Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, if we might have final action on the amendment? Senator Santorum and I have commitments on a major shipbuilding project on the House side. So if we could conclude the debate on the amendment without the distinguished Senator from Illinois losing her right to the floor, it would be appreciated.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment works on reverse commute projects, which are designed to enable people to come from the inner city where there are no jobs available and to go to the suburbs where jobs are available. This is, in part, the reverse commute pilot project introduced by my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, and myself along with Senator Lautenberg in the ``Mass Transit Amendments Act,'' S. 764. We think it is appropriate to include it on the ISTEA legislation at this time. This program essentially responds to the growing need to provide access to suburban employment opportunities for residents of cities and rural areas who wish to continue living in their city or rural town and need mass transit to get to the jobs. This amendment will also increase from $100 million to $150 million the access-to-jobs, welfare-to-work provision already in ISTEA under the Banking Committee bill as introduced by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Moseley- Braun. My amendment establishes a new $100 million annual authorization for reverse commute grants, bringing the total access-to-jobs/reverse commute program to $250 million annually. A week ago yesterday I visited a reverse commute project, the Schuylkill Valley Metro project, envisioned by SEPTA and BARTA. This rail line would run from the inner city of Philadelphia to Reading, through Montgomery County, through Philadelphia County, and into Berks County. It is an excellent illustration of what is necessary in order to take people from the inner city where people need jobs out to the suburbs where the jobs are available. This is a very abbreviated statement of a complex bill, but one which I think is designed to meet a very, very pressing need, especially in an era where we are moving away from welfare, to take people who have been on the welfare rolls in the inner cities and provide them with job opportunities in the suburbs. If I might yield to the distinguished chairman, there is an addendum to the bill which I have added at the chairman's request which he said he would comment on briefly. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. In that event, I send this amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the occasion of the retirement of Fred Hitz as the Central Intelligence Agency's first Presidentially- appointed Inspector General, I want to offer my comments and congratulations. Since the position of an independent Inspector General for the CIA was created at my initiative in the FY 90 Intelligence Authorization Act and since I have come to know Fred Hitz during my tenure as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, it is fitting that I recognize his contributions. By way of background, it became clear during the Iran-Contra investigations that the Central Intelligence Agency lacked an effective Office of Inspector General which not only could conduct thorough and objective internal investigations of CIA activities, but even more so, could exercise authority and independence to ensure that its investigative recommendations regarding individual accountability and systemic shortcomings would be followed through and implemented. The proposal to create a Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed independent Inspector General was met with fierce resistance by the Administration and the Director of Central Intelligence. Nonetheless, in light of the revelations from the Iran-Contra affair, the Congress recognized the need for such an office. In my mind, the establishment of an independent Inspector General for the CIA was the most effective piece of legislation to derive from the Iran-Contra affair. It was in this atmosphere that Fred Hitz was nominated by President Bush in 1990, confirmed by the Senate in October 1990 and sworn in November 1990. The Congress wanted a strong-willed and independent individual who was knowledgeable of CIA's mission, history and activities and who had the fortitude and skills to identify, investigate and report wrongdoing when he saw it and how he saw it. Over the past seven years Fred Hitz has accomplished this mandate with honor and diligence in a sea of controversial investigations. One of the most important, if not the most important, of the investigations undertaken by Fred Hitz was that of the Aldrich Ames case which provided the Intelligence oversight committees and the public details of Ames' treachery and insight into CIA. In addition, Fred Hitz has been fearless in taking on difficult and controversial issues such as the role of intelligence in the BCCI and BNL scandals, human rights abuses in Guatemala and Honduras, allegations of drug trafficking by the Contras, the compromise of CIA operations in Paris, and CIA involvement in providing assistance to a Presidential campaign contributor. The Senate Intelligence Committee has not always agreed with Fred's judgements in these matters; it never has questioned his integrity. Upon the completion of Fred's fifth year as CIA's Inspector General, Senator Bob Kerrey and I led a bi-partisan resolution in the Senate to commend Fred for his leadership and achievements. In his lifetime, Fred Hitz has made an important contribution through his public service. As an attorney who graduated from Harvard Law School, he could have remained in the private sector and reaped handsome financial rewards. He chose instead to invest over 20 years in public service, and the United States government and his country have been the chief beneficiaries. Fred entered public service by teaching law in Nigeria and in 1967 he entered the CIA. From 1974 to 1978 he served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as a Senior Staff Member for Energy Policy in the Office of the President and as Director of Congressional Affairs at the Department of Energy. In 1978 he returned to the CIA where he served as Legislative Counsel to the Director of Central Intelligence and later as Deputy Director of the Europe Division in the Directorate of Operations. In my view, Mr. Hitz completes one of the most demanding assignments in the federal government--Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency. He has journeyed through the shoals of hawks and doves, public reporting and security demands and admirers and detractors by sailing a straight and visible course with honesty, dignity and truthfulness. His efforts have made the Central Intelligence Agency more accountable and thus more in consonance with a Congressional view of the rightful role of intelligence and secrecy in a democracy. For these qualities, Fred Hitz will be missed and I wish him smooth sailing in his new teaching career.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the cases in this area have been very complicated, very fact-sensitive, customarily decided, or frequently decided, on a 5-4 basis. There are very, very important objectives in the pending statute. There is a general agreement that quotas are wrong for America, and I believe, beyond that, it is inappropriate to give an applicant a position where the applicant is less well-qualified than some other applicant. I am convinced that if we take the applications for Yale or Harvard or Duke or Cornell or any other fine educational institution, that if there was to be sufficient outreach, we would find minorities who would be well-qualified to take positions in those institutions and that they would not, in fact, be displacing someone who was better qualified. It is a matter of outreach. What the legislation at hand seeks to do is to implement that concept of outreach. There has been a glass ceiling as to women, which is very well known. The glass ceiling is at ground zero. It is very hard to break into the kind of construction trades which are at issue in this ISTEA legislation. There is no doubt about the problems that other minorities have had. This is a plan to provide that outreach and that opportunity without displacing better qualified individuals or better qualified firms. For the argument to be made that this act is unconstitutional and that Members of the Senate are sworn to uphold the Constitution, drawing the suggested inference that we are violating our oaths of office in supporting the legislation as is currently written, I think is far, far beyond the mark, to put it in a very, very diplomatic context. This is an important provision. I believe that it is constitutional as applied with the narrow tailoring of the Department of Transportation regulations and that it meets the obligations of strict scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution. As a matter of public policy, it moves in the right direction. This is only one of many efforts by the Government to open the door on outreach, and I believe that is a very, very sound proposition. In my own personal experience as district attorney of Philadelphia, when I had hiring of a great many people as my responsibility, I got the list of all the African American lawyers in the city when I took office and made a systematic effort to call them on a matter of outreach and found that I could locate very well-qualified people to take the positions, not giving them any preference, not giving them any affirmative action in the sense of having people take those jobs who are less well-qualified than others who apply for them. The same thing followed in the detective branch where the detectives, men and women, were selected from the Philadelphia Police Department. It was a matter of outreach. It did take a little more effort to interview more people to find those in the minority who were well- qualified and that they did not displace better qualified people to accomplish that result. As long as we have a system which does not discriminate against the better qualified, I think we have a system which is sound and is a matter of outreach, which is very important in this country today. I intend to oppose the pending amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the pending amendment. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. I yield back the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 The New DOT Regulations--How Are They Narrowly Tailored? calculation of overall goals Old rules: State recipients take into account the maximum amount of work they can obtain from DBEs available to them, and their past performance in meeting their overall goals. New rules: States must ask themselves: absent discrimination, how much would DBEs participate in DOT- assisted contracts? and then look for that level of participation as the goal. DOT has asked for comment on three specific means of estimating this participation and setting the goal, based on this concept. meeting of overall goals Old rules: States believed they should put goals on every contract. New rules: No requirement of setting a goal for each contract. State's first effort should be race/gender neutral efforts, such as outreach and technical assistance. If that is insufficient, then states may consider race/gender conscious measures, such as contract goals. More intrusive mechanisms, such as set-asides, may only be used if the state has legal authority outside of the DOT regulations, and has made a finding that the other means had not worked. Finally, once a state finds that the effects of discrimination had been addressed effectively, the use of race/gender measures must be reassessed. good faith efforts Old rules: There was general guidance from DOT on the granting of good faith waivers, but enforcement was not strong. New rules: DOT emphasizes to states that they must take seriously their obligation to award a contract to a bidder who has made a good faith effort, and that doing otherwise would be a de facto quota. In addition, states must provide a mechanism for reconsideration to bidders who are denied contracts on the basis of lack of good faith. The mechanism must allow contractors to make oral/written submissions about the denial, and must provide for a review of the decision by a neutral body before the contract is awarded. dbe diversification Old rules: No provision. New rules: DOT requested comment on how to diversify the types of work in which DBEs are involved, and reduce concentration of DBEs in certain areas. The intent to promote competition in non-traditional DBE areas, as well as reduce pressure for non-DBEs in areas of typically heavily DBE involvement. After receiving comments, DOT is now looking at new ways to achieve that diversification goal, focusing on the reasons for that concentration. added flexibility for recipients Old rules: There were some waivers granted, and some flexibility in the program. New rules: States with goal setting programs different than the DOT program can submit to their program to DOT for review; and if their program appears to be more effective than the DOT program, the state can implement it. DOT will grant broad program waivers for states who think they can do it better their way. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island for yielding me 12 minutes. Perhaps I shall not need it all. I have sought recognition to speak in opposition to the pending amendment, because I think the statute, as it is presently drawn, is constitutional. The most recent articulation of the guiding legal principles were set forth in Adarand, and Justice O'Connor for the Court said that strict scrutiny does not require the elimination of a program designed to protect those who have been discriminated against as long as there is the requisite narrow tailoring. She noted the underlying factual basis which does persist to this day: The unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it. That is precisely what is being done in the statute at hand. Justice O'Connor noted that as recently as 1987, every Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States agreed that the Alabama Department of Public Safety's ``pervasive, systematic and obstinate discriminatory conduct'' justified a remedy, and it was upheld in the case of United States v. Paradise. Even Justice Scalia, in his concurrence in the City of Richmond v. Croson, noted that there was at least one circumstance where the State may act to ``undo the effects of past discrimination.'' When we deal with this area, it is an extraordinarily complicated matter and it is very fact-sensitive. I think it is important to note that the statute in question here does not involve the same underlying law which was at issue in Adarand. In Adarand, the issue involved the Department of Transportation's use in its own direct contracts of Federal compensation to encourage Federal prime contractors. This issue involves the constitutionality of section 1003(b)(3) of ISTEA, which sets a 10-percent goal for expenditures of authorized funds for disadvantaged business enterprises. The effort has been made in a very strenuous and, I think, successful way to accomplish the kind of narrow tailoring which was called for in Adarand and which is constitutionally mandated. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the specification as to how the new Department of Transportation regulations are narrowly tailored.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce vocational training legislation, entitled the ``Job Preparation and Retention Training Act of 1998,'' which is designed to respond to the need for pre-vocational training assistance to enable welfare recipients to make the transition from public assistance to work. I believe that the historic 1996 welfare reform law will serve the American people well by ending systemic dependence and creating a program that emphasizes employment--gainful and permanent employment-- by giving the States greater flexibility in administering their programs. We are already hearing about the rise in employment rates and the substantial drops in State welfare rolls. While many Americans have effectively made the transition from welfare to work, a need exists for skills training to enable many of the individuals who have been long-term welfare recipients to make transitions into unsubsidized employment that provides career potential and enables the individuals to achieve economic self-sufficiency. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe that it would be worthwhile to recognize the need for pre-vocational training, a type of training that is not formally offered by the U.S. Department of Labor. Current Federal law does not adequately address the tremendously negative effect of unfavorable environmental and cultural factors on the ability of such individuals to obtain and retain gainful employment. I believe that a Federal commitment to the development of pre- vocational training programs should focus on: improving the job readiness of individuals who are welfare recipients and preparing the individual psychologically and attitudinally for employment. The bill I am introducing today would authorize funding for States to enroll chronic welfare dependents into a training program which would provide the necessary skills to locate and maintain employment. The Secretary of Labor would award States grants on a competitive basis for use in teaching individuals to fulfill workplace responsibilities such as punctuality, literacy, communication, and other survival skills. Once an adult has completed this short period of training, he or she would be prepared to get the most out of their job training and unsubsidized employment opportunities. The $50 million authorization would be provided for each of the next two years. The sunset will provide a chance to determine the program's efficacy. Further, training funds would be limited to no more than $1,200 per individual, which I am advised is a realistic cost of skills training and job placement programs. Many community-based organizations across the country have already recognized this need and are providing pre-vocational training. In this limited context, we have found that prevocational trainees have fared much better in the economy. I am advised that one such community-based organization, the Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc., has found that the average hourly wage of trainees prior to pre- vocational training was $3.70, not even a minimum wage. After receiving pre-vocational training, these same participants started earning an average of $8.00 an hour. Further, pre-vocational training resulted in an 85% placement rate into better-paying jobs. I encourage my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation. This bill is intended to enhance welfare reform and it does not tamper with the positive changes in existing law, such as the five-year time limit. Simply, I am asking for continued federal involvement in ending generational welfare.