Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I inquire: How much time does the Senator intend to use?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. We would not want to hold up so many airplanes, Mr. President.

Mr. SPECTER. In that event, would the distinguished Senator from Minnesota speak on the bill and then ask unanimous consent to include it as in morning business? The Parliamentarian would like it charged to the bill. So we will vote at 2:30?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will that be charged to the bill?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Grams.

Mr. SPECTER. How much on the other side?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Delaware and Lehigh Canal National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988, which established a Federal Commission to assist in planning and implementing an integrated strategy for promoting and protecting the cultural, historical, and natural resources in the canal region, which consists of a 150-mile long corridor stretching through five counties in eastern Pennsylvania, including Luzerne, Carbon, Lehigh, Northampton, and Bucks. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have been pleased to support annual funding for the work of the Commission, and believe reauthorization is necessary to continue preserving the heritage of the canal region and to promote economic development. Mr. President, let me provide you and my colleagues with some background on the Delaware and Lehigh corridor. The Delaware Canal first opened for regular commercial navigation in 1834 and served as the primary means for transporting coal and other bulk goods from the anthracite region of Pennsylvania to New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and even to industrial centers in Europe. The canal provided an early and essential link in a 4,000 mile national transportation route and helped to transform Pennsylvania from a solely agrarian State to the center of an industrialized society. The Delaware Canal and the Lehigh Navigation Canal played a critical role in supplying our developing Nation with the coal that heated its homes and the fuel for its burgeoning factories. In 1998, Congress wisely established the Corridor and the Delaware and Lehigh National Corridor Commission. The commission was charged with conserving, interpreting, and promoting the natural, historic, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources of the region. Nine national historic landmarks, six national recreation trails, two national natural landmarks, and hundreds of sites listed on the National Register are situated within these boundaries. In addition, 7 State parks, 3 State historical parks, 14 State scenic rivers, and 14 State game lands are located in the region. This is an impressive and historic area that must be preserved. More than three million visitors explore the region each year to see the numerous attractions in the area, including the Allentown Art Museum, Eckley Miners Village, Washington Crossing, and Moravian Tire Work. Another attraction that will preserve the region's heritage and promote economic development is a cultural center in Two Rivers Landing that will house the city of Easton's National Canal Museum and the Crayola Factory. Two Rivers Landing first opened in June 1996, marking a rebirth of Easton's downtown. Since then, more than 300,000 visitors have come. The project has been credited with attracting 82 businesses to downtown and creating nearly 100 jobs. The Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor has established a strong record of successful partnership projects that link Federal, State and local governments with nonprofit organizations and private industries. Two Rivers Landing is just one of the many successful private/public partnerships led by the Commission. Another example is the Lehigh River Foundation, which was formed in 1991 to give private sector support the Commission's initiatives. The foundation has raised more than $150,000 from local businesses and individuals to create an educational film, sponsor heritage events, and establish an information center in Bethlehem, the site of the only American 19th century steel plant to retain all of its historic elements. The corridor is sustained by broad public involvement and nonfederal investment. There are many project supporters, such as the Heritage Conservancy, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, and the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. Corporations such as Binney and Smith, makers of Crayola products, Bethlehem Steel, and Mack Trucks have also made major financial commitments to support new industrial museums and attractions. Statutory authority for the Delaware and Lehigh National Corridor Commission will expire in November, 1998 unless Congress acts. I believe there is ample need for reauthorization because of the unfinished work of the Commission. I would note that the Commission was authorized to receive up to $350,000 in operating funds a year, but funding for the program did not begin until 1990, and since then, it has regularly received only $329,000 a year through the annual Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. The primary reason for reauthorization is the delay in implementing a Management Action Plan for the region. The 1988 act mandated a series of studies and public meetings in order to complete a management action plan, which will serve as an action agenda for the first 10 years of corridor development. The management action plan did not received final approval from the Secretary of the Interior until August, 1994. Further, the findings of the management action plan envisioned a 15- year implementation period after approved by the Secretary. I am concerned that with less than one year left until the Act expires, there is insufficient time to implement the plan to help conserve the resources of this historically significant region. The Corridor Commission has made significant progress and there is public