Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Helms, Bennett, and Faircloth I am submitting a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to highlight the top priority that must be given to combating religious persecution in foreign countries. This resolution calls on President Clinton to live up to his commitment, made in January 1996, to appoint a White House senior advisor on religious persecution. The persecution of Christians and other religious minorities is a growing problem. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, China, and Ethiopia, among other countries, Christians are systematically denied their religious liberties. Christians have been the victims of rape, torture, enslavement, imprisonment, killings, mutilations, and discrimination simply because of their religious beliefs. The governments of these countries all too often tacitly, or even openly, endorse this sectarian violence. According to human rights organizations, the Sudanese Government is essentially waging a war against its Christian population. The government's campaign against the Christian and non-Muslim populations of southern Sudan has resulted in more than 1.3 million deaths and the displacement of over 3 million people. Equally shocking are reports that the Sudanese Government is involved in the enslavement and forced internment and conversion of the Christian populations from the southern regions of Sudan. In the last 6 years more than 30,000 non- Muslim children have reportedly been abducted by agents of the Sudanese Government, taken from their homes and families, forcibly interned in high-security ``cultural cleansing'' camps, forced to convert to Islam and then sent to the front lines of Sudan's civil war. Of course anti-Christian persecution and sectarian violence extends far beyond Sudan. In the Muslim-controlled Oromo region of Ethiopia, reports indicate that government officials raided the area's largest Christian church and arrested most of its congregants. Many of those arrested in this 1994 raid died while in prison. The leader of the congregation was tortured and his eyes were torn from their sockets. In Egypt, a country generally noted for its religious tolerance, Christians are increasingly the targets of militant Islamist terrorist attacks on the streets as well as more subtle persecution in the courts and businesses. Christians are also often denied participation in the Egyptian political process. Persecution of Christians is by no means limited to the Islamic world. It is reported that the Chinese Government has harassed and imprisoned many Chinese Christians simply for practicing their religion. In 1992, Protestant leader Zheng Yunsu was arrested and sentenced to 12 years in prison because of his faith. Other reports indicate that between October 1994 and June 1995, more than 200 Christians were detained in the Hunan Province in a crackdown on unregistered Protestant house churches. One of those arrested, Ren Ping, was sentenced, without trial, to 3 years of ``reeducation'' through labor. According to Amnesty International, more than 30 Chinese Catholics were arrested and severely beaten by the police while celebrating Easter Mass earlier this year. Examples of such religious persecution abound. The time has come for the United States to stand up for the right of all people to enjoy the fundamental freedom of religious faith. Without further delay, the White House should fulfill its commitment to appoint a senior advisor to the President dedicated to combating religious persecution overseas.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I voted against the Helms amendment because it would prohibit the United States government from making certain payments to the United Nations if the United Nations ``borrows funds from any international financial institution.'' It may be necessary for the United Nations to borrow such funds to keep operating for a wide variety of contingencies. The amendment also prohibits the U.S. Government from making certain payments to the United Nations if the United Nations attempts to ``impose any taxation or fee on any United States persons.'' I would certainly support an amendment which only prohibited an attempt by the United Nations to impose a tax or fee on any United States persons because that would violate fundamental U.S. sovereignty. Since this amendment goes beyond the tax or fee issue and prohibits borrowing, I opposed the amendment. amendment no. 5059

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is acting on the False Statements Penalty Restoration Act so quickly after the substitute was reported by the Judiciary Committee. This is important legislation to safeguard the constitutional legislative and oversight roles of the Congress. Last year, overturning a decision it had rendered in 1955, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Hubbard versus United States that section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code, the section of the Federal criminal code prohibiting false statements, only covered false statements made to executive branch agencies. That decision put at grave risk the ability of Congress to collect correct information, as false statements to Congress could no longer be punished. Congressional oversight and investigations would clearly be threatened if those interviewed could lie with impunity. Simple requests for information by Congress, its committees and subcommittees, or its offices, could be met with lies. Investigations by the General Accounting Office could likewise