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce vocational training legislation, entitled the ``Job Preparation and Retention Training Act of 1998,'' which is designed to respond to the need for pre-vocational training assistance to enable welfare recipients to make the transition from public assistance to work. I believe that the historic 1996 welfare reform law will serve the American people well by ending systemic dependence and creating a program that emphasizes employment--gainful and permanent employment-- by giving the States greater flexibility in administering their programs. We are already hearing about the rise in employment rates and the substantial drops in State welfare rolls. While many Americans have effectively made the transition from welfare to work, a need exists for skills training to enable many of the individuals who have been long-term welfare recipients to make transitions into unsubsidized employment that provides career potential and enables the individuals to achieve economic self-sufficiency. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe that it would be worthwhile to recognize the need for pre-vocational training, a type of training that is not formally offered by the U.S. Department of Labor. Current Federal law does not adequately address the tremendously negative effect of unfavorable environmental and cultural factors on the ability of such individuals to obtain and retain gainful employment. I believe that a Federal commitment to the development of pre- vocational training programs should focus on: improving the job readiness of individuals who are welfare recipients and preparing the individual psychologically and attitudinally for employment. The bill I am introducing today would authorize funding for States to enroll chronic welfare dependents into a training program which would provide the necessary skills to locate and maintain employment. The Secretary of Labor would award States grants on a competitive basis for use in teaching individuals to fulfill workplace responsibilities such as punctuality, literacy, communication, and other survival skills. Once an adult has completed this short period of training, he or she would be prepared to get the most out of their job training and unsubsidized employment opportunities. The $50 million authorization would be provided for each of the next two years. The sunset will provide a chance to determine the program's efficacy. Further, training funds would be limited to no more than $1,200 per individual, which I am advised is a realistic cost of skills training and job placement programs. Many community-based organizations across the country have already recognized this need and are providing pre-vocational training. In this limited context, we have found that prevocational trainees have fared much better in the economy. I am advised that one such community-based organization, the Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc., has found that the average hourly wage of trainees prior to pre- vocational training was $3.70, not even a minimum wage. After receiving pre-vocational training, these same participants started earning an average of $8.00 an hour. Further, pre-vocational training resulted in an 85% placement rate into better-paying jobs. I encourage my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation. This bill is intended to enhance welfare reform and it does not tamper with the positive changes in existing law, such as the five-year time limit. Simply, I am asking for continued federal involvement in ending generational welfare.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting against Senator Wellstone's amendment because I think it is inappropriate to place it on the pending bill, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. I do believe it is a good idea to have the Secretary of Health and Human Services obtain information from the States as to the impact of the welfare reform law on current and former recipients of federal aid, but this critical transportation bill should be moved as expeditiously as possible to get highway, transit, and safety funding moving to the States and our communities as rapidly as possible. When the 1996 welfare reform law was considered, I noted that only time will tell if that legislation resulted in an unacceptable level of hardship on poor Americans, particularly children. Current law contains data collection requirements with respect to the impact of the changes in welfare law, and as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee which funds the Department of Health and Human Services, I was pleased to provide $26 million for Fiscal Year 1998 for the Department to undertake the kinds of research and analysis we need to determine the true impact of the 1996 law. Further, as Chairman, I will continue to monitor closely the Department's performance in administering the new welfare regime. If Senator Wellstone offers this amendment on an appropriate bill, I will likely support it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I now seek to discuss, or comment, on the escalating war between the President and independent counsel and to urge the independent counsel to reply forcefully in the public forum to attacks, as opposed to the use of the grand jury as a means of investigating the people who are proposing and undertaking those attacks. My own sense is that independent counsel would be well advised to reply to his critics in a public forum, and by that I do not mean in his driveway in the morning, but, when criticized, to reply. I have had some experience as a prosecutor running grand jury investigations, and it is an inevitable consequence that, when someone is under investigation, that person, persons or entity, will not like the investigation. I think it would be enormously useful if the American people knew, for example, why Mr. Starr is in the investigation on President Clinton's personal affairs. People ask the question, how did he move from the investigation of an Arkansas land deal, where he has been engaged for many years at very substantial cost, over to the investigation of the President on his personal matters? There is a very direct answer, but one which I think very few people know. That is that Attorney General Reno asked Mr. Starr to conduct this investigation. That request was made by the Attorney General about 6 weeks ago. We all know that Attorney General Reno is very reluctant to authorize investigations by independent counsel, with many of us having urged her to do so on campaign finance reform to no avail. So, when Attorney General Reno authorizes an investigation, there is a good indication that it is for a very, very strong cause. But people do not know that Mr. Starr got into this matter in relation to his authorized investigation of Webster Hubbell. And information came to Mr. Starr from Linda Tripp about an effort to secure employment for Ms. Monica Lewinsky under circumstances identical for Webb Hubbell, with the allegation being, and the inference being, that it was hush money for Webster Hubbell. Linda Tripp came to Mr. Starr and Mr. Starr knew Ms. Tripp from his previous contacts with her when she was a witness in the Foster suicide and on Filegate. Ms. Tripp told Mr. Starr that Ms. Lewinsky had stated that a given individual had sought employment for Ms. Lewinsky outside of Washington, DC, with a specific firm, and that happened to be an identical firm--an identical individual who had made similar arrangements for Mr. Hubbell. Mr. Starr then put a consensual electronic surveillance on Ms. Tripp, that is, consensual by Ms. Tripp. And Mr. Starr has been continually criticized for having conducted an unlawful electronic surveillance as recently as yesterday's TV talk shows. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Starr ought to make this point and ought to make it emphatically, that the one-party consent to the electronic surveillance was perfectly lawful under the law of Virginia where it took place. After the electronic surveillance confirmed for Mr. Starr what Ms. Tripp said, Mr. Starr then took the matter to the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice and said, here is the evidence. There are a number of alternatives. One is the Justice Department can handle the matter itself. Second, the Justice Department can seek other independent counsel. Or, third, the Justice Department could refer, Mr. Starr recounts, to Mr. Starr. The matter was then taken to Attorney General Reno, who said it was her decision to authorize Mr. Starr to conduct further investigation related to the Ms. Monica Lewinsky matter, and that was then confirmed by the three-judge court which authorizes Mr. Starr's conduct. Now, at that time, obviously, Attorney General Reno knew about the electronic surveillance and, in asking Mr. Starr to conduct the investigation, there was, I think, fairly stated, more than implicit approval of what Mr. Starr had done, but really explicit approval of what Mr. Starr had done. There has been very, very substantial comment on the question of executive privilege. And, in looking at the news media reports on comments about this legal issue, they appear, really, to be authored by people who are advocates for the President's position. The law on executive privilege is well established, has been since the case of United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, and it applies, as outlined by the Supreme Court of the United States on page 706 of U.S. Reports, volume 418, executive privilege applies to ``protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets.'' Well, there is nothing of that nature involved in the investigation of the President's personal activities. Executive privilege applies to matters which are carried out by the Executive in his official capacity, again, not in his personal capacity. There have been commentaries on the issue of the lawyer-client privilege as it would apply to a number of witnesses now appearing before the grand jury, and the speculation is that it is on Mr. Bruce Lindsey. Just as the claim of executive privilege might be applied to Mr. Bruce Lindsey, or perhaps to Mr. Blumenthal, we are not really sure, but there is very strong legal authority in a case decided by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down on May 2, In re--Grand Jury Subpoena Decus Tecum, 112 F.3d 910. This is part of the controversy and contest between the White House and Mr. Starr--this case lays out, at page 920 of 112 Federal Reporter on the Third Series: Executive branch employees, including attorneys, are under a statutory duty to report criminal wrongdoing by other employees to the Attorney General. Mr. Lindsey, who is an attorney, can hardly be in an attorney-client relationship to the President when he is a governmental employee. The court goes on to point out that the way a person retains a lawyer to have the attorney-client privilege is a very direct way, and that is the person retains his own counsel and not looking to a governmental employee to be the counsel. A governmental employee like Mr. Lindsey or other attorneys have their fiduciary obligation running to the Government of the United States. It does not run to anyone else with whom they have contact, even the President of the United States. The express statutory authority set out in 28 U.S.C, section 535(b) establishes the obligation of any governmental employee, including attorneys, to report evidence of wrongdoing to the Attorney General of the United States. The way these matters are commented upon on the talk shows and in the press and in the media, it appears that there is some strong ground to assert executive privilege. To call it frivolous would be elevating it to a higher level than it deserves. It is absolutely, positively a stalling tack, nothing more and nothing less. It could not possibly apply. Some may argue that the Eighth Circuit opinion is not binding on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, but those who have referred to it in the media make the suggestion that it applies only in St. Louis. The fact of the matter is that it's a Circuit court opinion, it is very persuasive, and there is no authority to the contrary. It is based upon a principle of law which is hard to dispute, and that is that an attorney employed by the Government and paid by the Government owes a duty to the Government and has a statutory duty to report crime to the Attorney General, not to another governmental employee, even the President of the United States, who happens to employ him. So we have a series of events where there is a very, very strong proposition that what is being undertaken here in this war, this escalating war between the President and independent counsel, really talks about legal propositions which are spurious and frivolous at best. It would be my hope that the independent counsel would respond to the President in the public news media. I know that prosecutors who are investigating cases do not like to disclose what is going on in a pending prosecution, and there are good reasons as a general matter for investigators or prosecutors on an investigative matter not to make disclosures but to keep those matters confidential. But when those prosecutors conducting these investigations are attacked in the public news media, there is absolute justification for a response. I believe that Mr. Starr made a mistake when he called people before the grand jury last week such as Mr. Blumenthal, in giving Mr. Blumenthal a platform. I made mistakes myself when I was District Attorney of Philadelphia. I made some in the U.S. Senate. And just because Mr. Starr made a mistake does not mean that he is disqualified from carrying on as independent counsel. It does not mean that he ought to resign, as some Members of the other side of the aisle have suggested. The fact is that the Attorney General of the United States has the authority, under the independent counsel statute, to remove Mr. Starr for cause, and the President has the authority, through the Attorney General, to remove Mr. Starr for cause. We have already gone through that once in our Nation's history under a circumstance, the so- called Saturday Night Massacre. But if Mr. Starr is doing things which require his discontinuance in office, that can be handled by the Attorney General. And no suggestion has been made that he ought to be removed. Nor do I think there is any basis for saying that. When Mr. Starr has found his assistants under attack, it is understandable that there would be a very strong reaction. Two of his assistants were attacked, one a Mr. Emmick. The information was spread broadly in the news media that an assistant independent counsel, Mr. Emmick, was criticized by a judge for using ``threats, deceit, and harassment to get testimony in a 1994 police corruption case.'' But the fact of the matter is that the court transcript showed that the ``threats, deceit, and harassment'' had been directed at another Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, and the same judge called Mr. Emmick ``a man of integrity'' at a hearing a year later. These matters do not come out. I think that what Mr. Starr has to do is make a very forceful defense of his assistants. Similarly, an associate independent counsel, a Mr. Udolf, had been reputedly fined some $50,000 in a Georgia civil proceeding for violating the civil rights of someone who was wrongfully held in jail for 4 days in 1985. But others have come to his defense. The retired Federal chief judge, Judge A. R. Kenyon, said that Mr. Udolf ``was very sensitive and always had compassion for people even though he had to prosecute them.'' The point is that there are going to be criticisms, and in the course of a legal career, prosecuting attorneys may be censured, and the nature of a criminal proceeding very frequently is very highly charged, very emotional, a lot of things are said by both sides with frequently considerable provocation. But whatever is said, it is my view that Mr. Starr ought to respond in a public contest and ought to do it very, very promptly, again, without resorting to the matter of the grand jury to bring people in there. The stepped-up attacks on Mr. Starr may carry the suggestion that he is getting closer. Dick Morris observed last week that the testimony of former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker might prove to be very, very significant, perhaps decisive in the Arkansas land deal. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I do know that if you take a look at the chronology of events which lasted for years before Mr. Starr could bring former Governor Tucker to trial, it was a long, tough road which took a very protracted period of time, including overturning a judgment where an Arkansas Federal judge dismissed the indictment, the indictment later being reinstated by the court of appeals, and the court of appeals even granting the independent counsel motion to have that judge removed from the case. So where you have a protracted period of time and very considerable money spent, it is relevant to note what has happened in the matter, these facts really not being known at all by the public and not being known by me unless I take a look to see exactly what is going on behind the veil. When Attorney General Reno appointed Mr. Starr to expand the jurisdiction to cover the President's personal activities, I made a comment that was widely misinterpreted and widely misconstrued. I said 2 weeks ago that Attorney General Reno had erred in appointing Mr. Starr because people would not understand what he was doing in that case in light of the fact that he started off a long time before in the Arkansas land deal and that it was unfortunate because Mr. Starr has become a lightning rod. No longer is there a focus of attention on what President Clinton has done, and he is, allegedly, supposedly the object of the investigation, but the attention has been focused only on Mr. Starr. I do not believe that Attorney General Reno had in mind when she appointed Mr. Starr that the appointment would prove to be such a formidable public relations defense for the President, directing attention away from the President as the focus of the investigation to Mr. Starr. But that is certainly what has happened. It is in no way a criticism of Mr. Starr that the Attorney General asked him to take over