enthusiasm and support for the projects being carried out by the Commission, particularly where they promote economic development. However, they can not do this alone. There is a real need for sufficient Federal support of operations. I would note that the Commission must, by law, raise sufficient private and other nonfederal funds so that the annual Federal grant to the Commission constitutes no more than 50 percent of its operating budget. For each government dollar raised, the Commission has been successful in leveraging $8 to $14 in matching funds. This project has clearly demonstrated that Federal investment acts as a catalyst for local and private investment. Building on the success of the Corridor Commission, my legislation will authorize an increase in the Commission's operating budget from $350,000 to $650,000 a year, which will leverage additional private, State, and local funds. My legislation retains the 50 percent limitation on the amount of the Federal subsidy. Also, the legislation authorizes up to $10 million over 10 years to implement projects included in the management action plan and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, including the restoration and preservation of the Delaware Canal, and landing developments in 8 to 10 cities. The legislation extends the Commission another 10 years, thereby allowing the project to realize its goals while improving operating efficiency and extending participation. The corridor's management action plan has become an important tool for both community and economic revitalization. It is recognized as a national model for the coordination of grassroots community efforts with those of government and private industry. Last year, the 104th Congress created nine new national heritage areas based in part on the success of the Delaware and Lehigh model. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this valuable Commission and to reauthorize the 1988 act so that Americans can continue to learn about the rich history of the region and appreciate the lands, waterways, and structures within the Delaware and Lehigh Heritage Corridor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation and a section-by- section summary of my legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Delaware and Lehigh Canal National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988, which established a Federal Commission to assist in planning and implementing an integrated strategy for promoting and protecting the cultural, historical, and natural resources in the canal region, which consists of a 150-mile long corridor stretching through five counties in eastern Pennsylvania, including Luzerne, Carbon, Lehigh, Northampton, and Bucks. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have been pleased to support annual funding for the work of the Commission, and believe reauthorization is necessary to continue preserving the heritage of the canal region and to promote economic development. Mr. President, let me provide you and my colleagues with some background on the Delaware and Lehigh corridor. The Delaware Canal first opened for regular commercial navigation in 1834 and served as the primary means for transporting coal and other bulk goods from the anthracite region of Pennsylvania to New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and even to industrial centers in Europe. The canal provided an early and essential link in a 4,000 mile national transportation route and helped to transform Pennsylvania from a solely agrarian State to the center of an industrialized society. The Delaware Canal and the Lehigh Navigation Canal played a critical role in supplying our developing Nation with the coal that heated its homes and the fuel for its burgeoning factories. In 1998, Congress wisely established the Corridor and the Delaware and Lehigh National Corridor Commission. The commission was charged with conserving, interpreting, and promoting the natural, historic, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources of the region. Nine national historic landmarks, six national recreation trails, two national natural landmarks, and hundreds of sites listed on the National Register are situated within these boundaries. In addition, 7 State parks, 3 State historical parks, 14 State scenic rivers, and 14 State game lands are located in the region. This is an impressive and historic area that must be preserved. More than three million visitors explore the region each year to see the numerous attractions in the area, including the Allentown Art Museum, Eckley Miners Village, Washington Crossing, and Moravian Tire Work. Another attraction that will preserve the region's heritage and promote economic development is a cultural center in Two Rivers Landing that will house the city of Easton's National Canal Museum and the Crayola Factory. Two Rivers Landing first opened in June 1996, marking a rebirth of Easton's downtown. Since then, more than 300,000 visitors have come. The project has been credited with attracting 82 businesses to downtown and creating nearly 100 jobs. The Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor has established a strong record of successful partnership projects that link Federal, State and local governments with nonprofit organizations and private industries. Two Rivers Landing is just one of the many successful private/public partnerships led by the Commission. Another example is the Lehigh River Foundation, which was formed in 1991 to give private sector support the Commission's initiatives. The foundation has raised more than $150,000 from local businesses and individuals to create an educational film, sponsor heritage events, and establish an information center in Bethlehem, the site of the only American 19th century steel plant to retain all of its historic elements. The corridor is sustained by broad public involvement and nonfederal investment. There are many project supporters, such as the Heritage Conservancy, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, and