Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Jim Sourwine and Mr. Jack Chow, detailees to this committee, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, that subject came up in Judiciary Committee oversight with the Attorney General testifying the day before, on April 30, where the commercials extol one candidate, criticize another, and, yet, are not considered to be advocacy commercials. The first point of the legislation which I am preparing would end soft money. The second point would define express advocacy to enforce the intent of the Federal election laws to prevent coordinated campaigns and to say where a commercial praises a named candidate or criticizes a named candidate, that that does constitute express advocacy. The third provision on legislation that I am preparing would require affidavits on so-called independent expenditures. In Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court of the United States said that as a matter of constitutional law Congress could not limit what an individual wanted to spend on the campaign--for example, Senator X or Presidential candidate Y--if they were truly independent. But the reality of many of these independent expenditures, if not most, is that they are not independent at all. After surveying the scene and thinking about it, my legislation would require an affidavit to be taken by the individual who is making the independent expenditure, or the head of the committee making independent expenditure, that the expenditure is truly independent. If someone sits down and reads an affidavit, takes an oath and understands that person is subject to the penalties of perjury, there may be a little more credibility or more attention paid to what is said. If you go to jail for 5 years, that may make someone pause on a representation that an expenditure is independent. Then my legislation would provide 48 hours after that affidavit is filed, the individual making the independent expenditure would have 24 hours to file the affidavit, and then within 48 hours file the affidavit with the Federal Election Commission. And then within 48 hours the Federal Election Commission would give that affidavit to the campaign on whose behalf the expenditure was made. And then the candidate and the campaign treasury would have to take an affidavit that the expenditure in question is truly independent. If people are prepared to take affidavits, both the person making the expenditure and the person committing on whose behalf the expenditure is made, we might see some independent expenditures which are truly independent. The fourth provision in the bill, which I intend to offer and hopefully becomes statute, would eliminate foreign transactions which funnel money into the U.S. campaigns. This would be along the line of-- we heard the testimony as to what happened in the famous transaction where the former Republican National Chairman, Mr. Haley Barbour, testified. There, if you collapse the transaction, money did come from a foreign source into the Republican National Committee. I think that Mr. Barbour got bad advice as to what was going on there, and details of that evidence show that when advice of counsel was obtained that the transaction was lawful. It was on the condition that the money not go to a political committee. But, in fact, that is what happened. The attorney who received that letter, saying that the legitimacy of the transaction would depend upon the money not going to a political committee, testified at our Governmental Affairs Committee that he didn't notice that provision, even though a letter was to him, or read that provision. The letter was, in fact, going to someone else. So that, if we tighten up on that provision so that the transaction is viewed as a whole, those kinds of foreign contributions would be eliminated. A fifth provision of the legislation which I will propose would seek to deter massive spending of personal wealth which adopts a new standby financing framework similar to the one recently enacted in Maine, the State represented by our distinguished Presiding Officer at the moment. Buckley versus Valeo provides as a constitutional matter that an individual may spend as much of his or her money as he or she chooses. For many years, Senator Hollings and I have sought to have a constitutional amendment. That split decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in my opinion, does not accurately state what is meant by ``freedom of speech.'' Freedom of speech does not give, in my judgment, the right of an individual to spend as much of his or her money as he or she may choose when the Supreme Court acknowledges at the same time that any other individual may be limited by what that individual may give to a Senator's campaign--$1,000 in the primary, or $1,000 in a general election. I personally was running against Senator Heinz for the U.S. Senate seat in 1976 on a campaign which started with a limitation as to how much money an individual could spend. For a State the size of Pennsylvania it was $35,000, which was close to my amassed wealth. I was prepared to spend it. In the middle of that campaign, on the end of January 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States said that an individual could spend as much of his or her money as he or she chose but that my brother, Morton Specter, who could have financed my campaign rather generously had he chosen to do so, and I think was prepared to do so, was limited to $1,000. Where were Morton Specter's constitutional rights for freedom of speech contrasted with the rights of a candidate? But that is the constitutional law. But Maine has a very interesting way of handling excessive spending by providing matching funds to candidates when an opponent exceeds certain spending limits. I personally oppose public financing of Federal elections. But I think in a situation where a wealthy individual knew that a multimillion-dollar expenditure would be matched by the State, it would be a deterrence, and, in fact, the State would not have to put up that money. I think that provision is well worth considering. The final provision of the statute which I have in mind would subject contributions for legal defense funds to be reported. And our Governmental Affairs Committee has heard incredible testimony about moneys brought in by Mr. Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie, something in the neighborhood of $639,000. He brought it in to the trustees of the President's legal campaign fund. Those moneys were not subject to any reporting requirements. And an article, which appeared in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, points out how these suspect funds were known, and that reporting was delayed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I see no other Senator on the floor seeking recognition, so I will amplify my remarks at this time about the concerns which I have on the congressional oversight and the need for additional congressional oversight on the incidents arising out of Ruby Ridge. Mr. President, the incident at Ruby Ridge has been very heavily publicized. And there have been a number of investigations on this subject. And investigations are continuing at the present time. This incident occurred back on August 21, 1992, which is more than 5 years ago. With the possible exception of the incident at Waco, this incident at Ruby Ridge has caused tremendous consternation with respect to action by the Federal Government. The essential events at Ruby Ridge were that a man named Randy Weaver had been arrested for selling two sawed-off shotguns and had not made his court appearances. A large contingent of Federal law enforcement officers went to his home at Ruby Ridge in Idaho to take Mr. Randy Weaver into custody. It is a very complex matter, a very lengthy matter. I will only summarize the essential factors. A firefight broke out on August 21, 1992. In the course of that firefight, a Federal marshall, deputy marshall, Mr. William Degan, was killed, 14-year-old Sammy Weaver, son of Mr. Randy Weaver and Mrs. Vicki Weaver, was killed, and Mrs. Vicki Weaver was killed. The large force which had assembled there to take Mr. Randy Weaver into custody did so because of reports by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency, which were false, that there had been prior convictions as to Mr. Randy Weaver--and he had not been convicted of anything--and that Mr. Weaver was a suspect in bank robbery cases, which is untrue. The essential findings, the essential overstatements, were summarized by FBI Director Louis Freeh, who testified at our Judiciary subcommittee hearings on October 19, 1995, as follows: ``One misstatement of fact exaggerated to another one, into a huge pile of information that was just dead wrong.'' As a result of those erroneous statements, this firefight occurred and these deaths occurred. There have been a number of investigations conducted. Most recently, a brief report was filed by the Department of Justice on Ruby Ridge, which is only a small part of the full report which was filed. This one is eight pages. It was issued back on August 15. In the course of this report, there is a notation of some six prior investigations on this matter. There had been an exhaustive report by the Department of Justice task force that was issued on June 10, 1994. There was an investigation conducted by the FBI Inspection Division. There was an investigation initiated by the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, following a letter from special agent Eugene Glenn, who was the on-scene commander in Idaho. He was an FBI agent in charge in Idaho. Then the Judiciary subcommittee conducted its inquiry, and then there was an investigation conducted by U.S. attorney Michael Stiles, who is the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. He took over for the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Mr. Eric Holder had recused himself because he knew some of the agents who were involved. I had expressed my own concern on a number of occasions about the length of time that the Department of Justice investigation was taking because there were a number of FBI officials who had been suspended, with pay, and were simply sitting dormant. Based upon the knowledge that I had of this incident, because of the hearings which we had through the Judiciary subcommittee, it seems to me that the matter should have been concluded a long time ago. Our subcommittee held 14 days of hearings from September 6 to October 19, 1995, heard testimony from 62 witnesses, interviewed many others, reviewed thousands of documents, including the entire transcripts and exhibits from the trial of Mr. Randy Weaver and Mr. Kevin Harris and various internal reports prepared by