Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Vermont for making that comment. I had presided over Merrick Garland's confirmation proceedings in the 104th Congress. It was hard to find a Senator when I came in that afternoon. I found out Merrick Garland was there and five other people. It was an interesting afternoon. We had a great many responsibilities. I went to law school not too long ago and I know what it is like to be on the law review. They call it the Law Journal at Yale. It is remarkable to have the kind of record that Merrick Garland has. Those writings are just extraordinary. It takes long hours and extraordinary study to turn one of those articles out, and there is a wide array of issues that he has written on. He could be making a lot of money. He is currently in public service and he is prepared to go to the court of appeals at the age of 45. We need judges in America with real intellectual abilities. We need judges like Holmes and Brandeis and Cardozo on the courts of the United States. We need them on the Supreme Court of the United States. This is a real prospect. We ought to get him up and out. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me time. I have sought recognition to voice my very strong support for the nomination of Merrick Garland for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Mr. President, a great deal has been said today on this floor which is of great importance but not really tremendously related to Merrick Garland's nomination. I hope we have a chance to analyze the entire process of confirmation of judges and the respective roles of the President and the Senate, because the President has the nominating authority and the Senate has the constitutional authority for confirmation. There are a great many things that ought to be done on both sides to expedite the nomination and confirmation of judges. In my own State, Pennsylvania has quite a number of vacancies now, and I have been in discussions with the President's representatives at the White House about trying to get these nominations filled. There is something to be said on many sides of this issue. The matter confronting the Senate now is, what are we going to do with Merrick Garland? His record is extraordinary. I have been on the Judiciary Committee going into my 17th year and I do not believe I have seen a nominee with the qualifications that this man has. He graduated from Harvard College, summa cum laude, was Phi Beta Kappa, and graduated from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude. He was on the Harvard Law Review and was the Articles Editor there. He has an extraordinary record of publications, on the issue of Antitrust, in the Yale Law Journal. And I might say, Mr. President, that this nominee exhibited perhaps his best judgment in associating himself with Yale Law School on the article, then going on into FTC investigations, the controversial veto issue, professional responsibility and commercial speech. It is really an extraordinary, extraordinary record. This man, at the age of 45, coming into the court of appeals, may well be a distinguished prospect for the Supreme Court of the United States. Beyond his record in school and his writings, he was law clerk to a very distinguished circuit judge, Judge Harry Jay Friendly, and he served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Jr., and was a partner of distinguished law firms, and worked as a prosecuting attorney. He now serves as Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States in the U.S. Department of Justice, in the Criminal Law Division, where I have had occasion to work with him on a professional basis. He just is an extraordinary prospect for the court of appeals. He has not been treated very gently in the confirmation process, having been nominated in September 1995. He passed through the Judiciary Committee in the 104th Congress and was kept off the agenda by a single hold. That is when a Senator voices an objection without stating a reason, or perhaps multiple holds, but I know a single hold stood in his way. I compliment the majority leader, Senator Lott, for bringing his nomination to the floor at this time so that he may be acted upon, yes or no. He really is extraordinary, and I think he has a remarkable career ahead. I am delighted to offer my voice of strong support for his confirmation. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Utah. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I understand the majority leader is on his way to the floor. Apparently there is a unanimous-consent request. As soon as he gets here, I will be glad to yield to him at that time. Mr. President, I support this constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform and for overturning Buckley versus Valeo because I am convinced that only if we have such a constitutional amendment will we be able to have meaningful campaign finance reform. And that is urgently needed. Those who oppose the amendment do so on a claim that there would be an invasion of inviolate first amendment protections. I suggest those arguments are not well founded as a matter of constitutional law or constitutional history. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution has been limited where there are important reasons for doing so. Perhaps the most famous decision is by Oliver Wendell Holmes on what is called the ``clear and present danger'' which would warrant limiting freedom of speech. The famous example was given of crying ``fire'' in a crowded theater. And, Mr. President, I suggest that there is a clear and present danger today to America's political system if we do not have effective campaign finance reform. The ``fighting words'' exception to freedom of speech is well recognized in a distinguished opinion by Justice Murphy. If someone says to another a racial slur or religious slur, that person may punch the speaker in the nose and not be charged with assault and battery, so that freedom of speech is limited by fighting words. You have the examples of obscenity and moral standards, especially with children. There are limits as to what may be spoken or what may be put into printed context on obscenity. It is my view, and really a prevailing view in America today, that there is an urgent necessity for campaign finance reform. It simply cannot be done if you have the Supreme Court decisions standing in the way, because they say that an individual may spend as much of his or her money as he or she may choose as a matter of freedom of speech but others cannot do so. Others are limited to $1,000. I have cited a rather forceful example from my point of view of my own personal experience running in the primary in 1976 for the U.S. Senate when the 1974 law was in effect limiting expenditures for a candidate in the primary with the population size of Pennsylvania to $35,000. And my opponent in that race--who later was one of my very best friends and closest colleagues in the U.S. Senate, Senator John Heinz--we were opposing each other in that Senate primary. The Supreme Court of the United States held that an individual could spend millions, and Senator Heinz did that, spent more than $3 million in that primary and general election. But at the same time, the Supreme Court upheld the limitation of $1,000 on what my brother could spend. Where was Morton Specter's freedom of speech if he was limited by the campaign finance law to $1,000? What sense does it make to say that a candidate has more freedom of speech than some other contributor? But that is what the Buckley versus Valeo decision did. Then you have this rule or exception on campaign expenditures which are independent. That has become a practical impossibility to define what is an independent expenditure. You have the 1996 Presidential election. You have an enormous amount of soft money raised on both sides by Republicans as well as Democrats, but the Democrats did it with more finesse, more direction, and more success, when President Clinton used millions of dollars in soft money for advertising in 1995, which so set the stage to make it impossible or at least virtually impossible to regain that ground. In this situation you had President Clinton personally editing the commercials which went over. Yet, they were supposed to be somehow immune from the Federal election laws, notwithstanding the fact that when a candidate runs for President there is a pledge that there will be no funds used on expenditures in addition to what the Federal Government is providing. We have myriad rules on soft money. We have rules that are really impossible to apply on what is issue advocacy, where you can spend money, as opposed to advocacy for a candidate. Those commercials not only go right to the line, they really cross the line, with no enforcement possible, with a commercial saying everything but ``vote for candidate John Doe.'' The realism is that in the absence of an opportunity for Congress to legislate in this field, without this constitutional inhibition, campaign finance reform may not be achieved. Then you had the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1996 on the Colorado legal party where there are four opinions written and not one of the opinions commands the consent or concurrence of five Justices. So when you finish reading that opinion, it is absolutely impossible to say what the law is on the important campaign issues taken up in that case. The Supreme Court Justices are frequent in their criticism of what we pass in the Congress where they cannot find a clear-cut statement on our legislation and then they look to legislative intent. Some of the Justices say they cannot find legislative intent or they do not recognize legislative intent. Our statutes are a model of clarity, and the worst of the statutes ever passed by the Congress of the United States is a model of clarity compared to what you had in the Supreme Court decision in the Colorado case, where you cannot possibly figure out what the law is, because among four opinions no five Justices have agreed on any set rationale to give guidance as to what the law should be. In conclusion, Mr. President, since the majority leader has arrived, it is my view, after studying the Constitution for more than 40 years, that the decision of Buckley versus Valeo simply is not good constitutional law to equate speech with campaign spending. It impedes, obstructs, and prevents Congress from legislating in this important field. That is why I urge this amendment be adopted. I have no doubt, Mr. President, about the outcome of today's vote. I say as a matter for the future we ought to build a record, one day, so that we will overturn Buckley v. Valeo, and then have some sensible legislation in this very critical area. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Unanimous Consent Agreements--Senate Joint Resolution 22 and Senate Joint Resolution 18