the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. Corporations such as Binney and Smith, makers of Crayola products, Bethlehem Steel, and Mack Trucks have also made major financial commitments to support new industrial museums and attractions. Statutory authority for the Delaware and Lehigh National Corridor Commission will expire in November, 1998 unless Congress acts. I believe there is ample need for reauthorization because of the unfinished work of the Commission. I would note that the Commission was authorized to receive up to $350,000 in operating funds a year, but funding for the program did not begin until 1990, and since then, it has regularly received only $329,000 a year through the annual Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. The primary reason for reauthorization is the delay in implementing a Management Action Plan for the region. The 1988 act mandated a series of studies and public meetings in order to complete a management action plan, which will serve as an action agenda for the first 10 years of corridor development. The management action plan did not received final approval from the Secretary of the Interior until August, 1994. Further, the findings of the management action plan envisioned a 15- year implementation period after approved by the Secretary. I am concerned that with less than one year left until the Act expires, there is insufficient time to implement the plan to help conserve the resources of this historically significant region. The Corridor Commission has made significant progress and there is public enthusiasm and support for the projects being carried out by the Commission, particularly where they promote economic development. However, they can not do this alone. There is a real need for sufficient Federal support of operations. I would note that the Commission must, by law, raise sufficient private and other nonfederal funds so that the annual Federal grant to the Commission constitutes no more than 50 percent of its operating budget. For each government dollar raised, the Commission has been successful in leveraging $8 to $14 in matching funds. This project has clearly demonstrated that Federal investment acts as a catalyst for local and private investment. Building on the success of the Corridor Commission, my legislation will authorize an increase in the Commission's operating budget from $350,000 to $650,000 a year, which will leverage additional private, State, and local funds. My legislation retains the 50 percent limitation on the amount of the Federal subsidy. Also, the legislation authorizes up to $10 million over 10 years to implement projects included in the management action plan and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, including the restoration and preservation of the Delaware Canal, and landing developments in 8 to 10 cities. The legislation extends the Commission another 10 years, thereby allowing the project to realize its goals while improving operating efficiency and extending participation. The corridor's management action plan has become an important tool for both community and economic revitalization. It is recognized as a national model for the coordination of grassroots community efforts with those of government and private industry. Last year, the 104th Congress created nine new national heritage areas based in part on the success of the Delaware and Lehigh model. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this valuable Commission and to reauthorize the 1988 act so that Americans can continue to learn about the rich history of the region and appreciate the lands, waterways, and structures within the Delaware and Lehigh Heritage Corridor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation and a section-by- section summary of my legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I am aware of this language and agree with this interpretation. I appreciate my colleague's leadership role in working with this important International Center, and I hope the NIH will give every appropriate consideration to the Center's proposals.

Mr. SPECTER. That is correct. However, $1 million in funding was included in the Department of Education's program administration budget to be utilized for national millennium activities.

Mr. SPECTER. I would be happy to respond to an inquiry from my friend from Virginia.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Byrd, for those comments about the substance of the resolution. When Senator Byrd joins on an issue of constitutional import, there is great weight. I thank him on a personal level for his very kind comments about me. When he started to talk about an appointment of Arlen Specter if Senator Byrd were President, I was about to start a rumor on ``Byrd for President.'' I still might. If it was the Attorney General job, I am not so sure, but if it had been the Supreme Court he was talking about, I might have had a little more motivation on that. In the case of Raines versus Byrd, where Senator Byrd challenged the line-item veto, in which a curious decision of the Supreme Court said that Senator Byrd, Senator Hatfield, Senator Moynihan, and Senator Levin didn't have standing, that goes to show you we need more advice from the Senate in anticipation. When Senator Byrd said he might have asked me to argue the case, I have argued three cases in the Supreme Court--most recently, in March of 1994, on the Base Closing Commission. It was the fastest 30 minutes of my life, to appear before the Supreme Court, and 7 of those sitting nine Justices had appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I noted a certain tenor of questions from the Court, similar to the ones, I had asked when they appeared as nominees for the Supreme Court. Although, I was not successful in that case, the Court being reluctant to upset 300 base closings, the Harvard Law Review published a detailed critique of the case and found that my position was right on the separation of powers. That was just a word or two on a parenthetical expression. Mr. President, I