Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to join with Senator Hollings in introducing a joint resolution providing for an amendment to the United States Constitution which would provide authority to the Congress to regulate Federal election spending and to the States to regulate spending in State and local elections. This joint resolution is very similar to S.J. Res. 48, which I introduced in the 104th Congress on January 26, 1996, 3 days before the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley versus Valeo. It is also very similar to constitutional amendments which Senator Hollings and I have proposed since 1989. Now, more than ever, the time has come for meaningful election law reform--reform which necessitates overturning the Buckley decision. The unprecedented spending levels during 1996 Presidential and Congressional campaigns should serve as the impetus for approving this consitutional amendment. Presidential candidates spent a total of $237 million in the 1996 primary campaigns, of which $56 million represented publicly funded matching payments. Public financing of the general election added $153 million to the total. One primary candidate decided not to take Federal matching funds and used $37 million of his own resources to fund a campaign in which he was not restricted from the same state-by-state and overall limits as other candidates. The 1996 Congressional campaign cycle was similarly grim for all but television station advertising managers and political consultants. There were record levels of spending including $220.8 million by Senate candidates and $405.6 million by House candidates. This spending, much of which went to negative television commercials, did little to restore the public's confidence in the electoral process, much less our institution. The Supreme Court has made this proposed amendment even more urgent through its June, 1996 decision in Colorado Republicans Federal Campaign Committee versus Federal Election Commission. In that case, the Court cut an enormous hole in the remaining Federal campaign spending limits by striking down a restriction on party spending when the parties are acting independently of the candidates they support. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion stated that the ``independent expression of a political party's views is core 1st Amendment activity'' entitled to full protection. Until the Colorado decision, Federal election law limited how much the parties themselves could spend on House and Senate races. Now, it's a multi-million dollar free- for-all, with a prospect of subsequent litigation over the ``independence'' of such expenditures and a rash of complaints filed against candidates in future election cycles. If nothing else, the vast sums of money spent in this recent election, coupled with the June Supreme Court decision, have raised the profile of the Buckley decision even further. I am pleased to note that the view that Buckley should be overturned is shared by a group of prominent constitutional scholars who recently began a campaign to overturn the Buckley decision. According to a November 10, 1996 New York Times article, 26 scholars have signed a statement urging the Supreme Court to reconsider and reverse its 1976 decision, which has essentially allowed an unlimited amount of money to flow into campaign war chests. Among the scholars signing the statement are Bruce Ackerman (Yale Law School), Ronald Dworkin (New York University Law School), Peter Arenella (University of California at Los Angeles Law School), and Robert Aronson (University of Washington Law School). Such a concerted effort by legal scholars, when coupled with Congressional efforts and the public's revulsion at the amount of money in politics, should lead to a new day for campaign finance in which rational, reasonable limits bring sanity back into the political process. Overturning the Buckley decision has long been a priority of mine. In fact, the Buckley decision had a very significant impact on this Senator, because at that time in 1976, I was running for the U.S. Senate. I had announced my candidacy on November 17, 1975, for the seat being vacated by a very distinguished Senator, Hugh Scott. Under the 1974 federal election law, there was a limited amount a candidate for the Senate could spend of his or her own money, based on population. For a State the size of Pennsylvania, it was $35,000. That was about the limit of the means which I had at that time, having been extensively involved in public service as district attorney of Philadelphia and for a relatively short period of time in the private practice of law. However, I had decided to run for the office of U.S. Senate against a very distinguished American who later became a U.S. Senator, John Heinz, who had more financial resources than I did. I should note that after my eventual election in 1980, he and I formed a very close working partnership and very close friendship. In the middle of that campaign, on January 29, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Buckley v.Valeo and said a candidate can spend any amount of his own money. John Heinz was in a position to do so and did just that. That made an indelible impression upon me, so much so that when the decision came down on January 29, I petitioned for leave to intervene as amicus and filed a set of legal appeals, all of which were denied. John Heinz subsequently won the primary and general elections and served with great distinction until his tragic death. As I noted at the outset, this is not a new issue for me to bring before my colleagues. I have sponsored and cosponsored legislation for 7 years and, during the 101st Congress, testified in support of such a Constitutional amendment before the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution on February 28, 1990. I gained significant new insight, however, on the subject of campaign spending from my experiences as a candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency during 1994 and 1995. During my travels to 30 States as a Presidential candidate, I was once again impressed with how important fundraising is and how disproportionate it is to the undertaking of a political candidacy. My concept of running for elective office, Mr. President, is a matter of issues, a matter of tenacity, a matter of integrity, and how you conduct a campaign. However, money has become the dominant issue in the Presidential campaign. And the media focus on it to the virtual exclusion of the many issues of substantive matters which are really involved in a campaign for the Presidency. It has seemed to me since my experiences in 1976, as I have watched enormous expenditures in campaign financing by individuals, that the Buckley decision was based on unsound constitutional interpretation and certainly created unsound public policy. There is nothing in the Constitution, in my legal judgment, which guarantees freedom of speech on any reasonable, realistic, logical constitutional interpretation which says you ought to be able to spend as much money as you have to win an elective office. I think it is high time for the Congress of the United States and the 50 States to reexamine that in a constitutional amendment, which is the purpose of the joint resolution we are introducing today. Simply put, Congress should have the authority to establish a spending limit in Federal elections without regard to the first amendment limitation which was applied by the Supreme Court in Buckley. In approaching this matter, Mr. President, I am very concerned about amending the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which covers the freedoms of speech, religion, press, and assembly. But, the constitutional amendment we are proposing really does not go to any of these core first amendment values. This is not a matter affecting religion. It is not a matter really affecting speech. I think it was a very far stretch when a divided U.S. Supreme Court said that a campaign contribution from an individual was not a matter of freedom of speech, but spending one's own money in a campaign is protected speech. At that time, the Supreme Court did not affect the limitation on spending where an individual could contribute only $1,000 in the primary and $1,000 in the general, except for contributions by political action committees, which could receive $5,000. I would note that in 1976, my brother had considerably more financial means than I did and would have been very much interested in helping his younger brother, but the limitation on my brother in that primary was $1,000. It seemed to me then and it seems to me now that if a candidate has the right to spend as much of his or her money as he or she chooses, then why should not any other citizen have the same right under the first amendment to express himself or herself by political contributions. That distinction by the Buckley court still seems unfounded 20 years later. There have been many, many examples of multimillion-dollar expenditures in this body, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and in State government, and in 1992 and 1996 we have witnessed such expenditures by two men running for President of the United States. The fact of life is, if you advertise enough on television, if you sell candidacies like you sell soap, the sky is the limit. Even the White House of the United States of America, the Office of the President, may be, in fact, up for sale if someone is willing to start off by announcing a willingness to spend $25 million. If you have $400 million, $25 million is not an enormous sum; you still have $375 million left after your campaign. As I have said before, most people can get by on $375 million. Given some of the personal fortunes out there, it is conceivable that someone could spend $50 million or even $75 million to promote a candidacy, both to articulate a positive view and then, perhaps even more effectively, to fund negative television advertisements aimed at opponents. A constitutional amendment is also a direct way to deal with campaign finance reform without having a further burden on the Treasury of the United States. We have debated campaign finance reform repeatedly in a variety of contexts. Most proposals come down to a proposition to have Federal subsidies for candidates and then to call upon the candidates to relinquish their rights under Buckley versus Valeo in order to qualify for Federal funding. I have opposed such Federal funding because I think it is unwise to further burden the Treasury by having campaigns paid for by the U.S. Treasury. During the 103d Congress, the Senate went on record on this very issue, adopting an amendment to S.3, the campaign finance reform bill, that stated that it was the sense of the Senate that Congress should adopt a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment empowering Congress and the States to set reasonable limits on campaign expenditures. The amendment was approved by a 52-43 vote on May 27, 1993. However, in the 104th Congress, the Senate went backwards in my view. It had the opportunity to adopt this proposal as an amendment to the Balanced Budget Amendment, but it was defeated on a procedural motion by 52-45. I am hopeful that the vote in 1995 was an aberration and that a majority of my colleagues will, at long last, agree with me and Senator Hollings, among others, that it is high time we amend the Constitution to overturn the Buckley decision. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the New York Times article of November 10, 1996, be included in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly about the signing into law this morning of the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 1996. This is legislation to provide education and job training benefits to widows or spouses of Federal law enforcement officers killed or rendered totally and permanently disabled--and their children--in the line of duty. I introduced the legislation in the Senate following my chairing of the Ruby Ridge hearings which resulted in the tragic death of Marshal Degan. I am proud to wear today the U.S. Marshal's badge of Bill Degan which was handed out at the signing ceremonies this morning. Ruby Ridge was a great tragedy. It involved the loss of three lives, all very valuable, and it cost the life of Bill Degan. I have had the opportunity to sit and visit with Mrs. Degan, his widow, and their two young sons, Bill, Jr., and Brian. Our meetings focused attention on the issue so that legislation could be passed. On the House side, companion legislation was introduced by my distinguished colleagues, Congressman Jon Fox, from suburban Philadelphia, and Congressman Gerry Studds, from Massachusetts. It applies to many law enforcement officers who have been tragically killed, one of whom is FBI agent Chuck Reid, who was gunned down on March 22, 1996, just a few months ago, in arresting a drug suspect in Philadelphia. It tells Federal law enforcement officers and their families that the Government stands behind them, and if they are killed or totally and permanently disabled in the line of duty, we will protect their spouses and their children. As we consider this matter further, it may be that similar benefits ought to be structured for law enforcement officers generally, for they represent the thin blue line which stands between the citizenry and violence in our streets, something in which I have had extensive experience as district attorney of Philadelphia. I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record from the Federal Investigators Association and Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association commending the Congress for this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Georgia for waiting. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on Monday, September 30, 1996, I introduced S. 2165, the Fair Trade Practices Act of 1996. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill is as follows:

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the three votes which we have had today, and to express my very deep concern about the precedents which the Senate has established in attaching to a conference report a highly controversial provision which was not subjected to hearings, or analysis, or the legislative process, and which was rammed through here today without real due process or a real legislative process. What has happened here--this is somewhat esoteric for someone who may be watching on C-SPAN II--is that the Federal Aviation Administration bill was passed by the House and Senate, and then it went to conference. In the conference there was an addition of a provision to determine which Federal labor agency would have jurisdiction over express companies. That provision was added into the conference report without having been considered by either the House or the Senate. It was not considered in hearings, it was not considered in debate, and it was not voted on, but it was in effect rammed through, and has become law because it was attached to a bill which has some $8 billion of Federal airport expenditures--a matter of enormous importance for America generally, and a matter of enormous importance for my home State, Pennsylvania--which has so many airports involved with this necessary funding that comes out of the aviation trust fund. It does not add to the deficit. It does not come out of general revenues. It is paid for out of an airport trust fund. But what we have done today, I would suggest, is a very, very serious perversion of Senate procedures. What can happen in the future is that under the overruling of the ruling of the Chair, any measure can be added in any conference report at any time, and if the conference report overall touches a subject of sufficient importance it will outweigh a provision which has been added without appropriate consideration. I voted against cloture--that is, I voted against cutting off debate on the underlying bill--because it seemed to me that provision required analysis, consideration, and debate. It affects thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania because it could determine which agency will govern the issue of labor matters and labor certification, and which representation will be in effect. It was represented that it was a mistake that it was left out before. I am skeptical about that, Mr. President because we have that representation made all the time. It was represented that it would only apply to one company. Well, that may be one company too many, if it is a bad provision not subjected to analysis, debate, nor hearings in our regular legislative process. But on the face of that provision, it is entirely likely and highly probable that the provision will apply to many companies. And, therefore, I voted against cutting off debate. Then on the issue of overruling the Chair, the Chair ruled that this provision should not have been in the bill under Senate rules. The Senate overruled the Chair by a vote of 56 to 39. There is talk that we can change the rule. But any time we have set a precedent in this body on allowing an extraneous measure to come in on a conference report, that is a precedent of overwhelming importance. Any time 51 Members think that the matter is so important that it ought to be passed to disregard the rules and the procedure, there is a precedent which has been established. It is very important to proceed in a principled way, and we have not done that here. I feel so strongly about that, Mr. President, that I voted against the overall bill. Only two Senators voted against the measure on final passage--Senator Simon and Arlen Specter. If we do not follow the rules and don't proceed in a principled way, we are doing serious damage to the institutions and procedures which are set up not for one special case but to govern our conduct generally. I think it is especially important because this breach of our rules comes within 3 days of our passage of the omnibus appropriations bill where again we breached the rules. The Constitution calls for a separation of powers. It calls for the Congress to legislate on appropriations, and submit appropriations bills to the President for his consideration. If he signs it, it is law. If he vetoes it, the Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote. But that wasn't done on the omnibus appropriations bill. The President's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, sat in on the deliberations and negotiations with the Congress, which is a serious constitutional breach. The President had delegated to the Chief of Staff authority to act for the President. What Chief of Staff Panetta said became the President's conclusion, but the President does not have the authority to delegate his responsibility under the United States Constitution. In the end, that was an important bill. It had provisions for funding for education, which I supported; provisions for funding for Health and Human Services, which I supported; provisions for funding workplace safety, which I supported--all of which come under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee which I chair, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services. I think, Mr. President, as we rush to leave Washington that we are setting some very bad precedents and creating some very bad rules. I was one of, I think, 14 Senators to vote against the omnibus appropriations bill because I thought we were doing violence to the U.S. Constitution. We did that because we couldn't move through the legislative process in due course. Extraneous amounts were added, something I spoke to at length last Saturday and on Monday. So I shall not repeat it here. There are other colleagues waiting to speak. But these rules are established. I believe that the most precious gift America has is the U.S. Constitution. That sets the framework for our Government. Then we establish rules for our courts--our civil courts and our criminal courts. And we establish rules for the Congress. They are established in order to give due process. They are established in order to have a measure introduced, analyzed, and subjected to hearings where people can come in on both sides, testify. Then we can make an informed judgment. But when that is not done and when we violate those rules, we put our entire system at jeopardy. And that is wrong. That is why I was one of the few Senators voting against the omnibus appropriations bill, and one of only two Senators voting against this Federal Aviation Administration bill, recognizing the importance to my home State of Pennsylvania and to the entire country.