the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Based upon that detailed knowledge of this incident, it seemed to me, and also based on the experience I have had as district of attorney in Philadelphia in some background investigations, this is a matter that should have been concluded a long time ago. I took this matter up on many occasions with the Attorney General and, in fact, back on November 25, 1996, I called for a meeting and had one in my office with Attorney General Reno, then Deputy Attorney General Gorelick and U.S. Attorney Michael Stiles on November 25, 1996. I continued to discuss this on many occasions to Attorney General Reno and Deputy Attorney General Gorelick and U.S. Attorney Stiles, and as illustrative of my ongoing concern, wrote to them on February 26, 1997, as follows: Dear Attorney General Reno: I again express to you my deep concern about the long delay of the Department of Justice in completing the investigation of certain FBI officials arising out of the incidents of Ruby Ridge. As you know, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism completed exhaustive hearings in September and October of 1995 and published a voluminous 154-page report in December 1995. I expressed my concern to you on the Department of Justice delay months ago and met on this subject with you and Deputy Attorney General Gorelick and Michael Stiles on November 25, 1996. I would appreciate your prompt response on when you expect this investigation to be completed. I had a response from the Attorney General that it would be completed soon. I then brought it up again with her in Department of Justice oversight hearings on April 30, 1997, and again was told that it would be completed soon. Then this Department of Justice abbreviated report was, as I say, submitted on August 22, but it is not the conclusion of the matter because there has been a referral here to the Department of Justice Management Division which will propose what, if any, disciplinary sanctions should be imposed on the individuals under investigation and also to the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility, which had been investigating this matter back in August of 1995. So the matter is still ongoing and incomplete so far as the Department of Justice is concerned. When I sought to have subcommittee hearings back in the summer of 1995, that was opposed in a number of quarters, including the Department of Justice. We finally moved ahead, but because of the August recess, we scheduled for immediately after Labor Day, and then in late August, we proceeded with our subcommittee hearings. It is not an easy thing to do when there is a public statement by the Deputy Attorney General that Senate action will impede the ongoing investigation. That has a certain political overtone which is very difficult to move against. But we did, and I think our investigation has spurred more activity by the Department of Justice because it was our inquiry on the so-called rules of engagement which led to further the Department of Justice investigation. I should say, Mr. President, that it is not possible to outline all of the things which have happened in this matter, but in the Federal trial which was completed against Mr. Randy Weaver and Mr. Kevin Harris, both were acquitted. One of the issues which was an outgrowth of that Federal trial was the activity of one of the key FBI agents to destroy a record which had been ordered to be produced by the Federal judge. That individual is now awaiting sentencing. In October of 1996, Special Agent E. Michael Kahoe, of the FBI's Violent Crimes and Major Offenders Section, was charged with and later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice relating to his destruction of an FBI after- action critique on the Ruby Ridge matter. He is scheduled for sentencing on September 11. The FBI has had an extraordinary record for law enforcement in this country and abroad, and I think it has been a very, very important law enforcement agency. From time to time there are problems with the FBI, as there are with any agency, but it certainly is a matter of overwhelming concern for someone who has the responsibility of being the chief of the Violent Crimes and Major Offenders Section who destroys a report ordered to be produced by a Federal judge. That is the case here. There are other major matters which our subcommittee looked into and which have been investigated by the Department of Justice where they concluded they did not have sufficient evidence to charge two other senior FBI officials with criminal conduct on falsifying the so-called rules of engagement which were a part of the controversy at Ruby Ridge. The rules of engagement provided that if any adult is observed with a weapon prior to surrender announcement, deadly force can and should be employed if the shot can be taken without endangering any children. The second aspect: if any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual. Mr. President, those rules of engagement, simply stated, violate the U.S. Constitution. That was the judgment of the Department of Justice task force. That was the judgment of the Judiciary subcommittee, and that was the judgment of the FBI Director, Louis Freeh, that those rules did violate the constitutional standard for use of deadly force. You just cannot do that in America. To the credit of FBI Director Louis Freeh, those rules of engagement were changed and the procedures of the hostage rescue team were changed. We have yet to see an acknowledgment by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms unit of their inappropriate conduct in this matter, either from the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, or the director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms unit, John Magaw. I know that is a strong statement, but that happens to be the fact. I have met personally with Mr. Rubin and Mr. Magaw, and they have not taken responsibility for what the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency did in this matter, which was spread false information about Mr. Weaver with respect to saying he had prior convictions, which he had not, and saying he was a suspect in a bank robbery case, which he was not. In any event, Mr. President, the matter goes on in the eight-page report which has been filed by the Department of Justice. As the saying goes, more questions are raised than are answered. I have made a request to see the entire report and am told that will not be made available until the Office of Professional Responsibility finishes its work, and that may occur at some point in the future, which is very, very difficult to predict. At any rate, we have this eight-page report, and as I say, it raised a good many new questions. The scope of the investigation conducted by the Department of Justice, headed by U.S. Attorney Stiles, has this to say under the section of Scope of the Criminal Investigation: The investigative team used a variety of techniques to collect all available evidence in this matter. They gathered large amounts of documented material that had never come to light during prior internal inquiries into the events at Ruby Ridge. Now, the question was raised in my mind, if these documents had not come to light on prior internal inquiries into the events at Ruby Ridge, why not? The question is raised in my mind as to whether the FBI made available to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee all of the documents which we had requested. This report goes on to say, ``The FBI offices were searched, and more than half a million pages of documents were obtained and analyzed, including previously unreviewed files containing the bulk of the FBI headquarters' records, including files of the FBI's Strategic Information and Operations Section and the Violent Crimes and Major Offenders Section.'' So a question is raised immediately as to whether the Department of Justice task force which worked back in 1994 and whether the FBI Inspections Division and whether the prior investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility and whether the Senate hearings which called for all of these documents, whether those documents were produced at that time. This is just a brief thumbnail description as to some of the questions that we have and that are pending yet. My sense is that it is indispensable that the Judiciary Committee move ahead with the inquiry that was conducted back in 1995 to find out specifically why it took the Department of Justice approximately 2 years to come to this stage of their inquiry and take a look at the findings that led to a declination of prosecution as to some individuals in the face of what appears to be significant evidence on a falsification of the rules of engagement. We do know that at the hearings conducted in 1995, there was another set of rules of engagement which discussed a permissive use of force, specifically noting where deadly force may be used. During the course of our subcommittee hearings, we could never determine precisely who issued the rules of engagement because no one would take responsibility for them. But the way this investigation has been conducted by the Department of Justice, certainly in my judgment, urgently requires congressional oversight. We know that the prosecuting attorney of Boundary County has now issued an indictment against a special agent sharpshooter, whose firing resulted in the death of Mrs. Vicki Weaver, on charges of involuntary manslaughter. Had I been the prosecuting attorney there, I would not have brought that prosecution, under all the facts of the case. I have been a district attorney and have made judgments that involve when a prosecution ought to be brought. But I can understand why the district attorney of Boundary County brought the charges in light of the bad bungling that the Department of Justice has made of this case. And there are many, many collateral matters that have not yet been answered satisfactorily. The Attorney General approved the promotion of Mr. Potts to be Deputy Director of the FBI, in a context where red flags were present about Mr. Potts' qualifications for that job, being a very close personal friend of FBI Director Freeh. That was inquired into at some length during the Judiciary subcommittee hearings, but we did not have the benefit of the Attorney General's testimony in that matter. She took the position that she does not testify before subcommittees because there are so many subcommittees. The point the subcommittee raised at that time was that we were not asking her opinion on a variety of legislative issues where there are so many issues and subcommittees, but we asked for her testimony as a fact witness as to why she personally approved the promotion of