am going to revise my approach a little bit and at this time formally offer this resolution on behalf of Senator Byrd and myself on the advise and consent function. I realize that it cannot be acted on in this session, but it will be a guidepost for revision after consultation with our colleagues. I again thank my colleague, Senator Byrd, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I noticed the arrival of our very distinguished colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to discuss an idea which has the potential to have a major impact on the rule of law in the United States by having the U.S. Senate exercise its advise function under the advise and consent clause of the Constitution to advise Presidents on who the nominee should be for the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States, as we all know, is the ultimate arbiter of determining what the law will be. In the session which ended last June, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down historic, really monumental decisions on dying, religion, speech, due process, States rights, congressional power, among many other decisions. The Constitution of the United States established the Congress, in article I, the President in article II, the Court in article III, with an implicit suggestion that the legislative body was preeminent, the executive second, and the judiciary third. But we know since the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Marbury versus Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States has been the preeminent institution, because the Supreme Court of the United States has the last word. The Supreme Court Justice, the late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, said that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. We talk a great deal about the legislature having the power to make the laws and the courts having the limited power to interpret the laws, but the reality is, the brutal fact of life is that the Supreme Court of the United States makes the avant-garde decisions on the periphery and on the horizons of the law. We can do better, I submit, in the deliberations, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States by a closer focus on the quality of those men and women who go to the Supreme Court. I expect our distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd, to join us on the floor in a few minutes to make a few comments about this idea, as the permanent resident scholar of the Senate and a great authority on constitutional law and a recent losing litigant in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the line-item veto case, where Senator Byrd, along with Senator Moynihan, Senator Hatfield, and Senator Levin challenged the line-item veto in the case of Raines versus Byrd. The Supreme Court of the United States, in that decision, ruled that Senator Byrd and the other Senators did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of line-item veto--a curious decision. In my opinion, who would have greater status to challenge the constitutionality of line-item veto than sitting Senators, especially the existing chairman of Appropriations, Senator Hatfield, and the former chairman of Appropriations, Senator Byrd? But that was the ruling of the Supreme Court. When we take a look historically, Mr. President, at what the Supreme Court has decided, and in many, many cases by 5 to 4 decisions, it is really astonishing the authority and the power wielded by the Supreme Court of the United States on the lives of every man, woman and child in this country, in a fundamental sense, more so than what the Congress does, and in an equally fundamental sense, more so than what the President does and the bureaucracy of the United States. In the famous Lochner versus New York case in 1905, the Supreme Court struck down an early attempt at labor regulation by holding that a law limiting bakers to a 60-hour workweek violated the liberty of contracts secured by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. It was a 5-4 decision holding up the efforts of the legislative branch to limit the workweek to 60 hours in the interests of public welfare. In Hammer versus Dagenhart in 1918, the Supreme Court, again by a 5-4 decision, struck down a labor law. This time the Keating-Owen Federal Child Labor Act, on the grounds that the commerce clause did not give Congress the power to completely forbid certain categories of commerce. In a celebrated decision, Furman versus Georgia in 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States, again by a 5-4 decision, struck down the death penalty provision under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendment. We have had a series of very controversial decisions where the Court has imposed seriatim limitations on what States may do by way of imposing the death penalty. In 1982, in Plyler versus Doe, the Supreme Court, again by a 5-4 decision, invoked the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to strike down a Texas statute which denied State funding for the education of illegal immigrant children and authorized local school boards to deny enrollment to such children. Again in a 5-4 decision in Webster versus Reproductive Health Services in 1989, the Supreme Court, in a case widely viewed as a retreat from Roe versus Wade, upheld various restrictions on the availability of abortion, including a ban on the use of public funds and facilities for abortions, and required viability testing after 20 weeks. Again, on a 5-4 decision in 1990 in United States v. Eichman, the Court invalidated State and Federal laws prohibiting flag desecration on the grounds that they violated the first amendment. In Adarand versus Pena, 1995, the Court held that Federal racial classifications like those of a State must be viewed under strict scrutiny standards. In the course of the past 5 years, on decisions from 1993-1997, there have been 74 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States by a 5-4 decision. Mr. President, when