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is acting today to pass the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, legislation Senator Kohl and I introduced earlier this year to combat economic espionage. This bill addresses an issue of critical importance to our Nation's economic well-being. It is a testament to the importance of the issue that we are able to act in a bipartisan fashion on the eve of national elections. As chairman of both the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, with jurisdiction over legal matters involving technology, I have been concerned with the threat posed to American economic competitiveness in a global economy by the theft of intellectual property and trade secrets. In an increasingly complex and competitive economic world, intellectual property forms a critical component of our economy. As traditional industries shift to low-wage producers in developing countries, our economic edge depends to an ever-increasing degree on the ability of our businesses and inventors to stay one step ahead of those in other countries. And American business and inventors have been extremely successful and creative in developing intellectual property and trade secrets. America leads the nation's of the world in developing new products and new technologies. Millions of jobs depend on the continuation of the productive minds of Americans, both native born and immigrants who find the freedom here to try new ideas and add to our economic strength. Inventing new and better technologies, production methods, and the like, can be expensive. American companies and the U.S. Government spend billions on research and development. The benefits reaped from these expenditures can easily come to nothing, however, if a competitor can simply steal the trade secret without expending the development costs. While prices may be reduced, ultimately the incentives for new invention disappear, along with jobs, capital investment, and everything else that keeps our economy strong. For years now, there has been mounting evidence that many foreign nations and their corporations have been seeking to gain competitive advantage by stealing the trade secrets, the intangible intellectual property of inventors in this country. The Intelligence Committee has been aware that since the end of the cold war, foreign nations have increasingly put their espionage resources to work trying to steal American economic secrets. Estimates of the loss to U.S. business from the theft of intangible intellectual property exceed $100 billion. The loss in U.S. jobs is incalculable. For the benefit of my colleagues who wish more detail about the nature and scope of the problem of economic espionage, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article ``The Lure of the Steal'' from the March 4, 1996, U.S. News & World Report, and an article by Peter Schweizer, ``The Growth of Economic Espionage--America if Target Number One'' from the January-February 1996 edition of Foreign Affairs be printed at the end of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a major problem for law enforcement in responding to the increase in such thefts has been a glaring gap in Federal law. For many years, the United States has had a variety of theft statutes in the United States Code. These laws are derived primarily from the common law of theft. For example, it violates Federal law to move stolen property across State lines. In order to violate such laws, however, the courts have held that the property stolen cannot be intangible property, such as trade secrets or intellectual property. In addition, theft usually requires that the thief take the property with the intention of depriving the lawful owner of its use. But such a test if useless when a person copies software and leaves the original software with the lawful owner, taking only the secrets on the software but leaving the physical property. The lawful owner still has full use of the property, but its value is significantly reduced. In order to update Federal law to address the technological and economic realities of the end of the 20th century, I began working earlier this year with Senator Kohl and officials from the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation on developing legislation. We developed two separate bills, that were introduced as S. 1556 and S. 1557. The former bill broadly prohibited the theft of proprietary economic information by any person. The latter bill was more narrowly drawn to proscribe such thefts by foreign nations and those working on behalf of foreign nations. At the end of February, I chaired a joint hearing of the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information on the issue of economic espionage. Continuing to work closely with members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, the administration, and various industry groups, Senator Kohl and I were able to produce the bill the Senate is today considering. The Senate adopted S. 1556 with an amendment I offered, based on S. 1557, to bring together into a single vehicle the prohibition on the theft of trade secrets and proprietary information by both private individuals and corporations and by foreign governments and those acting on their behalf, and passed them using H.R. 3723, the House companion bill, as the vehicle. The language of my amendment dealing with foreign-government-sponsored economic espionage was, with minor changes, unanimously reported to the Senate by the Intelligence Committee earlier this year as part of the Intelligence Authorization Act. We have now reconciled the Senate- and House-passed bills in this agreement, which also incorporates several unrelated provisions. Senator Kohl and I are inserting into the Record a managers' statement which reflects the understanding of the bill's sponsors on the intent behind and meaning of the economic espionage bill. Adoption of this bill will not be a panacea, but it is a start. Congress has started moving to protect U.S. economic interests. For example, earlier this year we enacted strong anticounterfeiting legislation, S. 1136, to protect American business from counterfeit goods. This bill addresses cognate problems. Both are only a start. Corporations must exercise vigilance over their trade secrets and proprietary information. Contract law may provide civil remedies. In addition, some States have adopted legislation to allow the owners of trade secrets to use civil process to protect their ownership rights. We have been made aware that available civil remedies may not be adequate to the task and that a Federal civil cause of action is needed. This is an issue we need to study carefully, and will do so next year. For helping to make sure that this legislation was passed this year, I want to thank Senator Kohl for his leadership, and acknowledge the work of his excellent staff, Jon Leibowitz and Victoria Bassetti. I also want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and his staff, especially Paul Larkin and Pat Murphy, for their valuable contributions to this legislation. I would also be remiss if I did not also thank Chairman McCollum of the House Crime Subcommittee, and Representative Schumer, ranking member of that Subcommittee, and their staff, Glenn Schmitt and Bill McGeveran, for their hard work. Finally, we worked closely with the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in developing this legislation, and I want to thank Alan Hoffman of the Justice Department and Pat Kelly of the FBI for their hard work on this bill. Exhibit 1 [From U.S. News & World Report, Mar. 4, 1996] The Lure of the Steal (By Douglas Pasternak with Gordon Witkin) Not long ago, Subrahmanyam M. Kota went into hamsters--or, to be more precise, their ovary cells. That was a big switch for Kota. In the 1980s, he allegedly sold military secrets on infrared detectors to the KGB. With the cold war over, however, hamster ovaries were the coming thing. A Boston biotech company had genetically engineered the cells to produce a protein that boosted the manufacture of red blood cells, making them a valuable commodity. Kota and a former company scientist are charged with stealing a batch of the hamster cells and offering them to an FBI undercover agent in exchange for $300,000. Law enforcement officials suspect the pair of selling another batch to a biomedical research outfit in India. It was dramatic evidence of how the world of espionage has changed--from selling secrets to the KGB one year to moving hamster ovaries to a research firm in India another. Kota has been charged with three counts of espionage. He pleaded not guilty and is out on bail awaiting trial. Today the field of economic espionage is wide open. Instead of missile launch codes, the new targets of choice are technological and scientific data concerning flat-panel televisions, electric cars and new computers. ``During the cold war, we thought of the threat as KGB agents crawling into the facility,'' says Gregory Gwash, the deputy director for industrial security matters at the Defense Investigative Service. ``The game is no longer espionage in the classic sense.'' growing threat Economic espionage is as old as greed itself. But with huge sums to be made stealing designs for computer chips and patents for hormones, the threat is growing. Rapid changes in technology are tempting many countries to try to acquire intellectual properties in underhanded ways, thus bypassing the enormous costs of research and development. New global communications--cellular phones, faxes, voice transmissions and data on the Internet--make this type of spying easier than ever. And it's not just hostile governments snooping. ``Countries don't have friends. They have interests!'' declares a poster from the Department of Energy's counterintelligence program. ``Guess which countries are interested in what you do?'' A senior U.S. intelligence official answers the question. ``The ones who do it most,'' he says, ``are our greatest friends.'' Indeed, countries such as France, Israel and China have made economic espionage a top priority of their foreign intelligence services. A congressional report released last week confirmed that close U.S. allies are after critical U.S. technology, saying they posed ``a significant threat to national security.'' intensified efforts Friend or enemy, Washington is taking the trend seriously. The nation's