Mr. Potts. But she declined to appear. We declined to issue a subpoena or have a confrontation on the issue. When I discussed this personally with the Attorney General, she restated her position and said maybe she should have appeared. I told her at that time, months ago, she might have occasion to appear yet. I hope that she does have occasion to appear on the questions relating to many issues in this very complex matter, because as stated in the statement issued by U.S. Attorney Stiles, this was approved by the Department of Justice and, inferentially, by the Attorney General herself. These are matters that have to be inquired into. On the subject of having this matter now taken to the Office of Professional Responsibility, I have grave questions about what will happen there and what the time sequence will be, and their explanation as to why they took so long is there are many statutory requirements that may be reviewed by the Congress. The incident involving William Jewel in Atlanta occurred back in July 1996, and it took a full year to get oversight hearings before the subcommittee on that matter. Those hearings did not do any credit to the Office of Professional Responsibility, where Mr. Shaheen, the director of that unit, testified. Mr. Shaheen testified that Mr. Jewel's constitutional rights were violated, but it was nowhere in the report. I asked the very fundamental question, ``Why doesn't the report say so?'' It is one thing to testify before a subcommittee that the constitutional rights of a suspect were violated. But to fail to do so in the report does not give guidance to other agents in the field. It was in the context that Mr. Jewel was told he was being questioned for a training film purpose, and he was misled by the FBI agents under those circumstances. It was later concluded that his Miranda rights had been violated. In a repeated line of questioning, Mr. Shaheen could not cite any part of the report that said that. He cited sections of the report that did not say what he said he said, and he admitted that. Then, after the hearing was over, on the same day, Mr. Shaheen sent me a two-page letter saying that he had misspoken, that the Office of Professional Responsibility had not in fact found that Mr. Jewel's constitutional rights had been violated--a conclusion which is a little hard to understand in light of his extensive testimony on this subject. Madam President, this is a very important matter. As I have said earlier, it is a matter which is still resonating in America. I was in Pennsylvania, at my open house town meetings on the 13th, 14th and 15th, when the report came out that the Department of Justice would not bring any prosecutions and a week later when the prosecuting attorney of Boundary County, ID, brought the indictments against Kevin Harris for murder in the first degree against Deputy Marshal William Degan and involuntary manslaughter against Special Agent Horiuchi. It is my hope that we will continue this inquiry with congressional oversight, because only the Congress can really undertake the kind of questioning of department heads, the Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, or the Director of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or the Secretary of Treasury, of that rank, to find out what has happened, so that we can tell the American people what the facts are. There is tremendous unrest on this subject, which is part of the unrest and distrust of Government that I have referred to earlier, confirmed by the earlier public opinion poll. Madam President, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 must echo the comments of my colleague from Pennsylvania with respect to the National Education Center for Women in Business, which provides invaluable services to women from all over this country to encourage the establishment and growth of businesses. The Center's programs are truly in the national interest and as a member of the Appropriations Committee I have been pleased to work with my colleague, Senator Santorum, and Congressman Mascara in support of the Center and its funding needs. The federal funds we have sought are necessary to bring the Center to a position of self- sufficiency where it can operate solely with private funds in the future.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to vote in favor of the Taxpayer Relief Act, which will provide the first significant tax cut to working Americans in 16 years. Although I still believe that we ought to move to a system of a fairer, flatter tax without myriad exemptions and deductions, this bill represents an important first step toward relieving the tax burden on working Americans and families. This tax bill provides a net tax reduction of $96 billion over 5 years while remaining on a glide path toward a balanced budget. Specifically, I am pleased that the final package includes a $500 per child tax credit, tax incentives for education, including education IRA's, a modified Hope Scholarship and tax free treatment of State prepaid tuition plans. It also takes important steps toward expanding participation in IRA's, a reduction in the capital gains tax and AMT, and incentives for small business by reinstatement of the home office business deduction and an acceleration in the phase in of the self- employed health insurance deduction. On estate taxes, an area where I have long believed that we must have relief, this bill would help family farmers and small businesses by increasing the exclusion to $1.3 million. It would also increase the exclusion for families to $1 million over 10 years. In conclusion, Mr. President when combined with the budget savings bill passed earlier today, we have made real progress on putting our financial house in order and providing necessary tax relief to millions of Americans. repeal of limit on sec. 501(c)(3) bonds

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the historic legislation we are considering today, which will have profound effects throughout our Nation as we near the first balanced Federal budget since 1969. As a longtime supporter of the balanced budget constitutional amendment and the line-item veto, I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to reflect on the significance of this occasion. I think the 5-year glide path to a balanced budget is very important for America. I think the two big priorities for America today are education and health care. I like what is being done here and in the tax reconciliation bill we will be considering, but I remain a little worried about our seniors. We might have to make some modifications for their benefit in the future after we see how some of these changes are implemented. I will be keeping a close eye on this issue as I travel in Pennsylvania's 67 counties, where we have more than 2 million senior citizens. From the beginning, I have said that a balanced budget could only become reality with support from the center. There is now a feeling around Congress that the American people are sick of all the bickering and they have asked us for action on the issues that mean the most to them, chief among them balancing our Nation's budget. Since 1995, I have worked with the Chafee-Breaux centrist coalition to try to reconcile the differences between the two parties on the major entitlement and tax issues which we needed to address if we were going to achieve a balanced budget. I was proud of my association with this group of 22 Senators, which got 46 votes for its substitute budget resolution in 1996 and showed that there was bipartisan support for a centrist-oriented plan. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 represents what I have been saying for several years, that the budget can be balanced without leaving a bad taste in the minds of the public toward Republicans. It can be done without appearing insensitive toward the poor, elderly, children, and without appearing unconcerned with education, health care, and the environment. The budget agreement reflected in this legislation represents the traditional Republican objective of balancing spending and revenues and reflects my approach of moderation within fiscal conservatism, or what has been termed compassionate conservatism. I would not further that this legislation reflects my preference for cutting with a scalpel, not a meat ax. As chairman and ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, in the past 2 years Senator Harkin and I have succeeded in terminating 126 programs totaling $1.4 billion using this scalpel approach. The patience that has been demonstrated by our Budget Committee chairman, Senator Pete Domenici and the other key budget negotiators reflects their action to achieve the level of savings needed to bring the budget into balance. Throughout the budget process, I have sought to work with my colleagues to protect programs and funding which was particularly important to groups of Americans least able to fend for themselves. In particular, I am pleased to note that the Conference Report includes the $1.5 billion in Medicare premium subsidies which are essential for the estimated 3.2 million American seniors who earn in the area of $9,000 to $12,000 annually. I initiated an effort with several of my Republican colleagues to restore these funds when they were initially left out of this bill as reported out of the Finance Committee. After five of us wrote Majority Leader Trent Lott to urge that the funds be restored to the bill, the leadership accepted our request and added the $1.5 billion. Once the funds were restored, however, I still had some concerns about the allocation of these funds and whether the subsidies would continue as long as the premium increases. During Senate floor consideration of the bill, I was pleased to offer an amendment cosponsored by Senator Rockefeller, Santorum, Snowe, Collins, and Campbell to make the premium subsidies permanent as is the premium increase. Although a majority of Senators voted with us, the amendment only received 52 of the 60 votes needed to meet certain Budget Act procedural requirements and thus failed to be accepted. Among the reforms I supported in the Medicare Program is the expanded array of choices from which beneficiaries can obtain coverage. These new Medicare Plus plans will include traditional fee-for-service, provider sponsored organizations, medical savings accounts, private plan/health maintenance organizations, and preferred provider organizations. Beneficiaries will be given the freedom to choose the option which best meets their health care needs. I have also supported the addition of $4 billion in preventive health services to the Medicare benefit package, such as coverage of annual screening for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, bone