there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court of the United States, there is no existing systematic way for the selection process to occur with respect to the Senate involvement under the advice section of the Advice and Consent Clause. We do know historically that when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes retired in 1931, there was unique concern about who his replacement should be and that was because of the unique status which Justice Holmes had on the life of the law; the author of ``Common Law'' in 1881, member of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for 20 years from 1891 to 1901, and a member of the Supreme Court of the United States for 30 years, until 1931, the author of perhaps the most brilliant decisions on clear and present danger, a Justice extraordinarily gifted. When he was set to retire, there was unusual public concern about who his replacement would be. President Hoover was reluctant to appoint a New Yorker when many people suggested Benjamin Cardozo, a very distinguished judge on the court of appeals in the State of New York. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, George W. Norris, made an effort to persuade the President that Benjamin Cardozo ought to be the replacement for Oliver Wendell Holmes, but it was the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, William E. Borah, who is historically credited with making the critical suggestion when President Hoover handed Senator Borah a list on which he had ranked individuals whom he was considering for nomination in descending order of preference. The list contained 10 names, and the name on the bottom of the list was Benjamin Cardozo. The Senator looked at the list and replied, ``Your list was all right, but you handed it to me upside down.'' And President Hoover finally conceded, even though reluctant to appoint a Democrat and even though reluctant to appoint another nominee from the State of New York. Benjamin Cardozo was appointed on February 15, 1932, and the nomination won instant and unanimous approval by the U.S. Senate. In modern times, we have been very diligent in the exercise of our consent function. The hearings in the Judiciary Committee have focused enormous public attention when the nominees come forward because at that point in time there is an awareness of the importance of the Supreme Court. The decisions which come down, and the 74 decisions which have come down in the last 5 years 5-4, really do not create much of a public ripple, do not attract very much public attention, even though these decisions are of enormous, enormous importance. Because of this background, Mr. President, it is my thinking that the Senate ought to give consideration to establishing a panel of prospective Supreme Court nominees for submission to the President under our advice function, under the Advice and Consent Clause. Obviously, it is a matter that the President can take or leave, but at least we ought to make that pool available. I advance this in the closing days of the first session of the 105th Congress so that our colleagues can think about it over the intervening several months, and I will seek cosponsors, seek advice from my colleagues. I have talked it over with a number of the Members of the Senate, including members of the Judiciary Committee and the leadership. There has been a very responsive note about it. I have talked to some on the Supreme Court of the United States. The effort would be to try to diversify the background. Few would know, and many would be surprised to learn, that of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States, eight of them came from prior judicial appointments. From time to time when there is a suggestion that somebody be nominated who has a broader background--perhaps as a former Governor, perhaps as a former Cabinet officer, with more background--there is some reluctance. It is safer to appoint someone who has been on a court. It may well be, I think it is true, that the country would be better served by having a Supreme Court which had a more diverse background. One thought would be to ask for suggestions from, say, the chief judges of the Federal circuit courts of appeals to suggest individuals whom they know in their circuit--distinguished lawyers, distinguished professors, people from all walks of life; or to ask the chief judges of the U.S. district courts; or the chief justices of the supreme courts of the various States; or a cross-sampling of judges; or the bar associations of the States; or the American Bar Association; or from the public at large. Then the Judiciary Committee might well establish a practice--and this is a matter of flexibility--where we would inquire into the backgrounds of the individuals and compile a pool of prospective Supreme Court nominees. There are thousands of lawyers at this moment in America who would love to be judges, and all of them would love to be Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as a very high honor and an opportunity to serve in a very, very important position. There is enormous legal talent in America, and very little of it, necessarily so, is called to the attention of the President of the United States when a vacancy occurs. From time to time you hear about a nomination and somebody was considered, and the next time a vacancy occurs that person is pretty much automatically put into the spot. I think it is not betraying the confidence to retell a story about Senator Howard Baker, our distinguished majority leader who later became chief of staff to President Reagan. When Justice Potter Stewart left the bench in 1987, Senator Baker said to President Reagan, ``I'll prepare a list of possible replacements for the Supreme Court of the United States.'' According to Senator Baker, President Reagan responded, ``Do you think you could put Judge Bork on the list?'' rather an interesting comment, perhaps even a curious comment, coming from the President of the United States. Of course he had the power to make the determination, certainly