the investigation and that he has become a lightning rod. That is where we find this matter. I believe the lightning rod has to exchange and reply in kind, and if it calls for lightening, so be it. I went to high school in a small town in Russell, KS--Russell High School, which had a football team known as the Broncos. There is another football team not too far from Russell called the Broncos, the Denver Broncos, who were the Super Bowl champions. When I look at this battle, this war being waged with the President, on one hand, and the independent counsel on another, I analogize it to a football game between the Broncos who are the Super Bowl champs and the Broncos from my old high school football team. If the playing field is to be leveled to any significant extent at all, I believe that Mr. Starr has to respond. The appropriate way to respond is exactly when these criticisms are made. It is my hope and my understanding that Mr. Starr is not going to pursue the business of calling his critics before the grand jury. I think Mr. Starr, a former Federal judge, a former solicitor general, knows better than to argue that the first amendment is only for articulating the truth. Who knows what the truth is when you have a controversy, or who knows what the eye of the beholder is as to what the truth is? The first amendment is to protect freedom of speech. You cannot get involved in limiting it to who is telling the truth or it would be a never, ever ending controversy. I hope that we will put this war between the President and the independent counsel on the back burner. I hope that we will presume the President to be innocent and that we will presume Mr. Starr to be innocent and to let the investigation go forward until it is concluded so that the President and the rest of us can focus our attention on the important items facing the country, like this important legislation, ISTEA, on the infrastructure spending of America for the next 6 years; on the enormous problems we are facing in Iraq; on the problems we are facing in balancing the budget and how to handle the $1.7 trillion funding which we now have to apply to America's problems. But if the debate is to rage and if it is to continue, it is my hope that the grand jury will not be the place where Mr. Starr's critics come, but that he will engage in forceful, lusty debate and express himself and answer his critics and let the chips fall where they may. I thank the Chair, yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition for two reasons: First, to comment about the Schuylkill Valley Metro Light Rail System, which I visited this morning. It is a very fine example of what can be accomplished with light rail, for many purposes. It seeks to establish a light rail commuter line from city hall in Philadelphia to Reading, Pennsylvania, a stretch of some 72 miles, which would be enormously helpful in transporting people from the inner city to the surrounding counties in the Philadelphia area where there is a labor shortage, to move people from areas where people need jobs to areas where employers need people to fill jobs. This line would further be enormously helpful, to take pressure off of the Schuylkill Expressway, an alleged high-speed line in the Philadelphia area which is more frequently a parking lot as opposed to a high-speed line. It would further be enormously helpful on the problems of air pollution, as a tremendous stream of traffic moves from the suburbs over the Schuylkill Expressway and U.S. route 422. The cost of this light rail system would be $720 million, with the Federal share being $576 million. Congressman Jon Fox joined me today at the area where we took a look at the proposal, and I think it is really a very, very useful use of ISTEA funds. It is my hope that, as we move ahead with the so-called ISTEA legislation, we will make a very substantial investment in infrastructure and that the higher figure will be adopted by the Senate, by the House, and by the conferees as we move through this important legislation. I have joined over the years in efforts to take the highway trust fund off budget so it will be used for the specific purpose for which it was intended. I know in my State there are an enormous number of important projects which could be funded if the highway trust fund were to be used for highways, bridges and mass transit. I have confidence that the same exists around the country.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a hearing on the nomination of Togo D. West, Jr., to be Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 24, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. Committee on Labor and Human Resources

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to reintroduce legislation I originally introduced on November 8, 1997, to reauthorize the work of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission in Pennsylvania. The new bill makes some technical changes which deal with method of appointing Commission members, ensuring that the Commission will continue to be composed of representatives from local and state agencies who have worked on this successful public/private partnership with the federal government over the past 10 years. I am hopeful that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold hearings on this bill as soon as possible. Since authorization for the Commission is set to expire in November, 1998, it is vital that the Senate pass this legislation this year to enable the Commission to continue its unfinished work in eastern Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to reintroduce legislation I originally introduced on November 8, 1997, to reauthorize the work of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission in Pennsylvania. The new bill makes some technical changes which deal with method of appointing Commission members, ensuring that the Commission will continue to be composed of representatives from local and state agencies who have worked on this successful public/private partnership with the federal government over the past 10 years. I am hopeful that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold hearings on this bill as soon as possible. Since authorization for the Commission is set to expire in November, 1998, it is vital that the Senate pass this legislation this year to enable the Commission to continue its unfinished work in eastern Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now offer a resolution that seeks to deal with the international crisis caused by Saddam Hussein's amassing of weapons of mass destruction. There are reports as of this morning that Secretary General Kofi Annan has solved the problem after discussions with Saddam Hussein. A diplomatic solution is always preferable to a military solution, even though Saddam Hussein has carried the world to the brink of war. Before we will know whether or not Secretary General Kofi Annan has succeeded, we will have to read the fine print. In the event that the Secretary General's efforts to end the crisis are unsuccessful, I submit that it is a constitutional imperative that Congress consider, debate, deliberate, and vote on a resolution on how to deal with this threat before the President takes unilateral action with air and missile strikes. Air and missile strikes constitute acts of war. Under the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress has the authority to involve our Nation in war. In his constitutional capacity as Commander in Chief, the President may act in emergencies, but there is now time for deliberative action by the Congress. During the week of February 9, when this issue was the talk of the caucuses and the cloakrooms, Congress spoke loudly by not speaking at all because there was no agreement on what should be done. On February 16, I wrote the President urging that no military action be taken until Congress returned from the recess today, February 23. With the prospect of unilateral Presidential action, if Secretary General Annan is unsuccessful, I believe it is our duty in both the Senate and the House to take a position on this obviously critical issue of war or peace before the President takes unilateral action with a military strike. My resolution is an alternative to the approach outlined by the President on February 17. Without deciding whether I would vote to support the President's plan, I am submitting this alternative because I think it is a preferable course of action and, perhaps even more importantly, to stimulate debate in the Congress which could produce an even better course of U.S. action. The issues that now confront our Nation are complex, controversial, and could produce unintended consequences. I do not contend that my resolution provides all the answers, or even necessarily the best answer, but it could lead to the least of the available undesirable alternatives, and that is what I think we face, Mr. President--a question of which is the least of the undesirable alternatives. At the outset, let there be no doubt that it is my view that Saddam Hussein's amassing weapons of mass destruction is intolerable and must be stopped. If the United States takes action, there must be national unity behind our fighting forces, but that doesn't mean giving the President a blank check in advance by delegating to the executive the Congress' constitutional duties. Again, without