intelligence agencies are increasing their overseas collection of information on foreign bribery schemes that put U.S. corporations at a disadvantage. The agencies are also providing classified information to U.S. policy makers engaged in trade negotiations with foreign governments. Domestically, the FBI has also taken more- aggressive steps recently. This month, the Justice Department sent new draft legislation that would bolster the FBI's ability to investigate economic espionage to the Office of Management and Budget. The new bill--named the Economic Espionage and Protection of Proprietary Economic Information Act of 1996--is badly needed, says the FBI, because there are no statutes that deal with the theft of intellectual property, making it difficult to prosecute such cases. In the past year, FBI agents have recorded more than a 100 percent increase in economic spying and now have more than 800 cases under investigation--espionage attempts from the supersophisticated to the downright crude. ``We're seeing all of the above,'' says Robert ``Bear'' Bryant, who oversees all FBI counterintelligence investigations nationwide, ``from the cyberattack to the shoplifter.'' Economic-espionage investigations require the FBI to gather intelligence through electronic surveillance and physical searches, a source of concern to many civil libertarians. But the FBI is empowered under existing law to gather intelligence for such purposes, and the new legislation would define more precisely how and when FBI agents could investigate the theft of corporate secrets. The key, legal specialists and FBI supervisors say, is defining precisely what constitutes conducting intelligence investigations, looking for spies and theft prevention, and what is a primarily criminal investigation whose objective is to put a spy behind bars. Both objectives can be accomplished, but the law requires intelligence and law enforcement interests be defined very carefully. The quest for corporate advantage has put many of the old players from the cold war back on the chessboard. Just this month. Russian President Boris Yeltsin ordered his senior intelligence officials to increase their efforts to obtain high-technology secrets from the West. Besides gathering intelligence and conducting criminal investigations, federal law enforcement officials have been trying to help corporations protect themselves. A law enacted in 1994 authorizes Attorney General Janet Reno to make payments of up to $500,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone involved in economic espionage. The National Counterintelligence Center, headed by an FBI agent but based at CIA headquarters in suburban Virginia, was established in August 1994, in part to help coordinate a governmentwide response to economic espionage incidents. The center began providing regional security briefings for industry last May. The FBI recently opened its own Economic Counterintelligence Unit, and its Development of Espionage, Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism Awareness (DECA) program inaugurated an instant fax alert service to U.S. corporations regarding specific economic-intelligence- collection activities. It is supplemented by the State Department's Overseas Security Advisory Council, which, like DECA, has begun posting economic threat information on an on- line bulletin board for its members. Some security experts say the FBI should employ more active measures to counter the threat. Mike Sekora tracked the global technology trade for the Defense Department in the 1980s, identifying foreign interest in U.S. technology to pre-empt thefts. Now a technology consultant, he believes the FBI should do the same. Profit motives aside, economic espionage is booming because there are few penalties for those who get caught. Rarely do economic spies serve time in jail. Nor do countries that encourage such activities have much to lose; since most are U.S. allies, Washington prefers to scold them in private rather than risk political backlash in public. Companies and industries targeted by foreign spies often contribute to the problem. Few report known acts of espionage, fearing it will affect stock prices and customer confidence. In a survey published in July by the National Counterintelligence Center, 42 percent of the responding corporations said they never reported suspected incidents of economic espionage to the government. At the same time, 74 of 173 companies that responded to the survey reported a total of 446 incidents of suspected economic espionage. culturebound The methods used to acquire economic-related data are often culturebound. ``The Chinese and Japanese flood you with people collecting all sorts of things in different areas,'' says a former FBI official. ``For the most part, it is absolutely legal,'' he said. ``The Japanese don't invest a lot of money in trade craft. They just send lots of people out talking and pick up trade secrets in the process,'' says the retired official. The Russians and French, on the other hand, use both legal and illegal means to target specific intelligence, experts say. Targeting economic data can take many forms. In two separate incidents in the early 1990s, French nationals working at Renaissance Software Inc. in Palo Alto, Calif., were arrested at San Francisco International Airport for attempting to steal the company's proprietary computer source codes. Marc Goldberg, a French computer engineer, had worked at the company under a program sponsored by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs that allows French citizens to opt out of military service if they are willing to work at high-tech U.S. firms. He was fined $1,000 and ordered to perform 1,000 hours of community service. The other individual, Jean Safar, was released soon after his arrest by the FBI. ``They said they did not have the power to do anything,'' recalls Renaissance's former president, Patrick Barkhordarian. The company, in fact, had received start-up funds from two French brothers, Daniel and Andrew Harari. In return for their investment, they received positions on the company's five-member board of directors. When an internal dispute erupted in 1992, the Harari brothers were able to place a third French citizen on the board. ``They converted the company to a French company,'' said Barkhordarian. Safar was told by the company, claims Barkhordarian, to take the source codes to France. There was nothing illegal about it. Renaissance was acquired by a publicly held U.S. company last fall. Even when the collection methods are legal, the results can hurt. In the summer of 1994, a film crew from Japanese public television visited dozens of U.S. biotech corporations, including California biotech giant Amgen, while filming a documentary on the industry. William Boni, Amgen's security director, was warned by a DECA agent that the FBI suspected the film was a cover for intelligence collection. Still, Boni allowed the visit, partly because the director of the film said this would help Amgen break into the Japanese biotech market. Once at Amgen, film crew members photographed every document they possibly could, including company production numbers. ``This was a very clear-cut case of benchmarking America's best practices for their industry,'' says Boni. ``They ran their vacuum cleaner over the U.S. biotech industry.'' Some efforts are not so subtle. In one case, an Amgen employee attempted to steal vials of Epogen, a genetically engineered hormone that controls the production of red blood cells and is one of two patented items in the company's product line. Security chief Boni was tipped to the threat by an anonymous letter, which said that the employee was planning to open up a black market in Epogen in his home country in Asia. The employee confessed. He was fired, but no charges were filed. Had the theft attempt succeeded, the rogue employee and an accomplice could have made a fortune. In 1995, Epogen sales amounted to nearly $1 billion. Neither of the two prongs of the U.S. attempt to combat such threats is simple. Like his predecessors, Directories of Central Intelligence John Deutch has provided clear marching orders to the CIA and other agencies that gather intelligence overseas. The agencies are to inform U.S. policy makers if foreign competitors are winning business abroad through bribery or other illegal means. In 1994, Boeing Aerospace, McDonnel Douglas and Raytheon Corp, won two multibillion- dollar contracts from Saudi Arabia and Brazil after President Clinton complained to those governments about bribes that rival French companies had paid to win the contracts, the information on the bribes came from U.S. intelligence agencies, President Clinton strongly endorses such action. ``You uncovered bribes that would have cheated American companies out of billions of dollars,'' he told a gathering of CIA employees last July. Over the past three years, the CIA has reportedly saved U.S. corporations $30 billion as a result of those efforts. Threat information Deutch has made it clear that, unlike the foreign intelligence services of at least 50 other nations, America's spy services are forbidden to engage in economic espionage for the benefit of corporate America. That's clear enough, but in today's global, multinational economy, it is often difficult to distinguish American from foreign corporations. The FBI, in fact, makes no such distinctions and provides all corporations operating in the United States with threat information regarding economic expionage. The other mission of the CIA and its sister agencies that operate abroad is to provide economic intelligence to U.S. policy makers. Last spring, the intelligence community helped U.S. trade officials learn of Japanese negotiating positions during automobile trade talks. This was perfectly legal under U.S. law, but the press disclosure prompted a firestorm of criticism from Capitol Hill, prompting some intelligence officials to grumble that such activities were more trouble then they were worth. Last year, several CIA officers were expelled from France for engaging in an intelligence operation to obtain information on France's position on global telecommunications talks. The CIA's inspector general investigated the matter, and a report is expected shortly. Given the ratio of risk to potential reward, many