more than the power to decide who would be on the list among those who would be considered. So I advance this idea, Mr. President, as I say, in the closing days of this session, with my stated intention to discuss the matter further with my colleagues in an effort to develop more ideas as to how we might function and how we might activate and motivate the advice function of the Advice and Consent Clause. I ask unanimous consent that a very brief summary statement of the kernel of this idea be printed; a form of the resolution be printed with the caveat that it is not intended to be final but a suggested form; and that a listing of the Supreme Court decisions decided by 5-4 from 1994, 1995 and 1996--since I do not want to take the time to put them in the Record at this time--be printed, showing the tremendously important matters which are decided by a single Justice having such a profound impact on the law in the United States.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended by 15 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the Philadelphia section of the American Chemical Society, whose 5,000 members, along with their nearly 200 sister sections in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, have set aside November 2 through November 8, 1997, for a national celebration directing our attention to the many contributions of their scientific discipline. The science of chemistry gives us the power to understand and to use the elemental building blocks of all material things. The science of chemistry also provides the fundamental understanding required to deal with many of society's needs, including several that determined our quality of life and our economic strength. Chemists and chemical engineers use their powerful science in helping feed the world's population, tapping new energy sources, clothing and housing humanity, providing renewable substitutes for dwindling or scarce materials, improving health and conquering disease, and monitoring and protecting our environment, and strengthening our national security. As the American Chemical Society works to enhance public awareness about the crucial role that chemistry plays in everyday life during National Chemistry Week, I hope that my colleagues will take this occasion to recognize the chemists and chemical engineers in their States who have dedicated themselves to improving the quality of life for all.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this legislation designates the U.S. Post Office in Pottsville, PA as the Peter J. McCloskey Postal Facility. This measure is cosponsored by my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum. A companion measure, H.R. 2564, passed the House last week and was cosponsored by all 21 members of the Pennsylvania delegation. Following service in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II, where he served with distinction as an aerial gunner instructor in the European Theater, Peter McCloskey worked for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and was later appointed as the supervisor for the Pennsylvania Bureau of School Audits, where he served until 1967. In 1968, he was appointed postmaster of the Pottsville, PA, post office and served in that capacity for 23 years until his retirement. During that time he earned the respect and admiration of not only the employees he supervised over the years, but the entire community as well. Since leaving the Postal Service, Mr. McCloskey continues to be active in his community, having served on the Pottsville Housing Authority Board of Directors. The legislation will serve as a fitting tribute to an individual who has given so much to the cause of public service.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to thank my colleague, Chairman Bond, for including in the conference report $700,000 for a targeted grant for economic development for Lehigh County, PA. I am advised that these funds will be used to establish an aquatic and wellness center on the grounds of Cedar Crest College. The center has much local support because it is designed to stimulate economic development in the Lehigh Valley. For example, the center is expected to host athletic events and bring as much as $3 million annually in economic benefits to the region. The center is also envisioned as a means of reducing juvenile crime in the Lehigh Valley. According to the center's planners, underprivileged inner-city youths will be provided free access to the center in the hope that it will provide a drug-free, healthy environment to juveniles and thus help break the temptations of street life and crime. We need to do much more to reduce juvenile crime, and offering civic diversions is an important means of accomplishing this goal. There will also be improved civic health for all social groups, particularly the elderly and the disabled. Private sources have raised $2 million of the $9 million cost of constructing the facility, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has included this project in its capital budget. Accordingly, I am pleased that the Congress has chosen to make available economic development funds for the center.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens concerning section 8123 of the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2266. Is it the chairman's expectation that the Secretary of Defense will not exercise the authority in section 8123 with regard to specialty steel and other steel products encompassed in the following Harmonized System of Tariffs (HTS) numbers: 7208 (carbon steel); 7218 through 7223 (stainless steel); 7224 through 7229 (alloy steels, high speed tool steels and electrical steels); 7304 through 7306 (stainless steel pipe and tube); 7502 through 7508 (nickel-based alloys; 8105, 8108, 8109 (cobalt/titanium/zirconium-based alloys); 8211, 8215 (stainless steel flatware) unless the failure of the Secretary of Defense to exercise such waiver authority pursuant to section 8123 will trigger unilateral retaliatory sanctions by a foreign country?