be stonewalled by witnesses providing false information. Within days of the Hubbard decision, I had introduced S. 830 to overturn that decision. Earlier this year, I introduced revised legislation, S. 1734, joined by Senator Levin. Joining us in introducing this important bill were Senators Stevens, Nunn, Cohen, Leahy, Jeffords, Inouye, and Kohl. Subsequently, both Senators Roth and Grassley became cosponsors. The broad bipartisan cosponsorship of this bill by some of the Senate's leading investigators and practitioners of oversight is testimony to the threat posed by Hubbard to our ability to conduct our constitutional responsibilities. This bill is needed not simply for the practical reasons I have briefly outlined, but because it is important to make it clear that intentional false statements to Congress are just as pernicious as those made to an agent of the executive branch. We are of equal standing with the executive and the dignitary injury to the standing of Congress done by Hubbard must be overturned promptly. Support for this bill comes not only from many of our colleagues. The Justice Department has been very supportive and quite helpful in crafting several of the bill's provisions. The Judiciary Committee heard from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Robert Litt in support of extending the coverage of section 1001 to Congress and the courts. I am grateful to the Criminal Division and the Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department for their assistance and insight in crafting the provisions of this bill, especially parts of section 2 and section 4. The bill contains four substantive provisions, which I would like to summarize and briefly explain to my colleagues, so that they may fully understand the impact of this bill. First is the provision to amend section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit false statements to executive agencies and departments, Congress, and the Federal courts. This provision is central to this bill. It is intended to restore section 1001 to its pre-Hubbard status. Any knowing and willful false statement that is material which is made to Congress, including any committee or subcommittee, staff of any member or committee or subcommittee acting in their official capacity, or any component or office of Congress shall be punishable under section 1001. For 40 years, this was the law of the land and there was no abuse. There is no evidence that between 1955 and 1995, the rights of individuals to provide information to Congress, to petition Congress, or to testify before Congress were chilled because of the application of section 1001 to false statements made to Congress. My research finds no prosecutions of any constituent, for example, furnishing false information to a Member of Congress. Thus, the bill does not contain any exceptions to the general rule that any knowing, willful, and material false statement to Congress will be punishable under section 1001. The bill also prohibits false statements made to the Federal courts. Prior to Hubbard, the Federal courts had created a ``judicial function'' exception to section 1001 to carve out from the coverage of the law false statements made in the course of advocacy before a court. In order to capture the pre-Hubbard application of section 1001, this bill will codify for the first time a judicial function exception to section 1001. The language of the exception was suggested by the Justice Department, although it contains an additional limitation on which I insisted, which was to limit the application of the exception to false statements made to a judge in the performance of an adjudicative function. The bill will exempt from the coverage of section 1001, any statement made by a party to litigation or anyone seeking to become a party, or their counsel, to a judge acting in an adjudicative capacity. In general, the only individuals making statements in court are witnesses, who are already under oath and thereby subject to prosecution for perjury, and parties and their counsel. Knowing, willful and material false statements made by parties or their counsel ought to be exempt for several reasons. First, we do not want to chill committed advocacy in court on behalf of any party. Our adversary system requires unfettered advocacy, which application of section 1001 could chill. In addition, our adversary system means that there is an opponent who can call a false statement to the court's attention, supplying a necessary antidote. That is not the case in congressional hearings, during which there may not be anyone to point out and correct false statements. Thus, a similar exemption is not warranted for congressional proceedings. Finally, courts retain adequate alternatives to punish and deter false statements, including the contempt power and lesser sanctions provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure and in the courts' inherent power. Congress lacks these alternative sanctions, which is yet another reason for not including a similar exemption for congressional proceedings. The judicial function exception applies only to false statements made to a judge exercising its adjudicative authority, and not when it is exercising administrative authority. For example, the submission of a false bill to a judge by a lawyer for payment under the Criminal Justice Act would be punishable under the revised section 1001, because the false statement would not be made to the court in its adjudicative function. Also punishable would be applications for membership in