density screening, and diabetes self-management services that would include nutrition therapy and blood testing strips. This legislation is designed to protect the solvency of Medicare for 10 more years. I view this program as part of our social contract with our senior and believe that we must keep our noses to the grindstone to develop a means of permanently protecting Medicare so that it remains available to provide adequate health care for future generations of American seniors. Another group of Americans I have sought to help in the budget process are children who do not have access to adequate health care. I am quite pleased that the $24 billion child health program included in this legislation has the potential to cover over 5 million children of the working poor who currently lack health insurance. My Healthy Children's Pilot Program Act of 1997 [S. 435] was the first Republican bill introduced in the 105th Congress which sought to bridge this glaring gap in the Nation's health care system. Although I believe that we could have provided such coverage through a discretionary spending program that relied on the States to implement creative new programs, I fully support the program established under the Balanced Budget Act, which will direct $24 billion over 5 years to States for the purpose of providing health care to children in low income families who earn too much for Medicaid, but too little to be able to purchase health insurance. One specific concern of mine as Congress crafted this legislation centered around ensuring that Pennsylvania's vanguard Caring and BlueCHIP children's health programs were protected rather than superseded by a new Federal bureaucracy. I am pleased to see that this bill specifically grandfathers Pennsylvania's programs, recognizing them as examples of success and innovation. During consideration of the Senate version of this legislation, there were several provisions I could not support and I am pleased that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 does not contain them. In particular, these were the provisions to extend the Medicare age of eligibility from 65 to 67, to impose new copayments on Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health services, and to means-test Medicare premiums. As the final compromise legislation demonstrates, it is possible to reach the goal of a balanced budget while also protecting access to quality health care, affordability, and choice in the Medicare program. This bill will also begin what I hope is a bipartisan process to address the long term implications of the baby boom generation for the Medicare program by establishing a Medicare Commission which will report to Congress with recommendations on how to ensure Medicare program solvency well into the 21st Century. Another issue which I have worked on is preserving funding for Pennsylvania under the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital Program, which reimburses States for their payments to hospitals for medical treatment for low income Americans. Of particular importance to Pennsylvania were the proposed restrictions on the use of funds by States to reimburse Institutes of Mental Disease [IMD's]. While we were able to convince Chairman Roth to delay the restrictions by 1 year during Senate floor consideration of the bill, I continue to be troubled that this legislation unfairly penalizes Pennsylvania by limiting its ability to spend Federal resources on IMD's. I have worked with Gov. Tom Ridge and Senator Rick Santorum to seek modifications to these legislative provisions and would note that Pennsylvania faced losses of as much as $1.7 billion under an early draft of the Medicaid reform proposal and will instead face reductions in the area of $131 million. I am not satisfied with the proposed reforms in this program and, since the IMD restrictions do not go into effect until fiscal year 2000, I will work closely with Governor Ridge and Senator Santorum to see what we can do to ensure that Pennsylvania receives its fair share of Medicaid DSH funds in the outyears. In closing, I would note that as with any comprehensive reform legislation, it will take some time to determine what, if any, modifications will be needed to ensure that we protect seniors, children, and others who rely on the Federal and State programs that constitute our social safety net. However, on the whole, this is a good piece of legislation which moves us toward the goal of balancing the Federal budget by 2002.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the Victim Protection Act of 1997. I commend my colleague, Representative Joseph Pitts, for his leadership in preparing this legislation which he is introducing today in the House of Representatives. This legislation arises from the case of Commonwealth versus Lisa Michelle Lambert where the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights and issued an order barring the defendant from a retrial. The Congress has the authority to legislate under Article V of the 14th amendment which provides: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This legislation is designed to prevent the U.S. District Courts from ordering a remedy to bar a new trial. This legislation respects the authority of the Federal courts to uphold a defendant's constitutional rights in State court criminal proceedings. It may well be that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will act to reverse the order barring a retrial. Whatever action is taken in the case of Commonwealth versus Lisa Michelle Lambert, the Federal habeas corpus law should be clear that U.S. District Courts do not have the authority to bar a retrial. Under our Federal system, it should be--and this bill will establish the statutory authority--for the district attorney in Lancaster County to make the judgment whether the unsuppressed evidence is sufficient for a retrial. It would then be up to the court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to make the first judicial judgment on the retrial issues with appropriate appellate procedures in the Superior and Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania. This principled approach respects judicial independence. When the District Court issued its opinion, there was an immediate public outcry for impeachment. At that time, I said and I repeat today, impeachment is not an appropriate response. The appropropriate response is an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which will review the matter. A further appropriate response is legislation to make the statute explicit that the district court may not impose a remedy to bar a new trial. This bill would not affect the otherwise extensive authority of the U.S. District Courts to protect rights where constitutional issues are raised. Obviously, a statute could not deal with the defendant's constitutional rights. That would require a constitutional amendment. However, this bill on the issue of retrial is within the purview of appropriate legislation pursuant to Article V of the 14th amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to address aviation safety concerns which arise out of the proliferation of aircraft repair facilities outside the United States which are used by airplanes that fly within our Nation every day. This legislation would change current regulations so that U.S. aircraft are repaired to the maximum extent possible by professional U.S. mechanics, properly trained and supervised, using certified parts. This bill also addresses the critical issue of substandard or uncertified airplane parts, known as bogus parts. I am pleased to be joined by 10 of my Republican and Democratic colleagues in introducing the Aircraft Repair Station Safety Act of 1997, which is similar to a bill introduced by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman Borski (H.R. 145) which currently has 135 cosponsors. A key focus for many of us in the 105th Congress is aviation safety. As a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that we spend the maximum amount possible on improving our aviation infrastructure for safety purposes, including altogether new runways, runway extension projects, and new generations of radar and landing systems. Air travel is an essential element of our lives, as millions of Americans use airplanes for personal and business trips. Our economy is deeply rooted in the success of our aviation system, which makes it even more critical that we take all necessary steps to enhance aviation safety. This legislation is intended to address a regulatory loophole created in November, 1988, when the Federal Aviation Administration promulgated new rules which weakened the restrictions on certification for foreign aircraft repair stations. The 1988 changes have resulted in a situation where FAA certification--the highest seal of approval in the world--is much too easy to obtain. Prior to those changes, a foreign repair facility had to demonstrate that there was a need to service aircraft engaged in international travel before they could get certified. But now, a station can receive FAA certification for the simple goal of attracting U.S. business. I am advised that repair stations in Tijuana, Mexico and Costa Rica applied for and received FAA certification even though few expect these locations to become new hubs for international travel. Instead, these facilities are becoming new hubs for stealing U.S. jobs and could potentially jeopardize aviation safety because of inadequacies in U.S. regulatory oversight. One example of where work performed on an aircraft at a foreign facility had significant repercussions within the United States was the 1994 engine explosion and fire on a Valujet plane on the runway at Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport, which necessitated the evacuation of the 57 passengers. According to media reports, the work was done at a Turkish repair station that lacked FAA approval, and whose shabby business practices included plating over a cracked and corroded compressor disk. Had the explosion occurred in midflight, the results could have been catastrophic. When the 1988 regulations were adopted, the FAA expected that the number of foreign repair stations it certified would rise from the level of 200 to possibly 300 or 400. I understand that there are now nearly 500 such foreign aircraft repair stations with FAA certification. This comes at a time, however, when the FAA is having enough trouble inspecting domestic repair stations and enforcing aviation safety rules within facilities in the 50 States. I find it hard to believe that the FAA has sufficient resources to adequately investigate problems at the 480 foreign aircraft repair facilities in addition to its U.S. responsibilities. I