committing myself on how I will vote if the President's plan is submitted to Congress in a resolution, I do wish to express my deep reservations and concerns for the following reasons: First, the President's plan does not reach the core issue of removing Saddam Hussein as Iraq's leader or in eliminating his weapons of mass destruction. The maximum result, as articulated by the President in his own words, is ``to seriously diminish the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.'' But there is the understanding or concession in that statement that there would only be a serious diminution, not an elimination, of weapons of mass destruction. The President then noted that if such weapons are rebuilt, there would be another strike. Such a series of strikes, which could be indefinite for all we know, are hardly the answer. Saddam Hussein's continuous flouting of his specific agreements and U.S. mandates since 1991 requires removing him from office as the only adequate answer. My second concern is that U.S. air and missile strikes, aided only by Great Britain, could materially hurt our position as the world leader, or at least as the leader of the free world. We are, after all, seeking to enforce the U.N. position on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq must comply with those U.N. resolutions and yield to U.N. inspections. When we arrogate unto ourselves, with only Great Britain's concurrence, the decision to undertake air and missile strikes, on this state of the record, we are likely to be viewed by the world as arrogant, which is the root meaning of arrogating unto ourselves that ultimate decision. In my foreign travels, I have found enormous respect and admiration for the United States around the world. People everywhere admire and really envy our freedom, our democratic values, our standard of living, and our power. But, in a January trip to Europe, the Mideast and North Africa, I heard virtually unanimous objections to the proposed U.S. air and missile strikes on Iraq as an abuse of power and U.S. arrogance. The key part of that arrogance involves projected Iraqi civilian casualties and our insistence on acting as we see fit, contrasted with the views of the other nations, almost uniformly with the exception of Great Britain. Third, air and missile strikes may cause devastating unintended consequences. Our experience has demonstrated that we may expect retaliation from terrorists. The bombing of Libya in 1986 produced the bombing of Pan Am 103. Our so-called covert proposals against Iran most probably produced the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers in June of 1996. On the issue of unintended consequences, who can be sure what will happen if we detonate Iraq's biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and those substances enter the atmosphere? In March 1991, allied forces detonated Iraq's chemical weapons at Kamasia. Those substances became airborne and may have been a significant contributing cause to Gulf War syndrome, an issue now under intensive investigation by the Veterans Affairs Committee, which I chair. The resolution, which I am submitting today, strikes at the core of the problem: removing Saddam Hussein as Iraq's leader by prosecuting him as an international war criminal; and, if he is not taken into custody as a war criminal, by then implementing a long-term plan for his removal as Iraq's President. My basic proposal to try Saddam Hussein as an international war criminal was advanced on March 5, 1991, at the conclusion of the Gulf War. On that day I introduced a Senate resolution which articulated the applicable principles of international law, and then concluded with this clause. Resolve . . . , that it is the sense of the Senate that the President should confer with Kuwait and other member nations of the coalition of the United Nations to establish an international criminal court or an international military tribunal to try and punish all individuals involved in the planning or execution of the above-referenced crimes including Saddam Hussein. Had we pursued that course of action at that time we would very likely--almost certainly, in fact--be in a different position today. Since my resolution was offered, and this is an ongoing effort which I have made, along with Congressman Jim Leach in the House, and Senator Christopher Dodd here in the Senate, a War Crimes Tribunal has been established by U.N. Security Council Resolution 808 on February 22, 1993, establishing an international tribunal to try individuals accused of international war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, and Resolution 955 adopted on November 8, 1994, to establish a similar war crimes tribunal for Rwanda. By extending the jurisdiction to Iraq, the War Crimes Tribunal could prosecute Saddam Hussein. There is an abundance of evidence which would warrant the conviction of Saddam Hussein and the imposition of the death penalty. While the U.N. resolutions on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda do not provide for the death penalty, the United Nations may well be persuaded that Saddam Hussein's conduct warrants the death penalty. I believe the evidence speaks loudly to that effect. Beyond his war of aggression against Kuwait and his missile attacks killing U.S. personnel in Saudi Arabia and Israelis in Tel Aviv, there is powerful evidence of Saddam Hussein's systematic action to destroy the population of civilian Kurds in Iraq through the use of chemical weapons in 1997-1998, with more than 182,000 missing persons and the destruction of more than 4,000 villages, including the placement of more than 10 million land mines in Iraq's Kurdistan and ethnic cleansing in the city of Kurkuk. Those international crimes certainly warrant the death penalty by all existing standards. With an international judicial determination that the death penalty should be imposed on Saddam Hussein, we would then have the high moral ground to carry out that verdict. The removal of Saddam Hussein as Iraq's President does pose questions as to who would take over and what would happen to Iraq's ability to counterbalance Iran in that region. It is hard to imagine an international situation worse than the one currently posed by Saddam Hussein, and it is hard to imagine a new Iraqi leader worse than Saddam Hussein. It may well be that a covert action or covert actions might succeed in deposing Saddam Hussein. That was the subject of an op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday by former CIA Director John Deutch. The Voice of America could be intensified giving encouragement to his many enemies in Iraq. An alternative government could be established with those dissident forces. And, a no-fly zone could be established over all of Iraq. A naval blockade could further tighten the noose and perhaps bring Saddam Hussein to his knees. These and other proposals could lead to his removal without targeting him. As a generalization, our national policy is sound, not to kill a foreign leader for political purposes. But it is important to note that that prohibition is mandated only by a Presidential Executive order. It does not have the force of law of congressional enactment. Let me now pursue a series of questions relating to that policy. First, should that policy be applied to Saddam Hussein after he attempted to assassinate former President George Bush? Second, should that policy be applied to Saddam Hussein, considering his atrocious record of war crimes, or at least after he is convicted and sentenced to death? Three, would targeting Saddam Hussein constitute a lesser use of force and a more justifiable use of force than the President's contemplated air and missile strikes? Fourth, is it time to reexamine that policy as it applies to the likes of Saddam Hussein? Fifth, is it sensible to tie our own hands for self-defense by such a Presidential Executive order when Saddam Hussein amasses weapons of mass destruction which threaten the United States and the whole world with horrible consequences? Sixth, if we are justified in preemptive air and missile strikes, which will inevitably kill Iraqi civilians, why are we not justified in preemptive actions against Saddam Hussein who is a mass murderer and a certified international war criminal? Mr. President, it is a rapidly changing world scene. It is time to consider those questions. I have no doubt about two propositions. First, a trial of Saddam Hussein as an international war criminal would be preeminently just. Second, solving the international threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction mandates removing Saddam Hussein as Iraq's leader. Perhaps Saddam Hussein could be replaced by the people of Iraq with additional U.N. sanctions, a stronger Voice of America, and nonlethal covert action. If not, then we may have to change our answers to those six questions, just as Saddam Hussein has changed the world with his weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the President, dated February 16, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition, and as the final speaker before we adjourn for a recess, I am going to comment about the situation in Iraq. It had been my hope that the Congress might have addressed this issue. But it is obvious now that we will not. I think that the Congress--at least the Senate--is not addressing the issue