intelligence officials argue that America's espionage agencies should not be used to acquire economic information secretly when so much can be obtained from open sources. ``What you try to gain covertly,'' says Charles Emmling, a former CIA case officer who recruited Soviet agents from 1968 to 1991 and now teaches businesses how to protect their corporate trade secrets at Aegis Research Corp., ``becomes less and less important.'' Robert Steele, a 20- year veteran of the CIA's clandestine service, says the agency relies on cloak-and-dagger techniques out of habit. ``Don't send a spy,'' Steele says, ``where a schoolboy can go.'' That was precisely the mistake the CIA made last year in France, critics say. The second prong of the U.S. effort, playing defense, is also more complicated than ever. Kenneth Geide, the head of the FBI's new economic counterintelligence unit, says that there are a host of ways to go after a target and that often ``foreign governments are hiding their collection [activities] within legitimate activities.'' But some former law enforcement and intelligence officials fear that legal collection of information may be investigated simply to determine if illegal methods are being used. They argue that the onus of protecting proprietary information should remain on the shoulders of industry, not government. ``It is our responsibility to protect this [information], and it is our liability if we don't,'' contends a former intelligence official now in the private sector. There is still debate on the proper balanced role of law enforcement in countering this new threat within government as well. ``We don't want the FBI in our bedrooms or our boardrooms,'' quips a senior administration official. The FBI defends its approach and has vowed not to overstep its bounds. How to meet such a varied threat? ``We don't intend to, want to and can't investigate all foreigners,'' Geide says. The threat to America's national security from spies seeking economic secrets has increased significantly, but Geide says: ``We don't want to be alarmist about it. It deserves a measured approach.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Unfair Trade Practices Act to level the playing field for U.S. companies competing with foreign firms overseas by imposing sanctions against foreign persons and concerns engaging in corrupt trade practices to the disadvantage of a U.S. company and against countries that refuse to enforce or adopt their own foreign corrupt practices laws similar to our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I am introducing this bill at the end of this session rather than waiting to introduce it in the 105th Congress in order to provide people an opportunity to review this legislation over the intervening months. Earlier introduction of the bill was prevented by the press of Senate Intelligence Committee business. The Select Committee on Intelligence, which I chair, had a particularly heavy agenda this year, including, among many other items, the annual Intelligence Authorization Act providing for the first real reform of the U.S. intelligence community since 1947, criminalizing economic espionage, and directing a thorough study of how the U.S. Government is organized to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the committee has undertaken significant inquiries into CIA activities in Guatemala, the actions of U.S. officials regarding the flow of arms from Iran to Bosnia, and the bombing of United States facilities in Saudi Arabia. Mr. President, this bill directs the President to report to Congress regarding foreign persons and concerns that engage in corrupt practices and countries that do not have or do not enforce laws similar to our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Countries that the President determines are not engaged in a good faith effort to enact or enforce such laws will be sanctioned. Sanctions include a 50-percent reduction in foreign aid and USG opposition to the extension of any loan or financial or technical assistance by international financial institutions. The bill also provides for sanctions against foreign persons and concerns engaging in corrupt trade practices to the disadvantage of a U.S. company. If the country with primary jurisdiction over the offenders fail to take action against them within 90 days, the President must, to fullest extent consistent with international obligations, ban all U.S. Government contracts with the offenders as well as all licenses or other authority allowing the offenders to conduct business within the United States. In testimony earlier this year before the Select Committee on Intelligence, Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch said the problems of economic espionage and unfair trade practices were among the most serious economic issues facing the country today. Earlier this year, Senator Kohl and I introduced legislation to criminalize economic espionage, S. 1557, subsequently included in S. 1718, and S. 1557. The bill I am introducing today attempts to address the second issue, unfair trade practices by foreign concerns. The importance of this effort to level the playing field by encouraging other countries to criminalize bribery of foreign officials throughout the world cannot be overstated. Earlier this year, then-U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor noted that ``from April 1994 to May 1995, the U.S. Government learned of almost 100 cases in which foreign bribes undercut U.S. firms' ability to win contracts valued at $45 billion.'' A recent poll of 3,000 Asian executives conducted by the ``Far Eastern Economic Review'' found that more than a third of the business leaders in four major countries preferred to bribe a customer rather than lose a big sale. Another index is published annually by an institution called Transparency International, created by a group of multinational corporations including General Electric and the Boeing Corp. This index, which was a compilation of polls of business men and women around the world, revealed that corruption is not limited to any specific culture or business area but exists worldwide. Nor is it limited to less developed countries. In 1994, a year described in ``The Financial Times--Dec. 30, 1994, at 4--as ``The Year of Corruption,'' complaints of corruption surfaced in some of the wealthier countries, including Britain, Canada, France, and Japan. Despite the evidence that corruption is still widespread, there are indications that the international community may finally be susceptible to increased pressure to crack down on these unfair trade practices. There is a growing recognition that bribery exacts a cost on the foreign country whose officials are corrupted. Studies show corrupt procurement practices deter foreign investment while as much as doubling the price that emerging countries pay for goods and services. We may finally be approaching the point when focused U.S. pressure can actually make a difference, just as U.S.-led efforts to combat money laundering, including U.S. sanctions, extraterritorial enforcement of U.S. laws, and multilateral efforts, finally led countries to recognize that the stigma of being a dirty-money haven outweighed the benefits of attracting illicit funds. Change will not occur without significant U.S. pressure, however. When then-Trade Representative Kantor returned this past March from discussions with the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], he expressed his frustration at the lack of progress in trying to get our European allies to adopt laws to stop unfair trade practices and suggested U.S. sanctions may be required to provide the necessary incentive. While most countries have enacted laws to punish the bribing of their officials by their nationals and foreigners, no other major nation has laws banning their nationals from bribing foreign officials. In fact, in a number of countries--including Germany and France--corruption and bribery are so accepted that individuals are permitted to deduct the cost of bribes from their taxes. Sustained U.S. efforts finally led in April of this year to an agreement by the members of the OECD that these tax laws should be rewritten so that bribes paid to foreign officials, often listed as commissions or fees, would no longer be tax deductible. However, this agreement is not binding and there is no deadline by which members are to have adopted the changes. Moreover, this is still a long way from criminalizing bribery of foreign officials. There is much more that needs to be done. In addition to pressing the OECD members to adopt foreign corrupt practices laws, the USG should move promptly to support the treaty negotiated this past April in the Organization of American States requiring each signatory to make bribery of foreign officials a crime and an extraditable offense. We should press for similar commitments in other fora, such as the G-7 meetings and the World Trade Organization. In the meantime, the U.S. should take steps to ensure that U.S. firms are not penalized by the failure of other countries to enact laws prohibiting foreign bribery. Foreign firms that bribe foreign officials to gain an unfair advantage over U.S. competitors are, in effect, robbing those U.S. competitors of their right to compete fairly for international contracts. Such ``theft'' has adverse effects within the United States in terms of lost income and, often, jobs. If countries with jurisdiction over these trade thieves will not act to stop them, the U.S. should.