am advised that one recent phenomenon is that foreign repair facilities are being used by some U.S. carriers on a contract basis as a means of holding down costs, and some have become what have been termed virtual airlines because so little maintenance and repair work is done in-house. Instead of aircraft repair work being done at relatively few sites, countless contractors and subcontractors domestically and abroad are now filling that function. I would note that the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security stated in its Final Report of February 12, 1997 that: Considerable attention has been given to the issue of outsourcing of maintenance and other work, particularly in the wake of the Valujet crash. The Commission does not believe that outsourcing, in and of itself, presents a problem--if it is performed by qualified companies and individuals. The proper focus of concern should be on the FAA's certification and oversight of any and all companies performing aviation safety functions, including repair stations certificated by the FAA but located outside of the United States. (Emphasis added.) A problem is that under the current regulatory framework, foreign aircraft repair stations have not had to demonstrate legitimate need or to meet all the standards and procedures imposed on U.S. stations. For example, I am advised that domestic facilities and their employees must meet rigorous worker surveillance standards including broad drug and alcohol testing requirements. Many other nations seeking to compete do not have these same requirements in place or the same level of enforcement. There is also a discrepancy between the requirement that certain mechanics at a U.S. facility are certified airmen and the absence of such a mandate on certified foreign repair stations. One would think that this requirement is important enough to be imposed wherever a plane which flies within our borders is repaired and maintained. Accordingly, this legislation provides that all standards imposed on domestic repair stations and their employees must be imposed on foreign facilities and their employees. In sponsoring this legislation, I am not attempting to deprive U.S. carriers of access to foreign repair facilities when necessary. Strategically based foreign repair stations have been part of our aviation network since 1949, when it was recognized that such stations were needed for the repair of U.S. aircraft operating outside our airspace. In addition, foreign manufacturers producing FAA-approved air frames or components have traditionally been allowed to support their products. Further, it is my intention that this legislation would not hinder the repair of U.S. aircraft abroad which do not operate within the United States. This legislation would not change these accepted practices, but would give the FAA the opportunity to revisit this issue by returning the regulations governing the certification of repair stations to what they were before November, 1988. This legislation is aimed at the proliferation of foreign FAA-certified repair facilities which exist to service aircraft that, except for the cheap labor and lower regulatory oversight, would never leave the United States. This legislation would also clamp down on the possibility that aircraft repair stations would knowingly use bogus parts instead of properly certified parts. The bogus airplane parts trade has become lucrative and gives real cause for concern. The FAA and law enforcement agencies have cracked down in recent years, resulting in 130 indictments across the country as of May, 1997 of people suspected of being dealers of bogus airplane parts. In one troubling media account, when an American Airlines plane crashed in Colombia in 1995, salvagers extracted valuable components from the plane before even all the bodies were collected and the parts were offered for sale in Miami shortly thereafter. Under this bill, if a facility is found to have knowingly used bogus parts, the FAA will revoke its certification. In closing, I want to reiterate that the Aircraft Repair Station Safety Act of 1997 is a sensible approach to increased aviation safety. This is more than just a jobs issue; peoples lives and our economy are at stake. At a time when the FAA's resources are stretched thin, I do not believe it is in the public interest to continue to certify foreign aircraft repair facilities which we cannot observe or regulate adequately. I look forward to working with the members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on this issue, as well as the carriers, both passenger and cargo, which operate under current regulations and whom I hope will support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to address aviation safety concerns which arise out of the proliferation of aircraft repair facilities outside the United States which are used by airplanes that fly within our Nation every day. This legislation would change current regulations so that U.S. aircraft are repaired to the maximum extent possible by professional U.S. mechanics, properly trained and supervised, using certified parts. This bill also addresses the critical issue of substandard or uncertified airplane parts, known as bogus parts. I am pleased to be joined by 10 of my Republican and Democratic colleagues in introducing the Aircraft Repair Station Safety Act of 1997, which is similar to a bill introduced by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman Borski (H.R. 145) which currently has 135 cosponsors. A key focus for many of us in the 105th Congress is aviation safety. As a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that we spend the maximum amount possible on improving our aviation infrastructure for safety purposes, including altogether new runways, runway extension projects, and new generations of radar and landing systems. Air travel is an essential element of our lives, as millions of Americans use airplanes for personal and business trips. Our economy is deeply rooted in the success of our aviation system, which makes it even more critical that we take all necessary steps to enhance aviation safety. This legislation is intended to address a regulatory loophole created in November, 1988, when the Federal Aviation Administration promulgated new rules which weakened the restrictions on certification for foreign aircraft repair stations. The 1988 changes have resulted in a situation where FAA certification--the highest seal of approval in the world--is much too easy to obtain. Prior to those changes, a foreign repair facility had to demonstrate that there was a need to service aircraft engaged in international travel before they could get certified. But now, a station can receive FAA certification for the simple goal of attracting U.S. business. I am advised that repair stations in Tijuana, Mexico and Costa Rica applied for and received FAA certification even though few expect these locations to become new hubs for international travel. Instead, these facilities are becoming new hubs for stealing U.S. jobs and could potentially jeopardize aviation safety because of inadequacies in U.S. regulatory oversight. One example of where work performed on an aircraft at a foreign facility had significant repercussions within the United States was the 1994 engine explosion and fire on a Valujet plane on the runway at Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport, which necessitated the evacuation of the 57 passengers. According to media reports, the work was done at a Turkish repair station that lacked FAA approval, and whose shabby business practices included plating over a cracked and corroded compressor disk. Had the explosion occurred in midflight, the results could have been catastrophic. When the 1988 regulations were adopted, the FAA expected that the number of foreign repair stations it certified would rise from the level of 200 to possibly 300 or 400. I understand that there are now nearly 500 such foreign aircraft repair stations with FAA certification. This comes at a time, however, when the FAA is having enough trouble inspecting domestic repair stations and enforcing aviation safety rules within facilities in the 50 States. I find it hard to believe that the FAA has sufficient resources to adequately investigate problems at the 480 foreign aircraft repair facilities in addition to its U.S. responsibilities. I am advised that one recent phenomenon is that foreign repair facilities are being used by some U.S. carriers on a contract basis as a means of holding down costs, and some have become what have been termed virtual airlines because so little maintenance and repair work is done in-house. Instead of aircraft repair work being done at relatively few sites, countless contractors and subcontractors domestically and abroad are now filling that function. I would note that the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security stated in its Final Report of February 12, 1997 that: Considerable attention has been given to the issue of outsourcing of maintenance and other work, particularly in the wake of the Valujet crash. The Commission does not believe that outsourcing, in and of itself, presents a problem--if it is performed by qualified companies and individuals. The proper focus of concern should be on the FAA's certification and oversight of any and all companies performing aviation safety functions, including repair stations certificated by the FAA but located outside of the United States. (Emphasis added.) A problem is that under the current regulatory framework, foreign aircraft repair stations have not had to demonstrate legitimate need or to meet all the standards and procedures imposed on U.S. stations. For example, I am advised that domestic facilities and their employees must meet rigorous worker surveillance standards including broad drug and alcohol testing requirements. Many other nations seeking to compete do not have these same requirements in place or the same level of enforcement. There is also a discrepancy between the requirement that certain mechanics at a U.S. facility are certified airmen and the absence of such a mandate on certified foreign repair stations. One would think that this requirement is important enough to be imposed wherever a plane which flies within our borders is repaired and maintained. Accordingly, this legislation provides that all standards imposed on domestic repair stations and their employees must be imposed on foreign facilities and their employees. In sponsoring this legislation, I am not attempting to deprive U.S. carriers of access to foreign repair facilities when necessary. Strategically based foreign repair stations have been part of our aviation network since 1949, when it was recognized that