimates for the cost of NATO expansion range as high as $125 billion. There are many unanswered questions about the cost of NATO expansion. We have good reason to conclude that the estimates of the administration as usual, are deceptively low. If we use Bosnia as an example, how much more are we willing to spend in Europe than the Europeans themselves? Doing our part does not mean doing more than other major European nations. This is not the Cold War where the United States squared off against the USSR and our dominant role in NATO protected our vital national interests. Obviously, Bosnian stability is of much greater concern to the European nations than it is to the U.S. although you wouldn't know it from the contributions in Bosnia today. This also does not mean that the United States cannot play an important strategic role in the region, for the United States has played a successful leading role in the War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The United States will always play a role in peace and security in Europe. We all applaud the great success of the new countries of Eastern and Central Europe on their transition to democracy and free- market economies. However, as we move into the 21st century, I believe this is not the time for NATO expansion. We would be moving away from the basic premise that NATO was expanded to protect Western Europe from Soviet attack. We would be looking at a Russia now, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which is not stable. We are trying to build up our relationships with Russia. Certainly this would be very counterproductive. As I noted earlier, I recall very well in my studies at the University of Pennsylvania noting in my college thesis on United States-U.S.S.R. relations the description of Winston Churchill that Russian foreign policy was a mystery surrounded by a puzzle wrapped in an enigma. It is puzzling as to what the Russian will do next. They are enigmatic. While we are on the path which has a reasonable possibility of leading to peace and stability, the inclusion of new NATO members I do believe would be counterproductive. For these reasons, I oppose the expansion of NATO at this time. I intend to vote against the ratification of this treaty. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on February 24, 1998, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the nomination of Acting Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs Togo D. West, Jr. be the permanent Secretary of that agency. The committee carefully evaluated the nominee and his statements before the committee. It reviewed Mr. West's submissions of his background and financial interests and the investigation completed on all Presidential nominations and conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As a result, the committee voted unanimously on April 21 to report favorably to the full Senate the nomination of Togo D. West, Jr. to be the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been without a permanent Secretary since Jesse Brown resigned in July 1997. This is too long a period for any department of the Federal government to be without its senior leader and manager. It is especially true for the Department of Veterans Affairs which is in a period of major transition of its health program from inpatient to outpatient care in a period of a declining real budget. In addition, the Department's administration of its benefits programs has been seriously challenged and is in need of major restructuring and effective leadership. Also, the Department, like other federal departments and agencies, faces a major hurdle in adjusting its computer-based information systems to the Year 2000. It appears to me that Togo D. West, Jr. has the prerequisite qualifications to meet these challenges, to lead the Department, and to provide the health and benefits services which our veterans have come to expect and deserve. Mr. West has been serving as Acting Secretary since January 2, 1998, pursuant to a December 2, 1997, Presidential directive under authority of the so-called ``Vacancies Act,'' 5 U.S.C. 3348. He concurrently has been serving as Secretary of the Army, a position he has held since November 1993. He relinquishes that position upon being sworn in as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. West's background is extensive and impressive. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Field Artillery Corps upon graduation from college and following law school, he was called to active duty in the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps. In 1975, he served in the Department of Justice as an Associate Deputy Attorney General and in 1977 he was named General Counsel for the Navy. In 1979, he served as the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary, and in January 1980 was appointed General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Mr. West is an articulate and dedicated public servant. I believe that he will serve well the Department and our country's veterans. Therefore, I thank my colleagues for their support of this nomination.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I seek to submit a resolution recognizing the Valley Forge Military Academy and College for establishing the ``General H. Norman Schwarzkopf Library.'' The Valley Forge Military Academy and College, located near Historic Valley Forge National Park and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the ideal site to commemorate General H. Norman Schwarzkopf and his many accomplishments. The Academy broke ground in March, 1998 to begin construction of a Regimental Mess Hall, a section of which will serve as a Library to honor those Americans who participated in the Desert Shield and Desert Storm campaigns. The Library, which would serve both the Academy and the community, will contain some of the General's personal papers, memorabilia, and artifacts commemorating Desert Storm and Desert Shield. It would be appropriate and beneficial for young collegians to have access to history they have witnessed. In 1989, General Schwarzkopf is quoted as having said, ``West Point prepared me for the Army, but Valley Forge prepared me for life.'' General Schwarzkopf graduated from the Valley Forge Military Academy as Valedictorian in 1952, thereafter he entered the United States Military Academy at West Point. During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, General Schwarzkopf served as the Commander in Chief of the United States Central Command. From his days as an accomplished cadet, General Schwarzkopf has proven himself to be a superior and compassionate commander. General Schwarzkopf has served the United States with distinction for more than 35 years. Throughout his military career, the General has earned numerous distinguished service awards including commendations for valor, two purple hearts, honoring decorations, as well as the Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. For these reasons, I take great pride in sponsoring this resolution to recognize the Valley Forge Military Academy and College for establishing the ``General H. Norman Schwarzkopf Library,'' which will serve as a national commemorative site for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.