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Unfair Trade Practices Act to level the playing field for U.S. companies competing with foreign firms overseas by imposing sanctions against foreign persons and concerns engaging in corrupt trade practices to the disadvantage of a U.S. company and against countries that refuse to enforce or adopt their own foreign corrupt practices laws similar to our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I am introducing this bill at the end of this session rather than waiting to introduce it in the 105th Congress in order to provide people an opportunity to review this legislation over the intervening months. Earlier introduction of the bill was prevented by the press of Senate Intelligence Committee business. The Select Committee on Intelligence, which I chair, had a particularly heavy agenda this year, including, among many other items, the annual Intelligence Authorization Act providing for the first real reform of the U.S. intelligence community since 1947, criminalizing economic espionage, and directing a thorough study of how the U.S. Government is organized to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the committee has undertaken significant inquiries into CIA activities in Guatemala, the actions of U.S. officials regarding the flow of arms from Iran to Bosnia, and the bombing of United States facilities in Saudi Arabia. Mr. President, this bill directs the President to report to Congress regarding foreign persons and concerns that engage in corrupt practices and countries that do not have or do not enforce laws similar to our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Countries that the President determines are not engaged in a good faith effort to enact or enforce such laws will be sanctioned. Sanctions include a 50-percent reduction in foreign aid and USG opposition to the extension of any loan or financial or technical assistance by international financial institutions. The bill also provides for sanctions against foreign persons and concerns engaging in corrupt trade practices to the disadvantage of a U.S. company. If the country with primary jurisdiction over the offenders fail to take action against them within 90 days, the President must, to fullest extent consistent with international obligations, ban all U.S. Government contracts with the offenders as well as all licenses or other authority allowing the offenders to conduct business within the United States. In testimony earlier this year before the Select Committee on Intelligence, Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch said the problems of economic espionage and unfair trade practices were among the most serious economic issues facing the country today. Earlier this year, Senator Kohl and I introduced legislation to criminalize economic espionage, S. 1557, subsequently included in S. 1718, and S. 1557. The bill I am introducing today attempts to address the second issue, unfair trade practices by foreign concerns. The importance of this effort to level the playing field by encouraging other countries to criminalize bribery of foreign officials throughout the world cannot be overstated. Earlier this year, then-U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor noted that ``from April 1994 to May 1995, the U.S. Government learned of almost 100 cases in which foreign bribes undercut U.S. firms' ability to win contracts valued at $45 billion.'' A recent poll of 3,000 Asian executives conducted by the ``Far Eastern Economic Review'' found that more than a third of the business leaders in four major countries preferred to bribe a customer rather than lose a big sale. Another index is published annually by an institution called Transparency International, created by a group of multinational corporations including General Electric and the Boeing Corp. This index, which was a compilation of polls of business men and women around the world, revealed that corruption is not limited to any specific culture or business area but exists worldwide. Nor is it limited to less developed countries. In 1994, a year described in ``The Financial Times--Dec. 30, 1994, at 4--as ``The Year of Corruption,'' complaints of corruption surfaced in some of the wealthier countries, including Britain, Canada, France, and Japan. Despite the evidence that corruption is still widespread, there are indications that the international community may finally be susceptible to increased pressure to crack down on these unfair trade practices. There is a growing recognition that bribery exacts a cost on the foreign country whose officials are corrupted. Studies show corrupt procurement practices deter foreign investment while as much as doubling the price that emerging countries pay for goods and services. We may finally be approaching the point when focused U.S. pressure can actually make a difference, just as U.S.-led efforts to combat money laundering, including U.S. sanctions, extraterritorial enforcement of U.S. laws, and multilateral efforts, finally led countries to recognize that the stigma of being a dirty-money haven outweighed the benefits of attracting illicit funds. Change will not occur without significant U.S. pressure, however. When then-Trade Representative Kantor returned this past March from discussions with the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], he expressed his frustration at the lack of progress in trying to get our European allies to adopt laws to stop unfair trade practices and suggested U.S. sanctions may be required to provide the necessary incentive. While most countries have enacted laws to punish the bribing of their officials by their nationals and foreigners, no other major nation has laws banning their nationals from bribing foreign officials. In fact, in a number of countries--including Germany and France--corruption and bribery are so accepted that individuals are permitted to deduct the cost of bribes from their taxes. Sustained U.S. efforts finally led in April of this year to an agreement by the members of the OECD that these tax laws should be rewritten so that bribes paid to foreign officials, often listed as commissions or fees, would no longer be tax deductible. However, this agreement is not binding and there is no deadline by which members are to have adopted the changes. Moreover, this is still a long way from criminalizing bribery of foreign officials. There is much more that needs to be done. In addition to pressing the OECD members to adopt foreign corrupt practices laws, the USG should move promptly to support the treaty negotiated this past April in the Organization of American States requiring each signatory to make bribery of foreign officials a crime and an extraditable offense. We should press for similar commitments in other fora, such as the G-7 meetings and the World Trade Organization. In the meantime, the U.S. should take steps to ensure that U.S. firms are not penalized by the failure of other countries to enact laws prohibiting foreign bribery. Foreign firms that bribe foreign officials to gain an unfair advantage over U.S. competitors are, in effect, robbing those U.S. competitors of their right to compete fairly for international contracts. Such ``theft'' has adverse effects within the United States in terms of lost income and, often, jobs. If countries with jurisdiction over these trade thieves will not act to stop them, the U.S. should.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the pending legislation as we approach in the course of some 11 hours the end of the fiscal year at 12 o'clock midnight. We are faced with an appropriations process which I believe has severely undermined what we are supposed to be doing as legislators. I just heard my distinguished colleague, Senator Gorton, make a comment about the price we are paying for what he considers to be extra appropriations on certain lines because we have not had an opportunity to consider the items in detail. I agree with him about that. My suggestion is we are paying even a higher price because we have not permitted the appropriations process to run its course because of the political differences and the very deterioration of our Senate process. It was illustrated on the Interior appropriations bill where the majority leader had to take down the bill because of maneuvering--one side trying to gain an advantage on some politically popular items like education, something I have long supported in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee which deals with appropriations. Then the bill which I have the chairmanship of, Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education, was never brought to the floor because of insufficient time and because of the determination that the bill could not be enacted in due course. Instead, we have come to a situation where everything is rolled into one omnibus appropriations bill, which is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, with the alternative being to close down the Government. The procedural posture today is that there is a second measure which can come before the Senate which is the Department of Defense conference report where the omnibus appropriations bill has been rolled in, as well as the immigration bill, which would not even allow an opportunity for amendment during consideration of any of the individual items if that is to be called up as the order of the day. It is my hope, Mr. President, when we reconvene for the 105th Congress, we will take a look and change the rules of the Senate to prohibit bringing up extraneous, nongermane matters on appropriations bills. If that were to be the case, when we consider Interior, it is an Interior bill alone. When we consider Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education, we then direct our attention to that so we do not get into a situation where at the last minute we have no alternative but to say yes or no to such a massive bill. Or, when the extraordinary procedure is used of having a conference report, either to say yes or no without any amendment there. I have spoken on this at some great length on Saturday, the day before yesterday, Mr. President, and at that time expressed my concern about a procedure which blurred the lines of separation of powers between the Congress, which is supposed to do the appropriations, then sending a bill to the President for his consideration, and a procedure in which the Chief of Staff, representing the executive branch, was party to negotiations with Congress before the bill was passed. This was an aberration, really a corruption, of the constitutional process of separation of powers, where each House acts, there is a conference, we send a bill to the President, and he makes the decision, signing or not, and then the Congress has the power to override. What we have really seen, as I said at great length on Saturday, is a procedure where we have had the delegation of the President's authority to the Chief of Staff, with it being impossible for the President to know what was being agreed to on his behalf, again, I think, raising serious constitutional questions as to whether the President may delegate the authority in that way.