such stations were needed for the repair of U.S. aircraft operating outside our airspace. In addition, foreign manufacturers producing FAA-approved air frames or components have traditionally been allowed to support their products. Further, it is my intention that this legislation would not hinder the repair of U.S. aircraft abroad which do not operate within the United States. This legislation would not change these accepted practices, but would give the FAA the opportunity to revisit this issue by returning the regulations governing the certification of repair stations to what they were before November, 1988. This legislation is aimed at the proliferation of foreign FAA-certified repair facilities which exist to service aircraft that, except for the cheap labor and lower regulatory oversight, would never leave the United States. This legislation would also clamp down on the possibility that aircraft repair stations would knowingly use bogus parts instead of properly certified parts. The bogus airplane parts trade has become lucrative and gives real cause for concern. The FAA and law enforcement agencies have cracked down in recent years, resulting in 130 indictments across the country as of May, 1997 of people suspected of being dealers of bogus airplane parts. In one troubling media account, when an American Airlines plane crashed in Colombia in 1995, salvagers extracted valuable components from the plane before even all the bodies were collected and the parts were offered for sale in Miami shortly thereafter. Under this bill, if a facility is found to have knowingly used bogus parts, the FAA will revoke its certification. In closing, I want to reiterate that the Aircraft Repair Station Safety Act of 1997 is a sensible approach to increased aviation safety. This is more than just a jobs issue; peoples lives and our economy are at stake. At a time when the FAA's resources are stretched thin, I do not believe it is in the public interest to continue to certify foreign aircraft repair facilities which we cannot observe or regulate adequately. I look forward to working with the members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on this issue, as well as the carriers, both passenger and cargo, which operate under current regulations and whom I hope will support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to address the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee regarding the issue of funding for an innovative research project aimed at developing a child size crash test dummy which will be undertaken by a collaborative private sector group that includes several Pennsylvania universities. The project will develop a new crash test dummy particularly suited for research on automobile occupant safety because it will generate data on children's unique biological features and the behavior of children under crash conditions. I am advised that the House has provided $100,000 for this purpose within the budget for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Would the distinguished chairman be willing to work with me and our House counterparts to explore funding for this important safety initiative?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is with a particular sense of privilege that I introduce legislation today to confer the status of honorary veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces to Leslie Townes (Bob) Hope. If any person in this country merits such an unprecedented honor--and Mr. President, it is my understanding that no person has ever before been conferred the status of honorary veteran--surely, it is Bob Hope. Bob Hope's contributions to this Nation--and, particularly, to its soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen--are well known to all of our citizens. Less well known to many is the fact that Bob Hope is a naturalized U.S. citizen, having emigrated to this country from England when Bob was just a boy. I am the son of a naturalized American--an immigrant who walked across Europe with barely a ruble in his pocket so that he could make his way to this country. So I know first hand that a person of humble origins can scale the heights of this country. Few, though, have scaled the heights that Bob Hope has scaled. When I say Bob Hope has scaled the heights, I am not referring to his success as an actor, a comedian, or businessman--though his success in all three areas has been considerable. When I say Bob Hope has scaled the heights, I am thinking of his place in the hearts of his adopted countrymen. Who in this country is more beloved by a broader spectrum of his fellow citizens than Bob Hope--people of all ages, races, religions, and beliefs? Perhaps, none more than Bob Hope. For the past 50 years, this country's fighting men and women could count on Bob Hope to lift their spirits and morale when they faced the prospect of making the ultimate sacrifice. In World War II, in Korea, in Vietnam and, most recently, in the Persian Gulf, Bob Hope and his troupe were there to entertain the troops. More importantly, they were there to remind our fighting men and women that they were not forgotten, that their suffering was appreciated. Bob Hope was always with the troops-- especially during the holidays--enduring hardship, and often significant physical danger, so that he might encourage those facing greater hardship and danger. Three generations of veterans will never forget how much he cared. Those three generations of veterans wonder how they might properly recognize Bob Hope. He is already a recipient of the Nation's highest civilian decorations, the Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. President Carter hosted a White House reception in honor of his 75th birthday. President Clinton bestowed upon him the Medal of the Arts. He has received more than 50 honorary doctorates, and innumerable awards from civic, social, and veterans organizations. But Bob Hope cannot say that he is a veteran--in my mind, one of the most honorable appellations one can carry. This legislation will remedy that. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in supporting legislation to designate Bob Hope an honorary veteran. And I thank the former Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and the current president of the USO, Gen. Carl Mundy, for spearheading this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is with a particular sense of privilege that I introduce legislation today to confer the status of honorary veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces to Leslie Townes (Bob) Hope. If any person in this country merits such an unprecedented honor--and Mr. President, it is my understanding that no person has ever before been conferred the status of honorary veteran--surely, it is Bob Hope. Bob Hope's contributions to this Nation--and, particularly, to its soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen--are well known to all of our citizens. Less well known to many is the fact that Bob Hope is a naturalized U.S. citizen, having emigrated to this country from England when Bob was just a boy. I am the son of a naturalized American--an immigrant who walked across Europe with barely a ruble in his pocket so that he could make his way to this country. So I know first hand that a person of humble origins can scale the heights of this country. Few, though, have scaled the heights that Bob Hope has scaled. When I say Bob Hope has scaled the heights, I am not referring to his success as an actor, a comedian, or businessman--though his success in all three areas has been considerable. When I say Bob Hope has scaled the heights, I am thinking of his place in the hearts of his adopted countrymen. Who in this country is more beloved by a broader spectrum of his fellow citizens than Bob Hope--people of all ages, races, religions, and beliefs? Perhaps, none more than Bob Hope. For the past 50 years, this country's fighting men and women could count on Bob Hope to lift their spirits and morale when they faced the prospect of making the ultimate sacrifice. In World War II, in Korea, in Vietnam and, most recently, in the Persian Gulf, Bob Hope and his troupe were there to entertain the troops. More importantly, they were there to remind our fighting men and women that they were not forgotten, that their suffering was appreciated. Bob Hope was always with the troops-- especially during the holidays--enduring hardship, and often significant physical danger, so that he might encourage those facing greater hardship and danger. Three generations of veterans will never forget how much he cared. Those three generations of veterans wonder how they might properly recognize Bob Hope. He is already a recipient of the Nation's highest civilian decorations, the Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. President Carter hosted a White House reception in honor of his 75th birthday. President Clinton bestowed upon him the Medal of the Arts. He has received more than 50 honorary doctorates, and innumerable awards from civic, social, and veterans organizations. But Bob Hope cannot say that he is a veteran--in my mind, one of the most honorable appellations one can carry. This legislation will remedy that. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in supporting legislation to designate Bob Hope an honorary veteran. And I thank the former Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and the current president of the USO, Gen. Carl Mundy, for spearheading this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. In the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. As if in morning business, Mr. President, I submit the sense-of-the-Senate resolution for introduction to be considered at a later time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on the issue of independent counsel. Yesterday, I spoke about my view that independent counsel ought to be appointed and the fact that there appeared to be no chance of Attorney General Reno appointing an independent counsel, and then exploring the alternatives of litigation and the alternative of an amendment to the independent counsel statute. I stated at that time that I intended to pursue legislation to modify the independent counsel statute and had hoped to put it on the appropriations bill on Commerce, State, Justice, and the Judiciary, but would not do so if it would tie up the bill. After consultation with the distinguished majority leader and others, it was apparent to me that such an amendment would tie up the bill and most probably provoke a filibuster on the other side, and that, in fact, a unanimous-consent agreement had been proposed which was conditional on tabling any amendment which I might offer. In addition to the amendment on independent counsel, I was considering, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, offering a sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling for the Attorney General to appoint independent counsel. But even a sense-of-the-Senate resolution would have provoked a likely filibuster to tie up the bill. So I did not proceed to do that, but instead filed at the desk yesterday legislation for independent counsel, after consultation with the majority leader, who said that if an opportunity presented itself that that matter might be called up as early as next week. That would not be certain because there are considerations as to what will happen with the reconciliation bill and the tax bill. In the alternative, after discussions with Senator Hatch, the alternative has been considered to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution perhaps acted on next week, if there is time. It is the last week before the recess. But that is problematical. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the sense-of- the-Senate resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I was in the process of my contention that the commercials prepared and/or edited by President Clinton constituted express advocacy, and I asked that my letter of May 1, 1997, to Attorney General Reno be printed in the Record. I now ask that the reply from Attorney General Reno, dated June 19, 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. May I inquire of the Senator from Massachusetts, how much time he would like to have?