because there is not clear-cut agreement in this body as to how to proceed. My own view is that an air attack and a missile attack, if one is to be carried out, constitutes an act of war. And under the Constitution that requires Congressional authorization. The President is authorized as the Commander in Chief--and there is only one Commander in Chief, and it is obvious that where the 535 Members of the Congress cannot agree upon a program that we are not committed to be the executive. That is why we have an executive. But still the Constitution requires that war would be declared only by an act of Congress. And I think the international law interpretations make it plain that military action, like air attack or missile attack, does constitute an act of war. I believe that we have not yet seen a clear definition of U.S. objectives as to what we are seeking to accomplish. My sense is that the American people are not prepared for what may occur. I make it a practice, as I know the Chair does, of having open house town meetings. And I had three this week-- on Monday in Cumberland County, Lebanon County, and Lancaster County, PA. There is great concern among my constituents--those whom I have talked to there and other places--of not having an idea as to precisely what we are going to accomplish. It is my hope, if action is to be taken, that before any action is taken the President of the United States will address the American people and will identify the goals as he sees them and evaluate our likelihood of attaining those goals so that the people of the United States will be prepared and understand what is going to happen. But I do not see at this date how there can be public support for an attack in the absence of informing the American people, preparing them and having a public dialog on the subject. The Congress is speaking loudly by not speaking at all on a resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. In 1991, on January 10, this body authorized the use of force. I was at the forefront arguing that force should be used at that time. We had an extended debate. The Congress--the Senate specifically--was complimented for having a classic debate on what our vital national interests were and how we should respond. I do believe that we have a vital national interest in what is going on in Iraq at the present time. I do believe that there are great dangers posed by Saddam Hussein and by his weapons of mass destruction. I had an opportunity back in January of 1990--just 8 years ago on a trip with Senator Richard Shelby--to talk to Saddam Hussein. It is not an easy matter to deal with Saddam Hussein, as we have seen. There is some talk that Saddam Hussein ought to be toppled. But the air attacks, the missiles, and the planes will not accomplish that. It is plain at this juncture that there is no positioning of the kind of ground forces necessary to topple Saddam Hussein. Even as to the air attacks, it is plain that we will not destroy all of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The question is: How will Saddam Hussein come out of whatever military force we use? I am very much concerned that he may come out a martyr. Certainly the lack of support for the United States raises major questions as to how the rest of the world views this issue. On my travels--and I have traveled extensively, Mr. President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress, and my work on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee--I have found that there is great admiration for the United States around the world. People all over the globe admire our economic achievements. They admire our values. They admire our freedom, and the success of our free enterprise system. But there is also a touch of concern about abuse of power or excessive use of power, perhaps arrogance. And, we have to evaluate that very carefully in what we do as to Iraq. I made a trip to the Mideast from late December to mid-January, and wherever I went I heard concerns about the projection of American power and concerns about the Iraqi civilian population, not Saddam Hussein, but concern about the Iraqi civilian population. It is an odd quirk of history that after the great success of the United States, the coalition put together by President Bush, which was a masterful job, President Bush is in Houston and Saddam is still in Baghdad running Iraq. I have spoken with some frequency on the question of greater personal Presidential involvement in international dispute resolution, a subject that I have discussed personally with the President. It is my view that President Clinton can leave the Department of Agriculture to Secretary Glickman and the Department of the Interior to Secretary Babbitt, and so forth, but only the President of the United States can wield the enormous power that comes from the Presidency. In 1995, Senator Brown and I spoke to Prime Minister Gowda of India, who said to us that he hoped the subcontinent could become nuclear free. The next day we passed that information on to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, who asked us if we had it in writing. We told her, of course, we did not. But we asked her when she had last talked to the Prime Minister of India. She said, ``We don't talk.'' That night Senator Brown and I cabled President Clinton with those views fresh in our mind, urging the President to call those Prime Ministers to the Oval Office; nobody turns down an invitation to the Oval Office. And later talking to the President, he said, well, I intend to do that after I am re-elected. I have talked to him since, and it has not yet happened. I think the President did an outstanding job, and I compliment him on the negotiations in the Mideast in the 1995 timeframe where the President and the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, almost brokered an agreement between Syria and Israel. When I met with the President in mid-December before my trip to the Mideast, I urged him to become active again on that track of the peace process because I think the parties are very close. I had a chance to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Assad in August-November of 1996, and they were pretty far apart. Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he wanted to resume peace negotiations but he had a new mandate, he wanted to start fresh. President Assad of Syria said that he would want to start negotiations but would want to pick up where he, or Syria, and Prime Minister Rabin left off before Prime Minister Rabin's assassination in November of 1995. In talking to them last month the words were about the same but the music was different. I think that Presidential involvement there might find success, especially with the explicit condition that any agreement would be subject to ratification by the Israeli electorate on the Golan Heights, something about which only Israel could make a decision for themselves considering all the security factors, and the issue with the Palestinians much more difficult, the Israel-Palestine crack. But here I think personal Presidential involvement might be very successful. I think there has been the absence of that, where we find ourselves with only Great Britain at our side now as we look to action against Iraq. I have heard what the Secretary of Defense has had to say, and I have total respect and confidence in Secretary Cohen based on the 16 years that I worked with him in the Senate. But he alone cannot carry the Executive burden in this matter. On the information at hand, we do not have the cooperation of others in a military attack. I think that has to be weighed very carefully. I do think that there are alternatives. I do think that the issue of a blockade is something that might bring Saddam Hussein, if not to his knees, to a greater economic impasse. It would be my hope that before action is taken which constitutes an act of war, the issue would be debated by the Senate and by the House of Representatives and an appropriate resolution would be put before us to have the appropriate constitutional authorization. I know that many of our colleagues have spoken on this matter in the course of the last several days, and as the last speaker in the Senate before we go to adjournment, I did want to make these comments for whatever consideration the President and the Executive may choose to make of them.