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for up to 10 minutes to speak on the joint resolution under the control of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Did the Senator make a suggestion that they might look upon the current matters on a priority basis? I had not known of the request which was made, obviously. It is surprising to me that in light of the pressing public policy on current matters that they would not address them but would be addressing other matters.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had come to the Senate Chamber to speak on the resolution on the independent counsel but on my way I noted the morning press have comments to make in advance of that. However, before my distinguished colleague from Connecticut leaves, I agree with him on some of what he has said. I will not go into the parts where I disagree with him. It would take too long. When he talks about the Federal Election Commission, strengthening the Federal Election Commission, funding adequately the Federal Election Commission, I think that is something that ought to be done. The Federal Election Commission needs to be able to pursue alleged election violations. They have very broad powers and we have heard very little from them. It may be that their investigations are yet incomplete. But it also may be that if they had sufficient investigative resources they might have done more already. We do not need to await the results of the Governmental Affairs Committee, on which I serve. We are just getting started with the funding authorization. Nor do we need to await the results of the public integrity section, the FBI or their investigations, nor do we need to wait to see what will happen with the independent counsel, as I will address in a few moments. We have a Federal Election Commission, and were they strong enough they could have acted already on these very, very important matters.

Mr. SPECTER. It is a matter of prioritizing. We have a hemorrhaging system. There is blood on the floor and there is blood coming out of the patient. I would think as a matter of priority they would at least address that and try to give some first aid. I do not know what they have found, and I do not know the specifics upon what injunctive relief they might seek, but they have attorneys that might look at the current system and act now. They are a constituted agency and they have conducted criminal investigations. They could work this in the civil field. It comes as a surprise to me when a Senator of your standing, Senator Dodd, makes that suggestion to them, and months go by without any response to it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I came to address the subject of independent counsel and, en route, I picked up the morning newspapers. I am horrified by what has occurred in Jordan. The headline is blaring: ``Jordan Soldier Kills Seven Israeli Schoolgirls.'' The lead report from the Philadelphia Inquirer is: A group of Israeli schoolgirls was standing on Peace Island yesterday, overlooking the Jordan River and fields of wild yellow flowers, when a Jordanian soldier opened fire with an assault rifle, killing seven students. Six other pupils were wounded, as girls dove into the bushes and screamed for help. After seizing a comrade's M-16 rifle, the soldier fired from an observation tower, then descended and chased the screaming junior high school girls down a hill firing wildly. According to a report in the Washington Post, Rosa Himi, a teacher of the Orthodox Jewish school in Beit Shemesh, near Jerusalem, that the 51 students attended said: At the beginning, Jordanian soldiers didn't overpower him and didn't do anything. . .. They even pushed one of our teachers and wouldn't let him near the injured girls to care for them. It is only when he failed to put his second [ammunition] clip in the gun that the other soldiers took him. It is really a very shocking turn of events, Mr. President, in circumstances where one would almost think we were beyond the point of being shocked. There is a sequence of violence that has occurred-- candidly, with both sides--like the event at the tomb of Abraham some time ago, where an Israeli fired on people. I suggest that it really requires a new level of sober examination as to what is going on in the Mideast and what the so-called ``leaders'' in the Mideast are doing which is really inflammatory. King Hussein had sent a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, saying that Prime Minister Netanyahu was engaged in the deliberate humiliation of Arabs and was accumulating tragic accidents leading to bloodshed and disaster brought about by fear and despair. There have already been suggestions from a number of quarters that King Hussein was inciting a riot by those inflammatory statements. I think it is inappropriate to join that chorus. But I do think that King Hussein and others have to tone down the rhetoric and have to be a lot more thoughtful than they have been. I know King Hussein--not well, but I have had occasion to talk to him when he has been in Washington. I talked to him when I have visited in Jordan. I do believe that King Hussein is sincere in his efforts for peace. The morning press comments about the Crown Prince of Jordan coming to the scene and that he was stricken with remorse and grief, as King Hussein's statements issued after this tragedy reflected his own view. But what is happening in the Mideast requires that there be more restraint by people like King Hussein. That, of course, is easy to say after the fact. But I think it has to be said. We are now seeing a conference in Gaza, sponsored by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Chairman Arafat, where the United States has agreed to participate and Israel has been excluded. I joined a large group of Senators in writing to President Clinton yesterday, urging the President to change his policy on that. In my judgment, and in the judgment of many of my colleagues far beyond this Chamber, there is a strong view that there ought not to be a conference where Israel is excluded. There will be no peace process in the Mideast to which Israel is not a party. For Chairman Arafat to convene a group of representatives of nations of the world to meet and talk about the peace process, which will inevitably involve charges of impropriety by Israel because they appear in the international media daily, without having Israel as a party to that process and allowing Israel an opportunity to reply, it seems to me to be absolutely inexcusable. We ought not to be saying that parties in interest, like the Palestinians and the PLO, ought to be gathering international strength to attack, impugn, or otherwise move against a party to the peace process. If there is going to be peace, it is going to have to be worked out between the Palestinians and the Israelis. To have this kind of conference compounds the tragedy in Jordan, and I do hope, yet, that the administration will rethink what it has undertaken to do. I know that a good many of these issues come before the Congress, come before the Senate, come before the Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, and before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, where we are asked to appropriate money. We are now about to be asked to appropriate additional funds. The Congress does not have the power that the President has to conduct foreign affairs, although we do have considerable power in the appropriations process, the power of the purse. We are looking at requests for aid to Jordan. In fiscal year 1997, we gave Jordan $67.1 million. In fiscal year 1998, the President has made a request for $74.2 million, an increase of $7.1 million. Jordan is also asking for an additional $250 million in funding per year over the next 5 years. I have already been lobbied, individually, about supporting that increase in funding for Jordan. The initial reaction that I had goes back to Jordan's conduct during the gulf war, where I and many others in this body, many other Americans, and many others around the world were very unhappy--to use a very mild term--with what Jordan did in aiding and abetting Iraq and Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein. They were complicitous in helping Iraq in that war, where American lives were laid on the line and American lives were lost. A GAO report in February 1992 found specifically that Jordan gave Iraq access to American technology, that Jordan shared intelligence from the American-led coalition. When that happened, it seemed to me that there were strong reasons not to continue to give foreign aid to Jordan. Jordan was giving aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein at a time of international crisis and war--a war which was authorized on this floor in debate that I very well remember back on January 10, 11, and 12, 1991--where notice had been given by the U.N. resolution that a war would be started on January 15. So, speaking for myself on the Appropriations Subcommittee--and we make the first cut on aid, and that usually stands up with what the Appropriations Subcommittee does--I have grave reservations about aid to Jordan, and certainly about increasing aid to Jordan. And now to find the sequence of events in Jordan as to what has happened, and it follows in sequence, King Hussein's statement, I think that we have to be very reflective as to what aid and what American dollars we are going to give to Jordan. One of the press reports contains a notation that a woman identified as the mother of the individual who fired the shots said that her son is mentally ill. Now, I don't know whether that is true or not, but I do know that if there is an indication of that, it requires an investigation and a determination by Jordanian officials, and perhaps by an international group, as to why you have somebody identified as being mentally ill in a situation to acquire the firepower which led to this tragedy. Those are all questions, Mr. President, that I think need to be answered. When we look at the appropriations process, a commitment has been made by the United States to give some $500 million to Palestinian authorities. Senator Shelby and I offered a resolution which requires as a precondition to that funding that the Palestinians do two specific things: No. 1, change their charter which calls for the destruction of Israel and exercise efforts to stop terrorists. And I think, Mr. President, there is good reason to believe that the Palestinians have not fulfilled those requirements. What the Palestinians did was have a convention and say that everything in their charter inconsistent with the declarations of September 13, 1993--when Chairman Arafat was honored at the White House--would be null and void. But that is a long way from picking up the charter and specifically rejecting provisions of the charter which call for the destruction of Israel. This is something which Senator Shelby and I discussed with Chairman Arafat in January 1996. This is something that Senator Brown and I discussed with Chairman Arafat in Gaza in August 1995. And this is something which a group of Senators, including this Senator, discussed