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now want to comment for a moment or two about one aspect of the appropriations process. That is the issue of foreign aid, which is tied into U.S. policy in the Mideast, and what is happening today in Israel and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the PLO and the forthcoming summit with leaders from the Mideast, which is to be held in Washington tomorrow and the day after. I commented on this issue on Saturday as well, Mr. President. It is my hope that the parties, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, will be able to work out their problems. They are now coming to Washington with additional leaders from the Mideast in an overtone which may suggest pressure on the parties, pressure specifically on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. It is my view, Mr. President, that it is intolerable to have a situation where the Palestinians are firing on Israeli soldiers. The Palestinians are firing on Israeli soldiers with rifles and ammunition provided by the Israelis, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, so that the Palestinian police can contain the areas in Gaza and the other areas in which they have been given a limited amount of local authority. There was never any intention that those Palestinian police were to be an army to engage in what is, in effect, virtual warfare against the State of Israel. This makes us pause as we see a demonstration of what might occur if the peace process goes forward and if there is great authority for the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, now known as the Palestinian Authority, as to what they may hope or seek to accomplish with a separate Palestinian state. That certainly is not part of the agreement on the Oslo Accords. A few months after the signing on the White House lawn of September 13, 1993, I and others from this body went to take a look at what was happening, and we had a chance to meet with Chairman Arafat, had a chance to visit Jericho and Gaza, and we saw the flags of a Palestinian state which was already being assumed when the ink was barely dry on the Oslo Accords signed a few months earlier. That was not what was intended. Now we have a de facto Palestinian state with a police force estimated between 30,000 and 40,000, which is a veritable army. That context, I submit, Mr. President, is simply an intolerable situation. Going back to September 13, 1993, when I saw Arafat honored on the White House Lawn, it was a very, very difficult day considering that this was the man who was implicated in the murder of the United States charge in the Sudan in 1974. This is the man who was implicated in massive killings and terrorism against Israel. This is the man who led the hijacking of the Achille Lauro leading to the murder of Mr. Klinghoffer, who was pushed off the deck of the Achille Lauro in his wheelchair. It was pretty hard to sit on the White House Lawn and watch that man honored. It seemed to me that if Prime Minister Rabin and then Foreign Minister Peres were willing to shake Arafat's hand, considering that Israel had suffered the most at the hands of PLO atrocities, then the United States ought to try to be helpful. But now we see that a summit is planned. And, as this morning's press quotes, Arafat is betting that Prime Minister Netanyahu will come under pressure from President Clinton. If this is the case, I think it is time to rethink precisely what we are doing. Israel voted for the Likud-Netanyahu government this past election expressing their concerns for security. It is very easy for people thousands of miles away from the locale to say, ``Well, there ought to be pressure, and there ought to be in effect a determination, if not a dictation, as to what the Israeli elected officials ought to do.'' It is my sense that Prime Minister Netanyahu can hold his own and make decisions for himself. But it is also my sense that there ought to be a statement made that the situation is intolerable with the Palestinians firing on Israeli soldiers, and that the United States ought not to exert pressure as to what the Israelis are to do in terms of their own security. I had a chance to meet with Chairman Arafat last month in Gaza. And when he asked about aid from the United States, I reminded him about the provisions of our law which require the Palestinian authorities to change the PLO charter before such aid will be granted. He brought me a document which simply said that all provisions of the charter inconsistent with the September 13, 1993, agreement were invalid, which hardly reaches the issue about the provisions of the PLO charter calling for the destruction of Israel. It was obviously insufficient. Then there are the provisions of American law which call upon the Palestinian authorities to take strong steps against terrorism. I think they have not done that. The closing of the border is difficult with Romanians and others coming in to handle jobs in Israel. But when the open borders mean terrorism, and destruction of Israeli buses, it is not hard to understand why as a matter of security those borders are closed. When I discussed with Chairman Arafat the issue of terrorism, he discussed Abu Nidal, somebody that he knows well--had known well--and Abu Abbas who was implicated in the Achille Lauro hijacking and is under a 30-year sentence in absentia from the Italian court. Chairman Arafat said that Abu Abbas raised his hand to change the PLO charter. Those are matters which require a lot of consideration as to just what may be expected of the Israeli Government in terms of trusting the PLO and trusting the Palestinian authorities. Do the leopards change their spots? Here we have the Palestinian police firing on Israeli soldiers with guns and bullets provided by the Israelis. So let us take a look at what we expect to be done. Certainly the matters ought to be subject to negotiation. But we really ought not to allow the Palestinian authority and Arafat to get what they want at the bargaining table by rioting and warfare. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, the Senator from New Jersey is correct. The committee intends that a majority of title IV funds be awarded to existing comprehensive HIV care projects. Title IV also supports national training and technical assistance centers that include: The National Pediatric and Family HIV Resource, the AIDs Policy Center for Children, Youth and Families, and the Institute for Family-Centered Care, all of which will be eligible to apply for funding in the coming fiscal year.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would appreciate it if Senator Simpson would clarify the intent of a provision in the conference report on H.R. 2202, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which is now Division C of H.R. 3610, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997. I am interested in the intent of section 343 with regard to the establishment of a procedure for the approval of organizations to prescreen foreign healthcare workers.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to bring to Chairman Gregg's attention the passage of S. 2101, the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 1996, which I introduced with 10 Republican and Democrat cosponsors. S. 2101 authorizes, for the first time, educational and job training assistance for the spouses and children of Federal law enforcement officers killed or totally disabled in the line of duty. These benefits will be subject to the availability of appropriations and will be distributed to eligible dependents based on an application to be devised by the Attorney General. This legislation passed the Senate on September 20 by unanimous consent and passed the House of Representatives on September 26, which was too late to be taken into account by the Appropriations Committee in the fiscal year 1997 bill we are considering today. I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire for his thoughts on funding for this valuable program.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill that is before the Senate today provides $71.087 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year 1997. Mandatory spending totals $219.5 billion, an increase of $19 billion over the fiscal 1996 levels. The conference agreement provides substantial increases in education programs--$3.5 billion over last year. Medical research is increased by more than $820 million, and workplace safety programs by almost $79 million over the 1996 appropriated levels. While I support the funding levels for programs within my subcommittee's jurisdiction, as I stated on Saturday, I am concerned with the process which produced this omnibus appropriations bill. I am concerned because the procedure undercut the traditional appropriations process. The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill never even came to the Senate floor because it was anticipated that it would be very contentious and that many diverse amendments would be offered. Last year's bill was not finished until April 25, but on that bill Senate Harkin and I came forward with a bipartisan amendment to add $2.7 billion so that we could have adequate funding for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. We demonstrated that the subcommittee chairman and ranking member can work together in a harmonious manner and really get the job done. But this year on the Senate floor, we have seen biding wars to gain political advantage by adding funding and legislation to appropriations bills. This led us to a position where we have had to go to this single omnibus bill, and where we had to negotiate with the White House to produce a bill the President would agree to before the end of the fiscal year today. As I have said, I am proud of the work, the bipartisan, work done on the Labor, Health and Human Services portion of this bill. I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his hard work and help in bringing this bill through the committee and through the negotiations with the House and the administration. The important programs funded within this subcommittee's jurisdiction provide resources to improve the public health and strengthen biomedical research, assure a quality education for America's children, and job training