the bar of a particular Federal court. The reason for the distinction is that many of the safeguards derived from the adversarial system that might call the false statement to the judge's attention are not present, warranting application of section 1001. The next three sections of the bill are derived from legislation introduced by Senators Levin, Nunn, and Inouye. Two of them passed the Senate in 1988 but were not enacted. Section three of the bill will overturn a 1991 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States versus Poindexter. In that case, the D.C. Circuit held that the statute prohibiting obstruction of Congress applies only to persons who attempt to obstruct a congressional inquiry indirectly through another person, and not to witnesses themselves. The bill would overturn this decision and clarify that an individual acting alone could be liable for obstructing Congress. The next section of the bill is intended to clarify when the Senate may enforce a subpoena against an officer or employee of the executive branch who asserts a privilege in response to a Senate subpoena. The intent is to make it clear that judicial enforcement is available when a person is asserting a privilege personal to him or her, but not when the person is asserting a governmental privilege available only to the executive branch. When a private person asserts a privilege, section 1365 of title 28 of the United States Code allows the Senate to go to court to seek to compel responses. The section does apply to any action to enforce a subpoena against an executive branch employee who declines to testify by asserting a governmental privilege. The purpose is to keep disputes between the executive and legislative branches out of the courtroom. In order to clarify whether the privilege asserted does in fact belong to the government, thus rendering section 1365 inapplicable, or is instead a personal privilege, the bill will revise section 1365 to require that any governmental privilege asserted must be authorized by the executive branch. It is the sponsors' intention, worked out with the Justice Department, to ensure the utmost flexibility in establishing the valid assertion of a governmental privilege. No particular form is required; it simply must be clear that the executive has authorized the assertion of the privilege. In addition, the language of the provision demonstrates our intention that the person asserting the privilege will bear the burden in a judicial proceeding under section 1365 of proving that he or she was in fact authorized to assert a governmental privilege. This change will prevent rogue employees from falsely asserting a privilege and escaping efforts to compel responses. Finally, the bill amends section 6005 of title 18 to authorize Congress to compel testimony under oath from an immunized witness in a deposition. This change will enable Members and their staff to more readily conduct preliminary investigations as part of congressional inquiries. I want to thank the cosponsors of this bill for their assistance, particularly Senator Levin and Elise Bean of his staff; the chairman and ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch and Biden, and their staff, especially Paul Larkin and Michael Kennedy of the majority and Peter Jaffe of the minority staff; the Department of Justice; and the Senate Legal Counsel, Thomas B. Griffith, and his deputy, Morgan Frankel, for their assistance. I look forward to resolving any differences with the House bill promptly so that this important bill can be enacted before the close of this Congress.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the substance of a bill which the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and I introduced some time ago, Senate bill 1867. This bill was introduced as a companion bill to H.R. 3266, which was a bipartisan bill introduced by Congressman Castle of Delaware and Congressman Tanner. The purpose of this effort was to try to find a bipartisan way to move to agreement on welfare reform. At that time, in the context of the muddled situation which was then presented, welfare reform was stalled because, after the Senate approved a welfare reform bill by a vote of 87 to 12, and the House passed its own bill, and then the conference report produced legislation which was divided pretty much along party lines, when the conference report came out of the Congress that bill was vetoed by the President. There has been a general consensus in America that welfare reform is necessary with President Clinton's famous statement, ``We need to reform welfare as we know it.'' There has been a very considerable effort in both Houses to have welfare reform. When welfare reform was stalled, Congressman Castle and Congressman Tanner introduced the bipartisan bill in the House, and Senator Biden and I followed suit with a bipartisan bill in the Senate. Thereafter, the Budget Committee reported out a new welfare reform bill, Senate bill 1956. Having started with a bipartisan effort with Senator Biden, I intend to continue that. It is my view that, in a side-by-side comparison of the committee report contrasted with the original Biden-Specter bill, our bill is preferable, although candidly they are very close. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, a 7-page summary of the comparison of the welfare reform proposals, of the budget reconciliation bill, S. 1956, compared to the Biden-Specter, bill be printed in the Record, together with a 1-page summary of the major differences in the welfare proposals.