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I did not have an opportunity yesterday after the Majority Leader announced the resolution of the proceedings as to the pending nomination of Judge Massiah-Jackson for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I sought recognition to speak with unanimous consent for up to 1 minute, and there was an objection levied so I was not able to talk at that time. I cannot limit my remarks to a single minute today because there are other things to be commented upon, but I believe that the referral of this matter to the Judiciary Committee is the appropriate course of conduct. Notwithstanding my continuing efforts to set forth the facts, my own personal activities have been grossly inaccurately reported. First, it is President Clinton who has recommended Judge Massiah- Jackson for the Federal court. That is the President's nomination. It is not my nomination or the nomination of Senator Santorum. It is true that Massiah-Jackson was cleared by a nonpartisan panel appointed by Senator Santorum and me, but that approval does not involve any personal activity or action by either of the Senators. Second, in my capacity as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and since Judge Massiah-Jackson is a constituent, I have vigorously sought to see that she received fair treatment, just as I did when the Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas. Third, I have made a public commitment to review all the matters submitted by her opponents before casting my vote on the Senate floor. Fourth, I have been proactive in seeking all the facts against her confirmation as well as all of the facts of those who support her. The charge has been made that I made a ``deal'' with the White House to appoint Judge Massiah-Jackson in exchange for the appointment of Judge Bruce Kauffman, who was sworn into the United States District Court on January 20. The facts are that I am party to an arrangement for Republicans to receive one nomination for the district courts for every three Democrats who are nominated, an arrangement identical with that now applicable to the State of New York. But I am not under any obligation to support any specific nominee, nor anybody submitted by the White House from the Democratic ranks. I am not under any obligation to support anyone, including Judge Massiah-Jackson, if I conclude the person is not qualified. When Judge Massiah-Jackson's nomination was announced by the President on July 31, 1997, there were rumors of opposition, and in order to try to find out what the facts were in opposition, Senator Santorum, Senator Biden and I held a hearing in Philadelphia on October 3. All of the witnesses who testified favored Judge Massiah-Jackson, including five of her colleagues from the Common Pleas bench. Mayor Rendell, who had been district attorney for 3 of her 7 years on the criminal bench, was enthusiastically in support of her nomination. Then the Judiciary Committee held its formal hearing on October 29, and again no witnesses opposed her. Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions and I questioned her closely on her record, and on November 6 she was reported out of the Committee by a vote of 12 to 6. Thereafter, when district attorneys from Pennsylvania raised objections, Senator Santorum and I took a proactive position to meet those district attorneys, and we heard them out on January 23. I then arranged to get all of their opposing cases by January 30, with an opportunity for Judge Massiah-Jackson to respond, and that is what we await at the present time. As a matter of fundamental fairness, she is entitled to that hearing. So, I think the Senate has taken the appropriate stand to have the hearing, and those who object will hear what Judge Massiah-Jackson has to say and then I, as a juror, along with my colleagues, will take a look at all of the facts and make a decision as to whether she is to be confirmed or whether she should be rejected. I thank the Chair for the courtesy and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak in response to the majority leader for up to 1 minute.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, this may be a good time for me to report briefly on the travels that I undertook from December 30 to January 13, when I visited the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague and found that this agency is moving forward with prosecutions on war crimes against humanity, arising out of the activities in Bosnia. It is my sense that after the first conviction, which has been obtained, the tribunal is on its way to establishing a very, very important international precedent. For the past decade-plus, many of us, including Senator Dodd, Congressman Jim Leach, myself, and others, have been working to try to bring an international criminal court into existence. It is my sense that if the War Crimes Tribunal is successful, we may have the most important institutional change in international relations in this century, if we can bring the rule of law into the international arena. I think it is very important that the outstanding indictments be served. In talking to the military leaders and NATO in Bosnia, I have been informed that we have the capacity to do so if the instructions are given. Up until the present time, the rule has been to serve them with warrants of arrest if our military groups come into contact with those under indictment, but they are not to make an effort to search them out. It is a delicate matter and has to be handled with discretion and with regard to not losing lives in the process of making the arrests. But, I think that ultimately those warrants of arrest do have to be served. We stopped in Bosnia and saw the activities there. Mindful of the President's recent request for an open-ended stay in Bosnia, we discussed with the military leaders and with some of the soldiers their sense as to what was going to happen there. The Congress has legislated to bring an end to the funding as of June 30, 1998, with certain exceptions relating to a Presidential extension. But, it seems to me that it is necessary to have some idea as to how long we are going to be there. Those enmities and hatreds go back hundreds of years, and it is necessary, in my judgment, for us to have some idea as to how long we are going to stay there and how long it will take to accomplish that mission if we are, in fact, to remain there. The U.S. contingents are still much larger than any others. We have some 8,000 personnel--substantially larger than the French, British, Russians, or others--and there ought to be more of a burden sharing than is present now if the United States is to stay there. We traveled on to the Mideast where we had an opportunity to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Syrian President Assad, Egyptian President Mubarak, King Hussein of Jordan, and other leaders. And, it is my sense that the Israeli-Syrian tract could be very close to resolution. Before going, on December 17, I met with President Clinton, told him of my itinerary, and urged him to become personally involved in the Syrian negotiations as he had been in the past. The parties were very close to a resolution of the dispute between Israel and Syria before the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. The President was personally involved in those negotiations. I believe that with an activist hand by the President, there could be a successful resolution there. It can't be said with certainty, but the parties were very close before Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated. I had an opportunity to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Assad in August and November of 1996. At that time it seemed to me that the parties were far apart, with Prime Minister Netanyahu saying he wanted to negotiate for peace but would do so only if there was a clean slate and he had a new mandate. President Assad of Syria, on the other hand, said he, too, wanted to negotiate but would do so only if they would begin where the negotiations left off with Prime Minister Rabin. While the words were very similar, when I had a chance to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Assad last month, the music, it seemed to me, was a little bit different. Syria had a new set of problems with their economy, and Netanyahu faces a new set of problems. I think activist intervention by the President could well bring the Israeli-Syrian tract to a conclusion. It is certainly worth a try. As to the Palestinian-Israeli tract, it is much more complicated. But, here again I have urged the President to bring Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Arafat into the same room, at the same time, to hear their complaints and to try to bring a resolution to those very serious problems. Part of the mission on this trip was to explore persecution against Christians and other religious groups. Our travels took us to Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Saudi Arabia. The details are spelled out in a written report, which I shall file as well. But, it seems to me that the United States ought to take a stand on the legislation which has been introduced by Congressman Frank Wolf in the House and by myself in the Senate which would articulate the principles of religious freedom and impose sanctions on foreign governments which tolerate or encourage this kind of persecution. In Saudi Arabia, in talking to Prince Turki, I heard again that the Koran calls for the death penalty if someone changes from Islam to Christianity. I heard the same in Egypt, and found, in fact, that those who have converted from Islam to Christianity had been imprisoned. We heard many complaints talking to people who had been victims of persecution in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt. It is my hope that this issue will come to the Senate floor. I know it is on the majority leader's list to be considered by the Senate sometime between now and the spring. This is just a brief statement of some of the highlights. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the full text of the report, which incorporates two op-ed pieces that have been published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Harrisburg Patriot-News, be printed in the Record as well.

Mr. SPECTER

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