activities to keep this Nation's work force competitive with world markets. I'd like to take the time and mention several important accomplishments of this bill. biomedical research For the National Institutes of Health, the bill before us contains nearly $12.747 billion, an increase of $820 million, or 6.9 percent, above the fiscal year 1996 level. These funds will be critical in catalyzing scientific discoveries that will lead to new treatments and cures, that in turn will reduce materially the cost of health care. Few activities of Government provide greater promise for improving the quality, and reducing the costs, of health care for all Americans than our investment in medical research. substance abuse education and prevention Substance abuse prevention and treatment programs are increased by $207 million over 1996. The bill includes $1.310 billion for the substance abuse block grant which provides funds to States for substance abuse prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Recognizing that drug prevention education needs to start when children are young, to teach children the skills they need to resist drug use, the bill also provides a $90 million increase for the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program. aids This bill contains over $3 billion for research, education, prevention, and services to confront the AIDS epidemic, including a nearly $239 million increase for Ryan White. The bill provides $217 million for AIDS drug assistance programs to assist states in providing the new generation of protease inhibitor drugs to persons with HIV. healthy start Low birth weight is the leading cause of infant mortality. Infants who have been exposed to drugs, alcohol or tobacco in the mother's womb are at-risk for prematurity and low birth weight. I became directly involved in Healthy Start after visiting hospitals in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and seeing one-pound babies, whose chances for survival were very slim. For Healthy Start, the bill provides $96 million, $20 million more than the President requested, to continue the campaign to cut infant mortality rates in half and to give low birth weight babies a better chance at survival. women's health The committee continues to place a very high priority on women's health. The bill before the Senate contains an increase of $15 million for breast and cervical cancer screening, these increases will: expand research on the breast cancer gene, accelerate the development of new diagnostic tests, and speed research on new, more effective methods of prevention, detection, and treatment. Funding for the Office of Women's Health has also been raised to $12.5 million to continue the National Action Plan on Breast Cancer and to provide health care professionals with a broad range of women's health related information. violence against women The bill contains $123 million for programs authorized under the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The bill before the Senate contains the full amount authorized for these programs, including $60 million for battered women's shelters, $35 million for rape prevention programs, $8 million for runaway youth and $12.8 million for community schools. Domestic violence, especially violence against women, has become a problem of epidemic proportions. The Department of Justice reports that each year women are the victims of more than 4.5 million violent crimes, including an estimated 500,000 rapes or other sexual assaults. But crime statistics do not tell the whole story. I have visited women's shelters in Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, where I saw, first hand, the kind of physical and emotional suffering so many women are enduring. head start Head Start receives an increase of $412 million for a total of almost $4 billion. education The future promise of any nation is dependent on the capabilities of its youth and increased funding for education is an investment in the future. This bill provides an increase of $3.513 billion over fiscal year 1996 education program levels. This is the highest level of support in our Nation's history. The bill funds title I at $7.7 billion, $470 million over last year and increases by $141 million funding for the Goals 2000 Program. Education for the handicapped is increased by $791 million over last year and vocational and adult education is increased by $146 million. The maximum Pell grant is increased by $230 to $2,700 per student. The bill increases the TRIO Program by $37 million and Education, Research, Statistics and Improvement programs are increased by $248 million. job training In this Nation, Mr. President, we know all too well that high unemployment wastes valuable human talent and potential, and ultimately weakens our economy. The bill before us today provides $4.7 billion for job training programs, including a $60 million increase for Job Corps. These funds will help improve job skills and readjustment services for disadvantaged youth and adults. school to work The committee recommends $400 million for school to work programs within the Department of Labor and Education. These important programs will help ease the transition from school to work for those students who do not plan to attend 4-year institutions. workplace safety The bill increases workplace safety programs by $79 million over the 1996 levels. While progress has been made in this area, there is still far too many work-related injuries and illnesses. The funds provided will continue the programs that inspect business and industry, weed out occupational hazards and protect workers pensions. nutrition programs for the elderly For the congregate and home delivered meals program, the bill provides $469 million, or nearly $19 million above the request. In some areas of the country, there are long waiting lists for home-delivered meals. The resources provided by this bill will go a long way to ensure that the most vulnerable segment of the elderly population receive proper nutrition. liheap The bill provides $1 billion for Low Income Heating Assistance for this winter and $1 billion in advance for next winter. This is a key program for low income families in Pennsylvania and other cold weather States in the Northwest. Funding supports grants to States to deliver critical assistance to low income households to help meet higher energy costs. closing There are many other notable accomplishments, but for the sake of time, I mentioned just some of the highlights, so that the Nation may grasp the scope and importance of this bill. I have voted against the omnibus appropriations bill as a protest to the procedures which I discussed at some length in floor statements today and last Saturday, September 28, 1996. In closing, Mr. President, I again want to thank Senator Harkin and his staff and the other Senators on the subcommittee for their cooperation in a very tough budget year. funding for the institute for international sport

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as we approve the omnibus spending bill which includes appropriations for the Department of Education, it is important to mention that the Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education intends $800,000 from the fund for the improvement of education intends $800,000 from the fund for the Improvement of Education to be used for scholar athlete games. The committee report to accompany the appropriations bill says ``Within the funds provided, the committee has included $800,000 to award grants to nonprofit organizations for the cost of conducting scholar-athlete games.'' This small sum is to support the scholar-athlete games held by such groups as the Institute for International Sport at the University of Rhode Island.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for raising the importance of the Parents as Teachers Program. The purpose of the Parents as Teachers Program is to improve parenting skills and strengthen the partnership between parents and professionals in meeting the education needs of their school-age children, including those aged birth through five. It is my understanding that Federal education funds are authorized for grantees who make a commitment to spend at least 50 percent of their funds on implementing the Parents as Teachers Program or Home Instruction Programs for Preschool Youngsters. These are effective parent education programs that promote learning and child development.

Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from South Carolina to spread the word on this serious matter. We have been careful to provide an appropriate increase for the Center for Chronic and Environmental Disease Prevention, and this is an appropriate use of these funds.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my friend, the Senator from South Dakota, for yielding. The Senator raises some understandable concerns regarding the future of the Flowering Tree Program on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. I agree with the statement of my colleague from South Dakota that the bill would provide sufficient funds for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's budget.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes. I believe this funding level should be adequate to provide support for Flowering Tree's request for FY 1997. In fact, the Appropriations Committee has provided sufficient funds to continue all 13 residential women and children grants that were proposed to be discontinued by HHS at the end of the current fiscal year. The committee expects these projects to be fully funded in FY 1997. The Senator from South Dakota has made a very compelling case for Flowering Tree and I hope this information is helpful to my friend and colleague.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader and my colleague, the ranking member of the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, for bringing this initiative to the Appropriations Committee. I agree that we need to do more to assist low-income individuals to get to work. I think that this is an important project that may aid inner cities as well as rural areas, which are very important to me given the large number of rural areas in Pennsylvania. I agree with my colleagues that the Labor Department should give every consideration possible to this proposal.