with Chairman Arafat downstairs in the Capitol last week. When these matters are called to Chairman Arafat's attention, he brushes them aside. He pooh-poohs them. He says, ``Well, we have already done all that needs to be done.'' And the reality is that they have not done what the Specter-Shelby amendment calls for. When it comes to the issue of fighting terrorism, I think again there has been insufficient action. There are terrorists who have been identified by Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian authorities who have not been turned over to Israel. I personally took a list of those which I had obtained and verified. I discussed them with Chairman Arafat. He had one excuse after another why that was not done. There are weapons in Palestinian-controlled territory which are supposed to have been identified and turned over. And that has not been done. The President has certified that there has been sufficient compliance with the Specter-Shelby amendment. The President can make a certification. There is nothing that the U.S. Senate can do about that short of the appropriations process. But these are issues which I intend to bring to the subcommittee when we take a look at the moneys we appropriate this year. The President has great authority, but he cannot appropriate money. He can veto appropriations bills, but he cannot appropriate money. That has to come from the Congress. That has to come from the House and from the Senate. When it comes to the funding for Jordan, or when it comes to the funding for the Palestinians, and we see them holding this meeting this weekend, the President may think that is fine. If he thinks that is fine, he can send a U.S. representative. But if the appropriators disagree with him, if the Congress disagrees with him, we don't have to appropriate money. That has to be taken into account by the President when he sets U.S. foreign policy. So I make those comments. It is really very, very sad what has gone on, for the bloodshed of these seven girls and for the bloodshed which previously has occurred. I believe that we need some sober leadership to defuse the situation and to understand that there are very, very difficult problems facing the parties there. When Prime Minister Netanyahu takes steps that he has to withdraw a certain percentage from the West Bank, and he does so after a closely contested vote in the Israeli Parliament and the Israeli Cabinet, that is about as far as he can go. When those actions are rejected by Chairman Arafat, and Chairman Arafat gets aid and comfort from the President who criticizes what Israel did and from King Hussein who criticizes what Israel did, then I suggest that those matters really have to be worked out by the parties, and not by long-distance advice from the United States, or even short-distance advice from Jordan. But we had better tone down the rhetoric. We had President Mubarak this week in Washington. He met downstairs in the Foreign Relations room. President Mubarak gave some good advice to those of us who were listening. It is worth repeating. President Mubarak said that the rhetoric ought to be toned down about Jerusalem. You have declarations by the Palestinians that Jerusalem is the inviolate capital of the Palestinians and that the Palestinians are going to assert and succeed in that. And you have rhetoric at a high level by the Israelis saying that Jerusalem will be undivided and will not be a matter for Palestinian influence. What President Mubarak was saying is, let's stop the rhetoric. Let's stop the declarations which incite people in the area. Let's tone down that rhetoric. And I think that is very good advice, indeed.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I see my colleague, Senator Dorgan, on the floor waiting to speak. So I shall not take too long in commenting on the resolution calling for independent counsel, Senate Joint Resolution 22. But I came here to speak on this subject, and I think the time is past for independent counsel. Independent counsel should be appointed where there is credible evidence that there had been criminal violations. You don't have to prove the case. Credible evidence is really a statement of prima facie which takes the case from the grand jury and on a fair evaluation as to what has occurred and what has been made public. It is my legal judgment, having some experience in the field, having been district attorney for Philadelphia for 8 years, and having served on the Judiciary Committee for many years, that we have long since passed that point. It is not a partisan issue. It is not just Republican Senators who are saying that. The same call has come on the other side of the aisle from Democrats. You have ranking officials who have been involved in fundraising in religious institutions which raise violations of Federal law in a fairly clear-cut manner. You have, again, ranking officials who have engaged in campaign practices. Dick Morris was cited by the President himself as having identified the commercials. We know the President is bound not to accept additional money when there is Federal financing, which there was. And millions of dollars were raised, again, on both sides. Those moneys were used to further the President's campaign in 1995. There is an issue about advocacy as opposed to the candidates themselves. But that line, I think, has been crossed. Certainly, there is credible evidence which warrants an investigation. The day before yesterday the Judiciary Committee dealt with a resolution on this subject. Yesterday, a letter was circulated, which I signed, which was sent to the Attorney General requiring an answer within 30 days. She does not have to agree with the letter which was sent, but she does have to respond. Mr. President, we know what has been in the public media. We know that an investigation has been conducted by the Public Integrity Section and by the FBI. The question is raised as to what that investigation has disclosed, which is known to the Attorney General. I believe we ought to have an answer from the Attorney General based upon what has been presented to her from the public record, and an inquiry as to what she knows from the confidential record that she is privy to. When the grand jury investigates, those matters are secret. When the FBI investigates, those matters are not made available to the Judiciary Committee. But we have presented a substantial body of material, and I believe we are entitled to an answer not only as to that, but a certification, in effect, from the Attorney General as to what she may know beyond what is in the public record, because that investigation has been going on for a long time, and she is privy to what has occurred with the investigation of the FBI and with the investigation of the grand jury. I think we are entitled to a response on that basis. But there is sufficient material on the record. It is my hope that we will not have a filibuster on this resolution but we will be able to take it to a vote. As Senator Dodd said at some length about the filibuster against the McCain-Feingold bill, I broke party ranks, as did a number of Republicans, in voting for cloture on that matter. I am not satisfied with the McCain-Feingold bill, which I have not cosponsored. But I do believe the matter ought to come to the floor and that we ought to offer amendments. We ought to see if a majority of the U.S. Senate is willing to pass campaign finance reform. Similarly, on this resolution calling for independent counsel, I think we ought to have a determination up or down as to whether a majority of Senators agree with the letter which we sent over to the Attorney General calling for independent counsel. I thank the Chair for sitting on this Friday afternoon when most of our colleagues have left town, and I will soon be returning to Pennsylvania. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senators on the floor seeking recognition, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for a period of up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation directed at providing health coverage to children who lack health insurance in America. This issue has been recognized as one of the leading--if not the leading--problems on incremental health coverage in America today. I am glad that President Clinton's health care plan proposed in 1993 was not adopted. That was a matter that was fought out on the Senate floor in some great detail in 1994. I participated in that debate. When I read President Clinton's health plan, I was amazed by the number of agencies, boards, and commissions, and asked an assistant to make a list of all of them. My assistant made a chart instead of a list. I had that chart on this floor and many other places, and I shall spare you the chart today. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post said that chart was the key factor in defeating the Clinton health care plan because it showed on one page in red more than 100 new agencies, boards, and commissions, and in green about 50 existing bureaus giving new jobs. Then we proceeded, I think wisely, with the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill on incremental health coverage. Now I think we need to go ahead and provide for coverage for children in America. Very briefly, let me summarize my proposal before going into specifics. It is said that there are 10 million children who lack health insurance. My analysis shows that there is a critical group, perhaps the most critical group, of some 4 million children which my bill addresses in an incremental way; 3 million other children are eligible for Medicaid coverage but not enrolled, and 3 million other children are in families which would not be eligible for health insurance under my plan because their family income levels are too high. My legislation will provide a pilot program which would provide vouchers to States for families which earn up to 235 percent of the poverty level to purchase health insurance in the marketplace. Later today I am going to have a news conference with the Brandt family from Pennsylvania, because they are illustrative of this issue. I would now like to discuss the key elements of my proposal and why I have asked the Brandts to travel to Washington today. Mr. President, it is no less true for being a commonplace that nothing could be more important to our Nation than our children. I am introducing today legislation aimed at beginning to fill an enormous and unacceptable gap in our country's support for the health and well- being of our children. Mr. President, as President Clinton discussed during the State of the Union Address last month, there are today approximately 10 million American children who have no health insurance coverage from any source--private or public--and who therefore lack access to the kinds of preventive and primary care services which can be the difference between staying healthy and getting sick or between minor illness and serious, disabling or even mortal illness. Now, let me say at the outset that