Mr. SPECTER. I expect to speak at some length, Senator Kerry, and to introduce an amendment to the present bill. There is a vote scheduled for 2 o'clock, and I will have a considerable amount to say, which will not all be said by the time the vote comes up.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my judgment, there is an urgent need that independent counsel be appointed to investigate and prosecute campaign finance violations arising out of the 1996 Federal elections. The efforts to persuade Attorney General Reno to make that application for independent counsel have thus far failed. It is my view that it is important to consider alternatives in order to have independent counsel appointed. In my judgment, there are two possible alternatives available. One would be a lawsuit to ask the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the appropriate panel on independent counsel, to appoint independent counsel, notwithstanding the refusal of the Attorney General to make that application. The general rule of law is that a public official may not be compelled to perform a discretionary function, an area of law which I had some experience with as district attorney of Philadelphia. However, there is a narrow ambit, even when considering a discretionary rule, where there may be an application for relief if there is an abuse of discretion by the public official. It is my legal judgment that there has been such an abuse of discretion by the Attorney General in this situation. Another alternative would be to legislate in the field, to make it abundantly plain that independent counsel should be appointed here, and that the circuit court would have the authority to do so. In my opinion, there is a realistic likelihood of success on litigation at the present time. Although the independent counsel statute poses certain problems which make it to some extent uncertain, I believe there is a legal basis for proceeding to have the court appoint independent counsel without any modification of pending law. There is the alternative of legislating on this bill which is before the Senate, to make certain modifications of the independent counsel law, which would remove any conceivable doubt about the authority of the circuit court to appoint independent counsel. Mr. President, on the issue of the exhausting of remedies on requesting that independent counsel be appointed by Attorney General Reno, the record is replete with a whole series of requests having been made by individual Members of Congress and then by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate. The issue was focused on very sharply with Attorney General Reno in oversight hearings which we had several months ago. I had an opportunity to question the Attorney General on this subject and pointed to two specific instances which, in my judgment, cried out for the appointment of independent counsel. President Clinton has publicly complained about having been denied national security information which he thought he should have and has complained that such information was denied to him by the FBI and the Department of Justice. In questioning Attorney General Reno on this subject in the Judiciary oversight hearing, she defended that denial of information on the ground that there was a pending criminal investigation and that as a matter of balance, it was her judgment as Attorney General that the information should not be turned over to the President. On the record in that Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, I disagreed with her conclusion on the ground that the Attorney General did not have the authority to decide what the President should or should not see on national security matters; the President as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive Officer of the United States has an absolute right to that information. If there were to be a denial to the President, it was not the function of the Attorney General or the FBI to deny that information. However, if the Attorney General felt that a denial of information was warranted under the circumstances, that was a very powerful showing that independent counsel ought to be appointed. If the President of the United States is in any way suspected, that provides a very strong basis that his appointed Attorney General ought not be conducting that investigation. It ought to be handled by independent counsel. It was pointed out to Attorney General Reno in the course of that oversight hearing that this followed directly her testimony on confirmation where she strongly endorsed the concept of independent counsel both as a matter of avoiding conflict of interest and, as Attorney General Reno said at that time, avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest. Notwithstanding that, she has refused to make an application for the appointment of independent counsel. A second line of questioning which I pursued with the Attorney General involved the issue of violations of the campaign finance laws. On that subject, there has been substantial information in the public domain about the President's personal activities in preparing television commercials for the 1996 campaign. There is no doubt--and the Attorney General conceded this--there would be a violation of the Federal election law if, when the President prepared campaign commercials, they were advocacy commercials, contrasted with what is known as issue commercials. The activity of the President in undertaking that activity has been documented in a book by Dick Morris and also in public statements by his chief of staff, Leon Panetta. The Attorney General, during the course of the hearing, disputed my contention that the commercials were, in fact, advocacy commercials. I then wrote to the Attorney General the next day, on May 1, and set forth a series of commercials which President Clinton had edited, or prepared, and asked her if those were, in fact, advocacy commercials. In the letter, I cited the Federal Election Commission definition of express advocacy, which is as follows: Communications using phrases such as ``vote for President,'' or ``reelect your Congressman,'' ``Smith for Congress,'' or language which, when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, can have no other reasonable meaning than to urge the election or defeat of a clearly identifiable Federal candidate. Mr. President, it is my submission that reasonable people cannot differ on the conclusion that the commercials that President Clinton prepared were express advocacy commercials. This is an illustration of a commercial: Protecting families. For millions of working families, President Clinton cut taxes. The Dole-Gingrich budget tried to raise taxes on 8 million. The Dole-Gingrich budget would have slashed Medicare $270 billion and cut college scholarships. The President defended our values, protected Medicare, and now a tax cut of almost $1,500 a year for the first two years of college. Most community college is free. Help adults go back to school. The President's plan protects our values. It is hard to see how anyone could contend that that is not an express advocacy commercial. It certainly fits within the definition of the Federal Election Commission, which is that the language taken as a whole can have no other reasonable meaning than to urge the election and defeat of a clearly identified Federal candidate. That commercial refers to two Federal candidates, and one is President Clinton. It extols his virtues, obviously speaking in favor of the President. That commercial refers to another candidate, former Senator Dole, arguing about his failings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, my letter dated May 1, 1997, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the essence of the Attorney General's response to me was that she would not respond on the legal issue, notwithstanding she is the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. She passed the buck over to the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election Commission passed the buck back, saying that these were matters that had already occurred, so they didn't come within advisory opinions. One way or another, Mr. President, we will have a determination as to what is involved there. The alternative of proceeding in court is one which we are currently examining, and as I have noted, there is an issue as to whether that can be done on the existing statute. I do believe there is a legal basis for so proceeding, but on a novel bit of litigation of this sort, no lawyer can be absolutely certain as to what the result would be. But in the context of what we have on the record with the Attorney General's refusal to appoint independent counsel, in a context where she is denying the President of the United States national security information, and her refusal to proceed to appoint independent counsel where the Attorney General concedes that there has been a coordinated effort by the President so that the only remaining issue is whether there is an advocacy commercial, which on their face, I submit, these commercials are. The problems have been compounded with the conduct of the Attorney General and the Justice Department in the course of the last several days where they have opposed