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition this morning to compliment our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, for scheduling floor debate on campaign finance reform. I think that this is a very important matter to be debated by the U.S. Senate and, hopefully, to be voted on as to amendments and, ultimately, final passage. I have long believed that campaign finance reform is indispensable in order to take out the tremendous amount of money that is present in Federal elections. For more than a decade, I have worked on the issue to have a constitutional amendment to overrule Buckley versus Valeo with Senator Hollings under the Hollings-Specter amendment. I believe that there is a very important distinction between amending the first amendment and overruling a specific Supreme Court decision, many of which are split decisions. There are many besides those on the Court who have an understanding of the Constitution. I think the Buckley decision was wrongly decided. When that decision was handed down, I happened to be in the middle of a contest for the U.S. Senate primary in Pennsylvania running against the then Congressman John Heinz. In the middle of that campaign, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual could spend as much of his or her money as he or she chose. My brother was limited to $1,000 under the law. He could have helped finance my campaign. With Buckley not being reversed, that has been a major impediment to dealing with these tremendous sums of money, plus the unlimited amount of independent expenditures. We have seen the ravages of soft money. We have seen millions of dollars contributed in Presidential elections, as in 1996, in the context where the candidates are pledged not to spend money beyond the Federal contribution. We have seen these ads which have been classified as ``issue ads,'' which are blatant ads urging the election of one candidate and the defeat of another, on both sides of the aisle. I have introduced campaign finance reform legislation myself which would deal with the issue of soft money, prohibiting it, and which would define an advocacy ad as one which shows the likeness or name of an individual urging his or her election or his or her defeat. With respect to the independent expenditures, they are touted as independent, but in fact they are not independent expenditures. My legislation would require that someone who makes a so-called independent expenditure make an affidavit to that effect, with strict penalties for perjury on the affidavit form showing the individual making it what the consequences are. That would then be filed with the FEC, with the requirement that the candidate on whose behalf the expenditure was made, plus the campaign manager, make a tough affidavit, so that you do not have the feeling that there is really no enforcement or enforcement so much after the fact that it is irrelevant. In order to deal with the problem of unlimited expenditures by individuals, my bill provides for a Federal provision analogous to the Maine ``standby public financing provision,'' which provides that if candidate A spends $15 million of his or her own money, then candidate B will have that matched by the Government. I am against generalized Federal funding. However, I do believe that such a provision would be a deterrent so that there would not be the necessity, or at least a very limited amount of governmental money put in the campaigns if they knew there would be no advantage because the Government would match it for his or her opponent. My bill further builds upon what we have seen in the Governmental Affairs hearing, to require that there be a limit and reporting on contributions to legal defense funds, which are a first cousin to campaign contributions. We saw in the testimony involving Charlie Trie, coming into the legal defense funds, pouring out hundreds of thousands of dollars. My bill further tightens the requirements as to foreign contributions which we saw on the Young development matter, where the money had a foreign origin and ended up in a political campaign committee. I had been unwilling to cosponsor McCain-Feingold as long as it had the provision calling for lesser expenses or free television time, because I think that provision is unconstitutional, in violation of the fifth amendment as the taking of property without due process of law. I know the arguments that they are public airwaves, but once the situation has been established on a property right, I think that constitutes a taking. I discussed that matter with Senator McCain some time ago, and once he says that provision is going to go, I am prepared to cosponsor McCain-Feingold. Last year, when the subject came up, I voted for cloture on McCain-Feingold. Although I didn't agree with all of its provisions, I thought the matter should come to the Senate floor and be voted upon. Regrettably, we will probably not have campaign finance reform, or we won't have campaign finance reform until there is a demand by the American people that we do so. Only that kind of a demand will move the Congress. My own sense is that we are far short of the 60 votes for cloture for cutting off debate. But I think there may be 8, 10, 12, maybe even more, Senators who would be influenced by a very strong constituent demand. That influences us from a very realistic sense. Regrettably, our hearings this week in Governmental Affairs have not been covered because there is no scandal. The media and the public are attracted, regrettably, only to