Mr. SPECTER. Briefly, Mr. President, I will itemize six of these issues which I believe show the superiority of the Biden-Specter bill over the committee report as embraced in Senate bill 1956. The first difference is that the budget reconciliation bill eliminates child-care safety standards from existing law, whereas the Biden-Specter bill maintains those child-care safety standards, which I submit are very important. The second significant difference in provisions is that in the Biden- Specter bill there is an individual responsibility contract, while the budget reconciliation bill has none. This individual responsibility contract is an agreement entered into by the Government on one side and the welfare recipient on the other, which specifies the responsibilities of each, which I submit is a significant step forward and is desirable to have in the legislation. The third significant activity is that the Biden-Specter bill provides funding for work-activities funding, which is a very important element. There is some contention that this may put us out of order in terms of funding, but it is my understanding that on the Castle-Tanner bill, the identical bill, there was a budget estimate which puts us within the appropriate range. The fourth significant difference is on the safety net provisions. The budget reconciliation bill has the States prohibited from using Federal funds to provide vouchers after the 5-year time limit. Under Biden-Specter, there is a State option for such benefits, to both children and adults, after 5 years. It is my submission that leaving the State option is preferable to having an absolute Federal prohibition in line with the general theory of leaving the State options. The fifth significant difference relates to food stamps, where there is a retention of the entitlement under the Biden-Specter bill, contrasted with the budget reconciliation bill, which gives a State option for a block grant. Overall, the Biden-Specter bill does not contain entitlements. But on this one item, food stamps, there is a retention of this existing entitlement because of our consideration that food stamps are so important, so basic that there ought not to be the option for the States to eliminate food stamps. The Sixth item relates to immigrant exceptions, where the Biden- Specter bill retains the exemptions or has an identical provision as to the retention of immigrant exceptions under the budget reconciliation bill as to exempting refugees, veterans, and military personnel. But we add to it disabled children, victims of domestic abuse, and all children in the case of food stamps. Mr. President, we are in a very complex matter here. It is my hope that the Congress will adopt welfare reform legislation which will be signed by the President and that the gridlock will not continue. In maintaining my support for Senate bill 1867, I understand that the budget reconciliation bill, Senate bill 1956 has the support of a majority of Republicans, but having started all this effort to have a bipartisan legislative proposal with Congressmen Castle and Tanner joining Senator Biden and I, I intend to stay there. I do believe there are some beneficial provisions which are included in Biden-Specter which are not present in the budget reconciliation bill. For these reasons, I urge Members to support this amendment which Senator Biden and I are proposing this evening. Exhibit 1

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this resolution relates to the disaster last night involving TWA flight 800 where 229 passengers were killed. As I have said, my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, and I have taken the lead on this because at least from preliminary indications, our State, Pennsylvania, has been hit the hardest. We are not yet sure about the passenger list, but from all indications the passenger list contained some 16 members of the Montoursville High School French Club and 5 chaperones. I talked earlier today with Superintendent David Black and Principal Dan Chandler to get an idea of the impact on the community. They have commented that this group of students was a most extraordinary group, as shown by the fact that it was a specially planned trip to Paris, and these young men and women were among the best and the brightest. Along with these 16 high school students were 5 chaperones, and I understand a recent report shows that two other Pennsylvanians were on board. Of course, passengers included people from all over the United States and doubtless beyond the United States. So I offer this resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the tragic crash of TWA flight 800: Whereas, on July 17, 1996, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 tragically crashed en route from New York to Paris, France, creating a tremendous and tragic loss of life estimated at 229 men, women, and children; Whereas, according to Daniel L. Chandler, principal of Montoursville, Pennsylvania High School, among those traveling on board this airplane were 16 members of the Montoursville High School French Club, who were among the very best students of the French language at their school, and five adult chaperones, who generously devoted their time to making possible this planned three-week French Club trip to Paris and the French provinces; Whereas the actual cause of the airplane crash is as of yet unknown; Whereas the federal government is investigating the cause of this tragedy; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate of the United States-- (1) expresses its condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of those whose lives were taken away by this tragic occurrence; and (2) expresses its sincere hope that the cause of this tragedy will be determined through a thorough investigation as soon as possible. That is the text of the resolution. Beyond that, as has been reported publicly, it is unknown what the cause was. We have requested a briefing for Senators through the Intelligence Committee or Terrorist Subcommittee of Judiciary. We are awaiting final word on that. Mr. President, I submit this resolution for consideration by the Senate and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have