applications for immunity requested for consideration by the Governmental Affairs Committee. The Governmental Affairs Committee, as is well known, is currently investigating illegal or improper activities in the 1996 Federal elections. A modus operandi has been worked out there which would allow the Attorney General to come in and give the committee the Attorney General's opinion as to whether immunity should be withheld or granted. The law is plain that the committee has the jurisdiction to make that determination, where the statute gives the Attorney General a period of time to object and additional time for the purpose of putting the Department of Justice's case together. Due to the problems created by the decisions involving Admiral Poindexter and Colonel North go to a point where limited immunity is granted, the prosecutor must prove the case from independent sources and the prosecutor can put a case together, can, so to speak, bundle the case before immunity is granted. So when the request was made for applications for immunity for five individuals, the Attorney General responded, the Department of Justice responded that they objected to the grant of immunity. That was, so to speak, the straw which broke the camel's back and the chairman of the committee, Senator Thompson, made a very forceful public statement on Tuesday saying that he had lost confidence in the Department of Justice to conduct an impartial and appropriate investigation, and that the refusal to agree to those grants of immunity was just beyond the pale, a conclusion with which I agree. On the basis of the equities here, I believe a very, very strong case can be made out to have the Court, in its supervisory authority, appoint independent counsel notwithstanding the absence of an application by the Attorney General. However, in consultation with my colleagues, I have decided to introduce an amendment to the pending bill which would make certain modifications in the independent counsel statute. These modifications would create new authority for the Congress to seek judicial appointment of an independent counsel where there is a determination that the Attorney General's failure to do so is an abuse of discretion. This authority would reside in the Judiciary Committee, where the full committee or a majority of the majority party members or a majority of the nonmajority party members could petition the Court to appoint an independent counsel where the full committee or a majority of either party's committee members determines that the Attorney General's failure to appoint an independent counsel is an abuse of discretion. This carefully crafts a procedure so that there is a limit of standing as to who may come in and ask for the appointment of independent counsel. The amendment, which I propose to introduce, would further provide for a judicial determination on independent counsel with a specification that upon receipt of a congressional application, the Court shall appoint independent counsel where the Court has determined that the Attorney General's failure to appoint an independent counsel is an abuse of discretion. There are considerations on constitutional issues here, but I believe that other relevant issues must also be considered. Regarding the context of the current factual situation and carefully limiting the petitioning authority to the Congress, and in the context where the Attorney General herself has emphasized the importance of the independent counsel provision, including the avoidance of appearance of impropriety, it is my judgment that this law would pass constitutional muster and would provide an important addition in the interest of justice to solve the problem which we now confront, where the overwhelming weight of evidence--and I don't use that term lightly. It is evidence. It has evidentiary value--calls for the appointment of independent counsel. There is pending at the present time an amendment so I cannot introduce my amendment now. A subsequent amendment is pending. But it is my intention, as I say, Mr. President, to introduce this amendment. There have been some preliminary indications that the introduction of this amendment might tie up the bill, and I do not intend to tie up the bill. If that is the consequence of the introduction of an amendment, if a filibuster were to follow, I would not persist and subject this appropriations bill to a filibuster. I firmly believe that it is in the public interest in a very serious way to have independent counsel appointed, and it is obvious that all the entreaties to the Attorney General have thus far been unsuccessful and litigation is an option which may be pursued. However, this statutory change would make it certain that the Court would have the authority and that the petitioning parties would have appropriate standing to have independent counsel appointed. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 1, 1997. Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Reno: Following up on yesterday's hearing, please respond for the record whether, in your legal judgment, the text of the television commercials, set forth below, constitutes ``issue advocacy'' or ``express advocacy.'' The Federal Election Commission defines ``express advocacy'' as follows: ``Communications using phrases such as `vote for President,' `reelect your Congressman,' `Smith for Congress,' or language which, when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, can have no other reasonable meaning than to urge the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate.'' 11 CFR 100.22 The text of the television commercials follows: ``American values. Do our duty to our parents. President Clinton protects Medicare. The Dole/Gingrich budget tried to cut Medicare $270 billion. Protect families. President Clinton cut taxes for millions of working families. The Dole/Gingrich budget tried to raise taxes on eight million of them. Opportunity. President Clinton proposes tax breaks for tuition. The Dole/Gringrich budget tried to slash college scholarships. Only President Clinton's plan meets our challenges, protects our values. ``60,000 felons and fugitives tried to buy handguns--but couldn't--because President Clinton passed the Brady Bill-- five-day waits, background checks. But Dole and Gingrich voted no. One hundred thousand new police--because President Clinton delivered. Dole and Gingrich? Vote no, want to repeal 'em. Strengthen school anti-drug programs. President Clinton did it. Dole and Gingrich? No again. Their old ways don't work. President Clinton's plan. The new way. Meeting our challenges, protecting our values. ``America's values. Head Start. Student loans. Toxic cleanup. Extra police. Protected in the budget agreement; the president stood firm. Dole, Gingrich's latest plan includes tax hikes on working families. Up to 18 million children face healthcare cuts. Medicare slashed $167 billion. Then Dole resigns, leaving behind gridlock he and Gingrich created. The president's plan: Politics must wait. Balance the budget, reform welfare, protect our values. ``Head Start. Student loans. Toxic cleanup. Extra police. Anti-drug programs. Dole, Gingrich wanted them cut. Now they're safe. Protected in the '96 budget--because the President stood firm. Dole, Gingrich? Deadlock. Gridlock. Shutdowns. The president's plan? Finish the job, balance the budget. Reform welfare. Cut taxes. Protect Medicare. President Clinton says get it done. Meet our challenges. Protect our values. ``The president says give every child a chance for college with a tax cut that gives $1,500 a year for two years, making most community colleges free, all colleges more affordable . . . And for adults, a chance to learn, find a better job. The president's tuition tax cut plan. ``Protecting families. For millions of working families, President Clinton cut taxes. The Dole-Gingrich budget tried to raise taxes on eight million. The Dole-Gingrich budget would have slashed Medicare $270 billion. Cut college scholarships. The president defended our values. Protected Medicare. And now, a tax cut of $1,500 a year for the first two years of college. Most community colleges free. Help adults go back to school. The president's plan protects our values.'' Sincerely, Arlen Specter. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Further, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Federal Election Commission, dated June 26, 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my presentation be interrupted for 7 minutes so that Senator Kerry may speak and that I be entitled to regain the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Palestinian Authority shall be paid over to the Palestinian Authority unless the President certifies to the Congress, first, that the Palestinian Authority is using its maximum efforts to combat terrorism in accordance with the Oslo accords, has ceased the violence or threat of violence or incitement of violence as a tool of the Palestinian Authority. Second, after full investigation by the Department of Justice, the executive branch of Government concludes that Chairman Arafat had no prior knowledge of the World Trade Center bombing. Third, after a full inquiry to the Department of State, the executive branch of Government concludes that Chairman Arafat did not authorize and did not fail to use his authority to prevent the Tel Aviv cafe bombing of March 21, 1997. Mr. President, this amendment would not impact upon the expenditures of U.S. funds for projects like water authorities or other projects which go to the people who are now directed to receive these funds, but to articulate with precision, would only involve the moneys which would be paid to the Palestinian Authority. It may well be that there is no intent to pay money now in the pipeline for the Palestinian Authority, but I must say, Mr. President, that after making substantial efforts to find out exactly what is going on in the administration, I have been unable to make that determination. But whether or not there is an intent by the administration not to pay money in the pipeline to the Palestinian Authority, it is my view that this amendment is necessary as a matter of policy. With respect to the issue of Chairman Arafat's knowledge of the Trade Center bombing, a report has been made by Deputy Education Minister Moshe Peled of Israel that Arafat had prior knowledge of the bombing of the Trade Center in New York City in 1993. I have asked the Department of Justice, Mr. President, to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not that is true. I ask unanimous consent the correspondence be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement as if read in full.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment numbered 898 to the desk.