scandal. It is my hope that as we move ahead in Governmental Affairs, we will have more public attention. Last week, when we had the testimony as to Roger Tamraz and his $300,000 contribution and the testimony about John Huang asking for money in the White House at a coffee, which the President, apparently, condoned, and the testimony about the man in the line giving the President a card suggesting millions of dollars of contributions and later being contacted by a Presidential aide, had that been on national television, I think the public might well be aroused. It is my hope that the debate here will be spirited. I think, realistically, Senate debates are unlikely to lead the American people to catch fire on this issue. But perhaps our Governmental Affairs hearings can do that, or supplement it by media attention generally. I think it is a very useful thing to move ahead with these debates on campaign finance reform. Again, I compliment Senator Lott for scheduling them, and I look forward to participating in those debates, aside from this brief comment in morning business. I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. On the issue of soft money and where it has gone, there is a very strong point that if the definition of issue advocacy, issue commercials, contrasted with advocacy commercials, if that distinction was sharpened up--my colleague and I discussed this at some length with Attorney General Reno when she appeared before the regular judiciary oversight hearing back on April 30 and the questions were propounded to her about these commercials on both sides, Republican and Democrat-- Republican commercials extolling the virtues of Senator Dole, and Democrat commercials extolling the virtues of President Clinton, and knocking each other in reverse. Those were somehow viewed as being issue commercials as opposed to advocacy commercials. The question I take up with my colleague at this point, which is a corollary to the soft money, is whether the soft money would really have so much effect, and whether we couldn't contain it by congressional enactment on the question of constitutionality. I would be interested in the answer to two questions of the Senator, the distinguished lawyer Senator Thompson. If we said that--short of saying vote for President Clinton or vote against Senator Dole, instead if the likeness appears and the language is very strong urging the election of one and the defeat of another, I ask if that would satisfy constitutional muster, in the Senator's opinion, and what effect that would have on limiting the utility of all this soft money that we found in the 1996 Presidential election?

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator will yield further, on the issue of so- called independent expenditures, they appear in many cases--if not most--not to be independent at all, and that there is, in fact, coordination. Some people on the independent expenditure group are members of the candidate's staff collaterally, and there is good reason to flout the law because the remedies taken by the Federal Election Commission are often very late and very ineffectual. One piece of legislation that is pending would sharpen the requirements as to independent expenditures, calling for a tough affidavit with strong penalties, in addition to the regular perjury penalties, for the person who makes the so-called independent expenditure. And then finally, the FEC would require a corollary affidavit by the candidate on whose behalf the expenditure was made and the campaign committee to try to do something with teeth in it to stop the so-called independent expenditures, which are in fact coordinated. Would my colleague think that would be of some help to stop that pernicious practice?

Mr. SPECTER. Would my distinguished colleague yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose of engaging the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. Mr. President, I would suggest that the U.S. Forest Service consider the possibility of funding the following three projects, all of which would enhance visitors' experiences in the Allegheny National Forest. The first project is for the construction of a central office in Marienville, Pennsylvania. For more than a decade, the Allegheny National Forest has requested funding to carry out this project. Currently, Allegheny National Forest Service employees work out of two small office buildings, a trailer, and two warehouses located separately from the district office. Construction of a central office will help alleviate additional travel and communications costs as well as improve the efficiencies in work coordination. The second project involves the rehabilitation of three boat-access campgrounds on the Allegheny Reservoir. These sites were constructed in the 1960s, but they have each outlived their expected life spans. Completion of this project would go a long way to improving access for the estimated 11,800 visitors who use these campsites each year. The last project concerns rehabilitation of the Buckaloons Recreation Area. This area is located within the designated Wild and Scenic River corridor of the Allegheny River. I am advised that visitors' complaints focus on water facilities, parking, and access to the area. The funds needed for this project would improve the Buckaloons Recreation Area to allow Pennsylvanians and others to more fully enjoy the Allegheny National Forest. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleague from Washington to address these three important funding issues.