this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. Our two parties do have different approaches to the roles and the cost of our Federal Government but there is not one party that cares about kids and one party indifferent to our childrens' health. Let us work constructively on this and actually address the problem rather than just trying to wrack up political points. As with most statistics conjured up for social policy debates, the President's figure of 10 million uninsured children needs further discussion to get to the heart of the matter. Of these 10 million uninsured, approximately 3 million children live in families with incomes which make them eligible for Medicaid. I support outreach efforts by the States to enroll these children in Medicaid but, because coverage is accessible to these families if they avail themselves of it, this problem is not the gaping hole in our health care system of which I spoke a moment ago. Likewise, of the 10 million uninsured children, another approximately 3 million live in families with incomes greater than the median household income. There are even uninsured children in more than a few high income families. Those numbers are deeply disturbing, but I see them as a clarion call for greater parental responsibility, rather than for legislative or governmental action. I know it is easy for those of us with substantial incomes and employer-paid health benefits--such as we here in the Senate--to preach to families without these protections, but I cannot imagine any higher priority for a family with any more than just enough income to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads than to provide health insurance for their kids. And I see it as clearly inappropriate--despite some proposals on the other side of the aisle to do so--to spend tax dollars to subsidize health insurance for higher income families. The cutoff level I propose in this bill, approximately $38,000 for a family of four is already a bit higher than median household income in the United States--$34,076--$34,524 in my own State of Pennsylvania. In other words, taken together, Medicaid and the new initiative I am proposing would allow eligibility by income for more than half of the households in our country. To go beyond that is to do what too many Government programs already do--tax those who have less for the benefit of those who have more, Robin Hood in reverse. This leaves approximately 4 million children, ineligible for Medicaid but living in families without the resources to obtain coverage on their own. This is an American tragedy--the tragedy of the working poor. Mom, Dad, or both going to work every day, often more than 5 days per week, but being paid low wages, without health benefits. These are honest taxpaying citizens, but their kids' futures are in jeopardy. They are falling through a crack in our health care system which must be sealed off. Some States, including my own State of Pennsylvania, are attempting to address this problem. In Pennsylvania, a public/private partnership, combining a publicly funded program called BlueCHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, on which Governor Ridge will spend $39 million this year, and a private initiative called the Caring Program for Children are reaching 60,000 out of the estimated 300,000 uninsured Pennsylvania children who are not eligible for Medicaid. But, as this statistic indicates, even generous State and private resources are wholly inadequate to meet the need. And this need, this hole in our health care system, is not a statistic. It is real. I would like to speak to you today about some Pennsylvanians whose stories demonstrate both the real need for action on the matter of uninsured children and the effectiveness of a program, such as the one I am proposing today, in helping real people face life's storms. These good people have been helped by Pennsylvania's existing efforts to provide health coverage to children and their story is the best argument which can be made for a national effort to solve this problem. Here with me today is the Brandt family, from Tarentum, PA, in Allegheny County: mother, Scarlett; father, Richard; daughter, Lindsay, age 11; and son Chad, age 7. First, I would like to thank the Brandts very deeply for their willingness to be here today, not only because it involves a precious day off from work for both Scarlett and Richard, a day out of school for both Lindsay and Chad and a long car ride to Washington and back, but even more so because it involves a family decision to put pride aside and to be willing to face the press as symbols for a policy debate. This is not an easy position for people to put themselves in-- and even less so their children--but the Brandts believe in the need to tell America about this too long ignored problem of uninsured children and about the way life brightens with just a little help to fill this basic need. I am very grateful to them for putting their desire to help others ahead of their own privacy. Scarlett and Richard both have full time jobs; Scarlett is a hairdresser and Richard is a truck driver. But neither of their employers offer health benefits and this hard working, taxpaying family simply doesn't earn enough money to go out and purchase private health insurance on their own. Before the Pennsylvania programs began helping the Brandts in 1993, Lindsay had lived the first 7 years of her life without any health insurance coverage and her little brother Chad had gone without coverage from birth until he was 3 years old. Here, then, are counter examples for the think tank commentators who argue against Federal action on children's health insurance by pointing to examples of children who are only uninsured for transitional periods of months as their parents change jobs. Here, in Lindsay and Chad, are examples of the heart of this problem--the long-term uninsured children of the working poor. How did Scarlett and Richard make due without health insurance for their kids? They scrounged what services they could from community health clinics and they used emergency rooms in ways that, when multiplied by all those who act similarly, damage and drain our entire health care system. They also restricted the activities of their children--and recent studies indicate this is a common coping strategy for parents in their shoes--cracking down on sports and even bike riding to try to avoid injuries. When Chad became ill as a toddler, with recurring ear infections, the family had to rotate payments to their creditors--some months skipping a utility bill, some months cutting back on groceries--just to be able to afford the prescription medicines for their little boy. Even with all of these ways of dealing with their situation, the Brandts lived every day under a cloud of fear about their children's health and their family's future and Lindsay and Chad lived with unmet health care needs--for physician care, for vision care, and for dental care. In 1993 the Brandt family got help from the programs operated by Western Pennsylvania's Caring Foundation for Children. It turned out that this assistance proved even more necessary than they knew at the time. In April 1996, Lindsay Brandt was diagnosed with hemiplegic migraines. This condition causes stroke-like symptoms. When an incident occurs, Lindsay suffers paralysis on the side of her body opposite from the headache, her speech slurs, her vision is blurred, and she becomes confused. Although she has needed five ambulance trips to the hospital since developing this condition, Lindsay is now on medication to prevent further episodes. Obviously, all of this care has been expensive. Obviously, the sort of problem the Brandts feared in their uninsured years came to pass. It might well have destroyed this family had it happened before they got health insurance coverage for their kids. Thank God, it did not. The legislation I am introducing today is a measured response to this major problem. We must react with both compassion and consideration. Here is my proposal: A 5-year pilot program funded with discretionary dollars--rather than a permanent entitlement--to provide block grants to the States in support of health insurance for uninsured children who are not eligible for Medicaid or for employer-based private health insurance and whose families have incomes up to 235 percent of the poverty level, $37,718 for a family of four. States which are already providing health insurance coverage to children eligible under this bill, such as under their own Medicaid plans, would be required to maintain their efforts but would, in effect, receive credit from the Federal Government in the form of dollars equal to the costs of the coverage they are providing to children in families up to the bill's cutoff level of 235 percent of poverty. My bill would offer full vouchers, with the level determined by the Secretary of HHS based on costs for an insurance policy covering preventive, primary, and acute care services for a child, for families earning up to approximately $29,700 per year for a family of four and partial subsidies from that income level until phased out at approximately $38,000 for a family of four. By limiting eligibility to children who do not have access to employer-based private health insurance, we avoid creating a disincentive to private coverage. We should all applaud the employers who are covering their employees, including lower wage employees, with family health insurance. Indeed, there are approximately 10 million American children in families earning between the poverty line and 235 percent of poverty who do receive private health insurance coverage, compared to the 4 million who do not. This is another example of the overall effectiveness of our market-based health care system even as it is also the most striking example of a particular case of market failure. By making this a 5-year pilot program, we admit the complexity of the health care system and the task of health care reform. This approach, with block grants and vouchers, may well prove to be the best way to cover kids who need health insurance, but we all know about the unintended consequences of social policy initiatives and we all know how hard it is to reform an entitlement, even if it has truly perverse effects, and so I am proposing a 5-year demonstration of this approach in the appropriately humble spirit of ``trial and correction'' which I have many times before said on this floor should inform our entire project of health reform. By making this program subject to appropriations, we ensure that we undertake this important effort in a fiscally responsible manner. Specifically, to provide sufficient funds to properly test this approach to children's health coverage in a way that does not bust the budget, my bill establishes the ``Healthy Kids Trust Fund,'' on budget, funded through the sale of available broadcast and nonbroadcast spectrum assets. I am not wedded to this offset but offer it to make clear my intention to see this program paid for with hard dollars, not confederate money. Furthermore, my proposal provides that: The first year of the program, fiscal year 1998, would be devoted to HHS and State planning, with the new insurance coverage commencing on or about October 1, 1998. Coverage would be phased in, beginning with children 0-5 years old in fiscal year 1999 and expanding in subsequent years to cover children 6- 9, 10-12, and 13-17. In the 104th Congress, I was pleased to cosponsor the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, better known as the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill (S. 1028). There is no question that Kassebaum-Kennedy made significant steps forward in addressing troubling issues in health care. The bill's incremental approach to health care reform is what allowed it to generate consensus support in the Senate; we knew that it did not address every single problem in the health care delivery system, but it would make life better for millions of American men, women, and children. In retrospect, I urge my colleagues to note a most important fact-- the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill was enacted only after some Democrats abandoned their hopes for passing a nationalized, big government health care scheme, and some Republicans abandoned their position that access to health care is really not a major problem in the United States demanding Federal action. Although we succeeded in enacting incremental insurance market reforms, there is still much we need to do to improve our health care system. Additional reforms must be enacted if we are serious about our commitment to meet the needs of the American people. I am hopeful that my colleagues understand how important it is to our constituents that we continue to reform the health care system. Just look at the Brandt children and multiply their need by millions. Looking back at our success with the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, I am equally hopeful that my colleagues have come to realize that if we are to continue to be successful in meeting our constituents' needs, the solutions to our Nation's health care problems must come from the political center, not from the extremes. Mr. President, I hope the legislation I am introducing today can be the basis for taking this next, crucial step in our process of bipartisan, incremental health reform. My proposal seeks to achieve incremental expansion of health care through a conservative means--a fully funded program with carefully crafted eligibility rules for a limited period of time, a program based on State administration and personal choice and responsibility. Let us take this step. Let us make this test. Let us see to it that the anguish and Russian roulette endured by all those situated similarly to the Brandt family are stopped and millions more of our Nation's greatest assets are given a basic ingredient for decent and productive lives. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining on the additional time which I sought independent of Senator Domenici's time?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to voice support for FBI Director Louis Freeh, who has been subject to some criticism in a variety of quarters, including on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I do so as someone who is thoroughly familiar with the work of FBI Director Freeh and of his organization. I have worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for many, many years, going back to my days as an assistant district attorney of Philadelphia, when I prosecuted the Local 107 Teamsters and got the first conviction of teamsters resulting from the McClellan committee investigation. I worked with the FBI as an assistant counsel on the Warren Commission. I have seen a great deal of the FBI's work since being in the Senate and working as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I think the FBI does a good job--not a perfect job, not a job without substantial problems, and not a job where, on some occasions, they don't make mistakes, but a good job. I have seen Director Freeh's work in some detail, specifically, on the oversight hearings that the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism conducted on Ruby Ridge, where I served as chairman. Ruby Ridge was a national tragedy. Randy Weaver did some things he should not have done, but he didn't deserve the armada of law enforcement that descended on his mountain in Idaho. That was a sad story, because the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms unit had misrepresented Weaver's record. They said he had a prior record of convictions, which was false. They said he was a suspect in a bank robbery case, which was false. That brought the hostage rescue team from the FBI and the killing of a U.S. Marshal, William Deacon, the killing of Mrs. Randy Weaver and their son, Sam Weaver, age 14. To the credit of FBI Director Freeh, he was willing to concede the errors. He changed the rules of engagement, he changed the FBI standards on use of deadly force, and he changed the use of the hostage rescue team. This was in stark contrast to what the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms did. They would not concede their errors. The Department of the Treasury, which managed Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, stood by their conduct, even though it was palpably wrong, as disclosed in the extensive hearings the subcommittee had over the course of 2 months, 16 hearings, and a long report in excess of 150 pages. I have seen what Director Freeh has done in combating domestic violence in the Oklahoma City bombing, and I have seen what the FBI has done in the Unabomber case. Where the FBI has made mistakes, Director Freeh has come forward and conceded that. Where there was unwarranted publicity on the Atlanta Olympics pipe bomb case, for example, when someone unfairly leaked information, Director Freeh conceded that a mistake was made. While I applaud his concessions on the unfair publicity, I have problems with our inability to properly conduct oversight on that Atlanta pipe bombing case. We have not been able to move that ahead. So that when I evaluate Director Freeh, I do so in the context of someone who sees problems and has been critical, as well as someone who praises the Bureau's overall performance. Director Freeh has been criticized on the so-called VANPAC case, which involved the murder of a Federal judge and a civil rights leader. Director Freeh prosecuted this case--he has had a very remarkable career as an assistant U.S. Attorney, a Federal judge, and he left the Federal bench to become Director of the FBI. He was recently criticized because there were alleged errors made by the FBI laboratory in connection with the VANPAC case. The FBI laboratory has admittedly had serious problems. That was one of the aspects that was investigated by the Senate subcommittee on Ruby Ridge, because there were problems with their work there, as well. As the prosecuting attorney in that criminal prosecution, Director Freeh relied on evidence from the FBI laboratory, some of which may have been faulty. But when Director Freeh found out that that was an area of concern in September of 1995, he recused himself from the investigation of the FBI laboratory. That means he took himself out of the case and did not pass judgment on it. The inspector general, who is about as independent as you can be within the Federal branch--has been looking into the FBI laboratory. We have these inspector generals in a variety of departments. My legislation brought the inspector general to the CIA, the only reform legislation coming out of the Iran-Contra affair. Inspectors general are not perfect because it is hard to be totally independent. But to the extent you can have independence, the IGs are independent. They report directly to Congress. They are as good a mechanism as you can have for that sort of an investigation, unless you have congressional oversight. There ought to be more of that. But, at any rate, Director Freeh did what was possible by recusing himself and referring the matter to the inspector general, who brought in five independent scientists. He has been out of the case, and he is prepared to make whatever changes are necessary within the FBI laboratory. The FBI is currently conducting a very sensitive investigation on campaign irregularities, which may go to the highest levels of Government. Not a great deal can be said about that investigation at this time. But from what I have observed Director Freeh has been independent, has been forthright, and has done his job in a professional way. In that kind of an investigation there are inevitable pressures, either express or implicit. I have some familiarity with what the Bureau is doing and what the Director is doing. I have confidence in him. I do so with some understanding of investigative work on grand juries and criminal matters and the kind of sensitivity which is involved. There are matters on which I consult with him with some frequency in terms of oversight. As of this moment, I am not yet satisfied with what has been done on Ruby Ridge. The Department of Justice has conducted an investigation on a number of the FBI agents, one of whom was the former Deputy Director, Larry Potts. It may well be as I said, in those hearings, that Director Freeh did not exercise the best judgment with respect to Deputy Director Potts. But at the same time I have said publicly that Deputy Director Potts and others are entitled to have the matter resolved, and that the Department of Justice has been investigating that since the fall of 1995--some 18-month lapse--which is unwarranted. I know that case thoroughly because of the hearings we had. I know investigative practice. That matter should have been concluded. That is not a matter under Director Freeh's purview. It is in the Department of Justice. I recently wrote to the Attorney General complaining about the delays and got an unresponsive response saying that the investigation will take several more months due to the complicated nature of this matter. It is not all that complicated. We have the Atlanta pipe bomber case where I have been trying to get an oversight hearing since October- November. I am not delighted with what the FBI has done on that in terms of not being as responsive as I think they might be. They have internal investigations which are really very difficult and which delay congressional oversight. But overall my view is that Director Freeh has done a good job. And when you pick up some of these matters on the FBI laboratory, I think he has provided appropriate management and appropriate oversight. Mr. President, I think my time has probably lapsed. But in the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleague from New Mexico. I congratulate him for this resolution focusing on character. He has been a leader since his election in 1972. Again, he has demonstrated that today with this resolution on character. I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the resolution. It is an effort to focus national attention on values and morality, and to try to instill in our young people and our older people, as well, a sense that character does count. This is in line with legislation that Senator Santorum and I have introduced on abstinence. I have found that the issue of abortion, the pro-life/pro-choice controversy, is the most divisive issue facing this country since slavery, and that one way to try to pull the country together is to focus on issues where we all agree. When you talk about premarital sex among teenagers, leading to unintended pregnancies, and therefore ultimately abortions, we can all agree that such behavior must be discouraged. That is an effort in a specific, targeted way to try to develop and promote character. So I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague on that important subject.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I am glad I know that Senator Hollings was here. Otherwise, he would not have made those flattering, complimentary statements. I know Senator Hollings has been here all day today and all day yesterday, because I came over to look for an opportunity to speak yesterday and the floor was taken, and earlier today I was looking for a chance to speak, and I came out of hearings on the Agriculture Subcommittee where we have a major problem with dairy pricing in Pennsylvania, which occupied me all afternoon. As I was about to say, Senator Hollings has been the leader on this, and it has been the Hollings-Specter constitutional amendment for the better part of a decade. Senator Hollings asked me to join him in the news conference Tuesday morning at 11:30 where we talked about this amendment and campaign finance reform generally, and then questions from the media got into the issue of what the Governmental Affairs Committee would be doing, more broadly than the constitutional amendment. Some of that got on to the wires and stimulated some of the discussion we had later at the Republican caucus. It was synergistic and moved the issue right along. It is very difficult to pass this amendment because it takes a two- thirds vote. There is no doubt about that. On May 27, 1993 the Senate adopted by a vote of 52-43 a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that this amendment should be passed, and my sense is that one day this constitutional amendment will pass. It will take a lot of effort. I am not optimistic about its chances at the present time. I do not believe there will be campaign finance reform until the Congress has to act. We have in here a conflict of interest in passing campaign finance reform because it benefits incumbents. Some say that the absence of campaign finance reform benefits the Republican Party. I disagree with that. I believe the Republican Party would do just fine with campaign finance reform. I think it would be tougher on incumbents, but we are not going to get it until we do overturn Buckley versus Valeo. The Supreme Court has often reversed itself when the Court was wrong, and there have been constitutional amendments when the Court was wrong. We have an amendment process where two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and three-fourths of the States, can change the Constitution--because the U.S. Supreme Court is not the last word. They can be overturned. There have been proposals to overturn Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. I would hate to see that happen because we muster two-thirds of the Senate sometimes on issues which may not really reflect long-range interests of the United States. I think it is important to have a high barrier to have a constitutional amendment. I think one day the public alarm, the public dismay, the repugnance of the public will reach a level which will motivate the Congress to have campaign finance reform and to have a constitutional amendment. I think it is a solid constitutional principle that money ought not to be equated with speech, and we ought to overturn Buckley versus Valeo and then Congress ought to have sensible legislation to ensure that democracy is protected and our Republic is protected. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in support of the pending business, the constitutional amendment which will authorize the Congress or State legislatures to control campaign finance spending. I believe it is a matter of great urgency that the Congress of the United States deal with the subject of campaign finance reform. Day after day we have seen disclosures about very serious violations of existing Federal law and disclosures of very substantial improprieties which call for additional Federal legislation. Regrettably, the opportunities for Federal legislation are sharply restricted by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States which have limited Congress' ability to act on the stated grounds that such action would violate the first amendment relating to freedom of speech. The case of Buckley versus Valeo, decided on January 30, 1976, equated speech with money in a very curious manner. It said that an individual could spend as much of his or her money as he or she chose, but upheld congressional limitations on what others could spend in support of a person's candidacy. The Court also left an exception on what is called the independent expenditure. That decision was a very forceful one for me personally, because at that time I was a candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. I was running against John Heinz, who later became a colleague of mine in the U.S. Senate and a very, very close personal friend. At that time, we were friends, too, but we were political opponents. Senator Heinz at that time was a Congressman. I had been district attorney of Philadelphia, and we entered that race in April looking forward to the primary. The Federal election provided that someone running in a primary in Pennsylvania would be limited to spending $35,000, computed on a per capita basis for the size of the State. That was about as much money as I had, having been in the practice of law for a short time after having been district attorney of Philadelphia. So it was an even playing field. On January 30, the Supreme Court of the United States said that an individual could spend as much of his money as he chose, and John Heinz chose to spend millions. I was limited to my own bank account which was $35,000. As a matter of fact, I spent that. At that time, I had a brother who could have financed my campaign, although not on the size perhaps of some others. But my brother, Mort Specter, was limited by law to contributing $1,000 to my campaign. It struck me then, and strikes me now, as being curious. Mort Specter's speech was limited to $1,000 in support of his brother, but John Heinz' speech was unlimited. There have been cases of others having come to this body after having spent into the millions of dollars and overwhelming their opponents. Last year, we saw a Presidential election where Steve Forbes came into the field and declined to be bound by Federal spending limits and spent in excess of $30 million, as the reports have demonstrated. I believe that there ought to be authority in the Congress to regulate campaign expenditures. The Supreme Court in Buckley and a number of my colleagues here in the Senate have stated that limiting campaign spending would violate first amendment protection of freedom of speech. I take second place to no one in defense of the first amendment and the freedom of speech clause, as well as freedom of religion, freedom of right to assembly, freedom of right to petition the Government. But I believe, as someone who studied the Constitution in depth for some years, that the Buckley decision was wrong as a matter of legal interpretation. There are many who agree with that. In fact, on November 10, 1996 some 26 scholars joined together to urge the Supreme Court to reconsider and reverse the decision in Buckley versus Valeo. Among them are some of the most prominent constitutional scholars in the United States, including Pro. Bruce Ackerman of the Yale Law School, Pro. Ronald Dworkin of the New York University Law School, Pro. Peter Arenella of the University of California Law School, Pro. Robert Aronson of the University of Washington Law School, and many, many others. Following the statement of the professors, the attorneys general of 24 States called for the reversal of the Buckley decision in January 1997. The simple fact is that the Buckley decision makes no sense as a matter of law. Why should an individual be able to spend an unlimited amounted of money when an individual's brother is limited to $1,000 in speech? If freedom of speech applies to a candidate, why does not the same freedom of speech apply to a candidate's brother? Freedom of speech has traditionally been limited by Supreme Court decisions. It is not an unlimited, absolute right. You have the famous decision by Oliver Wendell Holmes on clear and present danger. If there is a clear and present danger, speech may be limited. The most famous example of limiting free speech is the rule that you cannot cry ``fire'' in a crowded theater. If you cry ``fire'' in a crowded theater that endangers other people who would be injured in the stampede for the exits. Likewise, you are not free to use a racial or religious slur against somebody. There is a famous Supreme Court opinion on this issue by Justice Murphy. An individual had uttered a racial slur and the target of the slur punched the speaker in the nose. The speaker then sued the individual who hit him for assault and battery. Justice Murphy ruled that the person who had uttered the slur and was punched could not sue. He held that racial slurs were fighting words, and you cannot utter fighting words even within the context of freedom of speech. We know from very complex decisions by the Supreme Court that there is a limit as to what you can say in the way of obscenity. If material appeals to the prurient interest, if it is contrary to accepted moral standards, it can be restricted. In addition, this body has gotten involved in some very controversial issues in the effort to protect children's viewing on television. So there are clearly limits to first amendment protection. As I say, I take second place to no one in wishing to safeguard the first amendment. But I have heard a lot of talk in the U.S. Senate that this amendment would be an invasion of cherished freedoms of speech. I disagree. Money is not speech. Just on its face it is not speech. And to enable the wealthy to, in effect, buy elections is not sound public policy. Congress ought to have the authority to make that change. We have seen the most recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the subject in Colorado Republican Campaign Committee versus Federal Election Commission, a 1996 decision which defies logic, defies reason, and defies reading to understand what this opinion means. There is an opinion by Justice Kennedy concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part with Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Scalia joining. There is an opinion by Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part, in which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia joined in part. There is an opinion by Justice Stevens with a dissenting opinion, with Justice Ginsburg joining. There is another opinion by Justice Breyer joined by Justice O'Connor and Justice Souter. All that to the viewing audience on C-SPAN sounds extraordinarily complicated, but you ``ain't heard nothing yet.'' It is a lot more complicated than that. In order to have an opinion of the Supreme Court, you have to have five Justices who state a judgment and then articulate an opinion so you know what the ruling of the Court is. There is no opinion which five Justices joined in. You have four Justices saying they have one conclusion, which leads them to the judgment that results, and other Justices saying they have different reasons leading to a judgment. In other words, you have a majority of the Justices agreeing on the conclusion but not agreeing on the reasons. You hear the Supreme Court often criticize legislative intent, criticize what the Congress of the United States does because it is not clear. Some Justices, Justice Scalia in particular, say they do not pay any attention to legislative intent because they cannot find it. We spend a lot of time on the floor of this Senate seeking to clarify legislative intent: stating what we are trying to accomplish and asking the managers if they agree with that and expect that to be followed, trying to give some guidance because we cannot anticipate every last conclusion and every last consequence when we have legislated. But our muddled congressional activities and actions are clear as crystal compared to what the Supreme Court does frequently as illustrated in this Colorado case. By the time you finish reading this case about what parties can do and about what soft money can do, there is absolutely no guidance. That guidance ought to be presented by the Congress of the United States. If we had a constitutional amendment on campaign spending, all of the confusion of the Buckley opinion and the Colorado opinion would be eliminated. You have an extraordinary situation where the President of the United States is reported, in the book by his campaign director, Dick Morris, as sitting down and editing the campaign commercials paid for by millions of dollars of soft money collected by the Democratic National Committee. Federal election law provides that soft money must be spent on independent expenditures. But money is certainly not being spent independently of President Clinton's campaign if President Clinton sits and edits the commercials. But that is precisely what President Clinton did. Some have argued that President Clinton did not violate the election law because the DNC spent soft money and the soft money was used for issue advocacy instead of express advocacy on behalf of a specific candidate. The general rule of what constitutes express advocacy for a specific candidate is ``vote for Senator Bennett.'' That would be express advocacy. Or ``vote against Senator Bennett.'' But if someone engages in issue advocacy and lists all the votes which Senator Bennett has made which they claim are undesirable and mentions all of the good qualities of Senator Bennett's opponent, that is often considered issue advocacy. That is often not controlled by the Federal election laws. Let's face it, the line between issue advocacy and express advocacy is impossible to draw. We are approaching the issue of campaign finance reform in the activities of the Governmental Affairs Committee. This was the subject of heated discussion on this floor, though maybe not as heated as it was in the Republican caucus. The distinguished Presiding Officer was there. I might say, parenthetically, it is very troublesome to have our deliberations among Republican Senators in the caucus reported to the press. I was called by the press. My standard answer is, ``I will tell you what I said, but I won't tell you what anybody else said.'' Then the reporter says, ``Well, do you mind confirming this?'' And they repeat exactly what happened in the Republican caucus, which was limited to Republican Senators. Very distressing. That really is a confidential communication that ought to be respected. But when we looked at that issue, we came to the conclusion that we have to have a wider scope which includes not only illegal but improper activities. That is because we want to correct what has gone on, and not only with the use of these millions of dollars in soft money, but what has gone on in foreign expenditures. We have seen very substantial moneys contributed illegally by foreigners. We know it is illegal because the Democratic National Committee has returned the money. When I talk about the Democratic National Committee, I do not wish to be unduly partisan. I favor an inquiry which would take in not only the Democratic Presidential campaign, but the Republican Presidential campaign, and not only the Presidential campaigns but congressional campaigns, so that we would take a look across the board and not with a limited scope. But the foreign contributions as disclosed to the media have been received by the Democratic National Committee. And we know they are illegal because the Democratic National Committee has returned a great many. We do not know if they returned them all. This is a matter that we ought to look into. Although contributions by foreigners, noncitizens, are illegal, maybe we ought to extend our laws beyond the bounds which we have now. If we are to really be able to regulate campaign money, we are going to have to have the authority to do it without having the Supreme Court hand down the Colorado case and without having loopholes virtually as broad as the planet. These are issues of great importance. We have really seen our democracy, our Republic, on the line in terms of what has happened on campaign irregularities. This is something that the Congress ought to take up. The Congress cannot take it up realistically unless we have a constitutional amendment. I see my distinguished colleague, Senator Hollings, has come back to the floor. I am happy to start again. I am not sure where he came in.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. It is my hope, Mr. President, that we will have a definitive statement, as I say, next Tuesday. We need the definitive statement so that we come to closure on the issue, and then it is a matter for scientists acting on their independent judgment. It is my hope and expectation that the abundance of scientific tests which are already available will show that mammograms are important for women 40 to 49. When I talk about medical tests, I speak from some personal experience, having had an MRI which disclosed a very serious problem. On these medical examinations, the earlier the better, so I hope we move ahead as promptly as we can. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, March 5, 1997. Richard D. Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. Dear Doctor Klausner: I was very distressed to hear Secretary Shalala's testimony yesterday that there will be another two-month delay on having the National Cancer Institute reach a conclusion on whether mammograms are warranted for women aged 40 to 49. As disclosed in our previous hearing, the NIH consensus development conference panel press statement of January 23, 1997, was probably inadvertently released. That resulted in a lot of anxiety for women in the 40 to 49 age category and beyond. When you testified before the Subcommittee on February 5, 1997, the expectation was that the matter would be resolved by further NCI proceedings on February 25, 1997. Now we hear that there will not be a definitive statement until early May. During the intervening 60 days, thousands of women in the 40 to 49 age category might be screened which could result in the saving of many lives. I would appreciate your immediate response as to why the National Cancer Institute cannot make a prompt decision, or in the alternative, give our Subcommittee an earlier date. Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER. I am concerned that the delays in mammograms could constitute a health hazard for women 40 to 49. And, beyond that, that there is much confusion in America on that subject. The upshot of it has been that there now appears that the subcommittee will render its report to the full committee on this Friday, and there will be a final report rendered next Tuesday which will eliminate the need for accelerated hearings in our subcommittee to try to come to a conclusion on this important matter. I emphasize that I appreciate the need for an independent medical judgment on this important subject. It seems to me that where all the tests have been performed and it is a matter of issuing guidelines, coming to closure and judgment on this should not require such a lengthy period of time. I believe that there is not a sufficient sense of urgency generally, and in Government specifically, as this issue has been addressed. My views are expressed more fully in these letters, and I shall not take a greater period of time to elaborate upon them here. In coming to my own judgment that mammograms are warranted for women 40 to 49, the subcommittee held hearings in Pittsburgh, in Hershey, and in Philadelphia, where we heard from a long array of witnesses. A report has been prepared by my able staff member, Betty Lou Taylor, and also by Craig Higgins. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the Record following my oral statement. It sets forth the findings of prominent doctors in Pennsylvania and quite a number of women in the 40-to-49 category who give firsthand testimony about the importance of mammograms for them and the importance of mammograms generally for women in the 40-to-49 category.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when I was dissatisfied with his response, I wrote to Dr. Harold Varmus, Director of the National Institutes of Health, the overall supervisor, on March 6, 1997 asking that there be some acceleration of this determination because no further tests were necessary but only a judgment was needed. What I found was that the matter was being referred to a 7-person subcommittee which was going to deliberate on the issue and then take it up by an 18-person full committee. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Dr. Varmus and a subsequent letter to Dr. Klausner be included in the Record following my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the final subject I wish to address briefly involves the problem of mammograms for women age 40 to 49. Mr. President, this subject came into sharp focus when a National Institutes of Health panel on January 23 issued a report that mammograms were not warranted for women in the 40 to 49 category. That was immediately met with very widespread criticism, including criticism from Dr. Richard Klausner, the Director of the National Cancer Institute, who said that he was shocked by that conclusion. As the facts later developed, a press release was inadvertently disclosed. Some of the members of the panel had held that mammograms were not warranted. But, as I understand it, that had not been thoroughly analyzed and agreed upon by the panel. But once this press release came out they stood by the release. And there has been enormous confusion in America on this issue of women 40 to 49. The subcommittee, which I chair and which has jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services, had a hearing on February 5 at which Dr. Klausner restated his shock about the matter. He thought that the advantages of mammograms for women 40 to 49 had not been appropriately emphasized, and the disadvantages had been emphasized too heavily. He also said that he was going to await a meeting of the National Cancer Institute later in February--on February 24 and 25. It was my understanding that the matter would be resolved at that time. But, in fact, it was not. When the Secretary of Health and Human Services testified before our subcommittee on March 4 she said that there would be a 2-month delay, which I said in those hearings was unacceptable. I have since pressed Dr. Klausner as to why there would be such a delay. I wrote to him on March 5, 1997. I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for that answer. We do know that investigations take a very long time, and it is not my preference to have a cutoff date of December 31. I think that is very difficult. But the reality is that we faced obstacles in the Rules Committee which limited the scope, and now we have broadened them and limited the time. You have Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who has been on an investigation for 3 years. You have had independent counsel on Iran- Contra on the investigation for many years. The Senator from Tennessee and I, in 1995, were on an investigation of Ruby Ridge. We had 15 days of hearings and 70-some witnesses. We filed a 150-plus page report, all from Labor Day to the end of the year, in 4 months. And the Department of Justice has undertaken an investigation involving four FBI agents who may not have told the entire story. They started that inquiry in late 1995, and 15, 16, 17 months have passed. I recently wrote to the Attorney General and asked her when she is going to finish the investigation so we can conclude, and I got a reply that it is still months away. The Senator from Ohio is correct. When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, I ran lots of grand jury proceedings and investigations. I know from experience that we are going to face the most tenacious and microscopic examinations by the best lawyers in the country coming to look at everything we do. I don't like to see a December 31 date. But now it has been established, as best we can on the floor, as a target date. We are going to respond, and we will extend the time if we have to. Let us put people on notice that they cannot gain anything by delaying with frivolous lawsuits. If they take up our time, we are going to get an extension of the time. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Tennessee for allowing me some of his time, as well as the 10 minutes. I will try to be relatively brief to move the process along. Mr. President, this has been a good showing by the U.S. Senate today as we have come together on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats, trying to structure an inquiry and hearings which will help reform the American campaign system where virtually everyone agrees there is too much money in it, and it is a very troublesome factor. The vote was 99-0, with one abstention, to broaden the scope of this investigation to include improper as well as illegal activities. I think we have achieved a very significant broadening of the committee's charge. It really is very close to what the committee did initially on a unanimous vote, nine Republicans and seven Democrats, saying we would investigate both illegal and improper activities. It was narrowed by the Rules Committee, and now it has been broadened again, and for very important reasons. One reason is that we may expect everything our committee does to be subjected to the most microscopic minute examination and legal challenge. Already, there have been two challenges by those under subpoena on subpoenas already issued by the committee. If we had a charter which allowed us to look only at illegal activities, it might well be held by a court someday that such an investigation was beyond the scope of what the Congress or the Senate could do, because our function is to legislate or our function is to have oversight. Our function is not to prosecute. Our function is not to go into matters that just are illegal. When we go into matters which are improper, then it is with a view to changing the law. This is our legitimate function. Now, it could be said that we could look into illegal matters from a narrower point of view to change the penalty, but that is very constrictive and might well fail. We could have been tied up for a long period of time if we only had illegal activity with someone mounting a challenge that it was beyond the scope of what Congress could do. Also, if we are dealing only with illegal activity, there are many interpretations that might be made as to what is legal and what is illegal, and when those issues are raised they go to court and that can take a very long time. For example, Dick Morris, the President's campaign impresario, wrote in his book that President Clinton was personally involved in editing the commercials which were paid for by the Democratic National Committee with so-called soft money. Now that would appear on its face to be illegal because you may have independent expenditures but you may not have coordinated expenditures when someone has accepted public financing. But the argument was made that what was done was legal. I am not saying the President did it. This accusation is written in a book and it is inadmissible hearsay. We have to find out about it. Someone could challenge our inquiry if we were limited to illegal activities, although on the face, if true, this allegation certainly has all the appearance of illegality. Last Thursday the Attorney General said that it was not a contribution under the statute for someone to give thousands of dollars, millions of dollars, in soft money because that is used only on issue advocacy instead of urging the election or defeat of a specific candidate. So that if someone gave $1,000 where the money is used to, say, elect John Jones or defeat Frank Smith, that would be a contribution, but the millions of dollars in soft money would not be a contribution under the statute. In my legal judgment, that is palpably incorrect, but someone could raise that kind of a consideration. So I think we have taken a very, very significant step forward here in expanding the scope to cover improper and illegal activities, and as the distinguished chairman pointed out, that gives us an opportunity to serve the American public by having campaign finance reform. Mr. President, I had asked for this special 10 minutes because of another deep concern I have in the resolution that is currently drawn, and that is with an ending date of December 31, 1997. When you have a cutoff date, it is an open invitation to people who want to avoid the investigation to engage in legal maneuvers which might well be construed to be stalling tactics, although they have a right to do so, which could delay the matter long past the expiration day. For example, where someone is subpoenaed and the person then pleads the privilege against self-incrimination under the fifth amendment, which the individual would have a constitutional right to do, it would be up to the committee and the Congress to bring forward a charge of contempt of Congress because the Congress cannot impose a penalty but has to go for enforcement to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That all takes time. Then if the individual loses, they have a right to take an appeal to the circuit court of appeals, then appeal for a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. So one of the important items I think we need to have a discussion on here today is what we will do when we face that situation. The mood of the Senate was not such that we could get into extensive amendments of this resolution and we agreed not to offer amendments. I think we can cover this matter reasonably well by having a discussion with the distinguished chairman, the distinguished ranking member. The committee can always come back to Congress and ask for an extension. What I seek to do here today, Mr. President, is to get a sense from the managers as to the circumstances where we would ask for an extension. I do not say these are the sole circumstances, but illustratively, if someone is subpoenaed and that individual pleads the fifth amendment, privilege against self-incrimination, granted immunity, ordered to answer, refuses to answer, and there is a contempt citation, it goes to the district court and the circuit court and then the Supreme Court, I ask my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, the chairman of the committee, if that would be an appropriate time for our committee to ask for an extension, and I will ask the same question of the distinguished ranking member, Senator Glenn, if that would be an appropriate circumstance for our committee to seek an extension and obtain an extension from the full Senate for whatever time we lost by those legal proceedings to compel an answer to that question, and, also, then to complete whatever leads that may result? We know it is not just the answer that the witness would give but it might lead to other evidence, and otherwise if we did not have an extension of time we would be stymied on our legitimate investigation. I ask my colleague from Tennessee if that would be an occasion for us to get an extension beyond the December 31st cutoff.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for those answers. He has expanded beyond the example I gave of a stalling witness to take in other matters. There might be a challenge to our entire investigation, which is not possible for us to anticipate today, and legal challenges might occur, or other impediments, which may come before the investigation or may occur to lead us to seek additional time. I am glad to hear the Senator say--and he put it in the Record-- that he discussed it with the leadership and members of the Rules Committee, as I have. Frankly, I don't like the cutoff date. But people who might tend to delay or wear us down will be on notice that we are not unaware of that, and that we have anticipated it, to the maximum extent possible. I would like to address a question to the ranking member, the Senator from Ohio, and ask if he agrees with what the chairman has replied to in the colloquy.