consulted with the distinguished majority leader as to sequencing on a resolution relating to last night's crash of TWA flight 800, and this is a resolution which has, as I understand it, been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose of engaging my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding support for the Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center [CERT/CC], located at Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute in Pittsburgh, PA. CERT/CC has operated since 1988 under the sponsorship of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA]. Its mission is to respond to computer security emergencies and intrusions on the Internet, to serve as a central point for identifying vulnerabilities, and to conduct research to improve the security of existing systems. The number of computer emergencies handled by CERT/CC has grown from 132 in 1989 to nearly 2,500 in 1995. The severity of these incidents has also increased dramatically. Finance and banking, medicine and transportation rely heavily on computer networks. But as terrorists, ordinary criminals, and rogue states grow more technologically sophisticated, our vulnerability to attacks on our computer networks has grown. In light of these vulnerabilities, it is critical for the United States to develop networks capable of surviving attacks while protecting sensitive data. In my view, CERT/CC can play a critical role in ensuring the security of our computer systems. The Defense Department had planned to reduce funding for this critically important activity. However, an amendment offered by Senators Nunn, Santorum and Kyl, and included in the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization bill, authorizes $2 million to the Software Engineering Institute to continue this effort. This important provision will enable CERT's incident-handling activity to continue through fiscal year 1997. It is my hope that an appropriate long-term source of funding for CERT will be identified during the coming fiscal year.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose of engaging my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding support to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and other branches of the military in their efforts to promote and utilize the innovative delivery of telemedicine processes and techniques which improve the responsiveness and quality of care. A coordinated and innovative telemedicine system designed to enhance the medical and behavioral care provided to personnel who have been exposed to high-trauma events would be of considerable benefit to the U.S. military. It would expand the knowledge base needed for successfully delivering both emergency and disaster management services and would also expand the applications of telemedicine and enhance diagnostic and treatment coordination and delivery. Given the experience of the U.S. military during and since the Persian Gulf war and the increased threat posed by weapons of mass destruction the military could benefit greatly from such a resource. I would further note that the northeast region of the United States is inadequately represented in national telemedicine research. I urge the conferees to consider directing the Department of Defense to allocate a portion of the $20 million for telemedicine in the Defense appropriation's fiscal year 1997 bill, to an organization in the northeastern United States with lengthy experience in organizing and providing comprehensive medical and behavioral services. A not-for- profit health care organization engaged in the delivery of medical care, in medical and allied health education and training, and in medical research would be the most appropriate type of entity for achieving expanded applications and coordination of telemedicine efforts. Both the U.S. military and the northeast region would benefit from allocating funds to a qualified entity in the region.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition to comment briefly on a speech I gave yesterday to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. It was even more difficult to speak on the floor of the Philadelphia Convention Center yesterday at the meeting of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters than it is to speak sometimes on the Senate floor, having had substantial experience speaking without order. It was a new experience for me. It was a different experience. I want to comment about the International Brotherhood of Teamsters meeting yesterday, which was disrupted by a demonstration. There was a very hotly contested political election going on in the Teamsters Union. When the convention was convened at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the chair was unable to obtain order, and I finally spoke over the din of that crowd, and made the basic point that when there is a dispute, wherever that dispute exists in America and the resolution of the dispute is subject to democratic processes, I said that the matter ought to be decided by ballots and by an exchange of free speech, without demonstrations interrupting other speeches. I made the very basic point that, even in Russia, where there was recently an election, the contesting parties had more of an opportunity to exercise freedom of speech and to have the matters heard in an orderly and systematic way. During the course of the speech that I gave, a large number of the delegates moved down to one section in front near the podium. During the course of the presentation, the large group moved down to one section of the hall and continued the demonstration. I made the very basic point that that was not a credit to the Teamsters, it was not a credit to the labor movement, and it was not a credit to America to continue that kind of a demonstration. I said that it did not help the individual whose cause the demonstrators were trying to articulate. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that the leader of that group had an obligation, when his partisans were demonstrating in that manner, to appear and do his utmost to bring them to order so that the convention could proceed. The point that I had intended to make--and I said at the convention yesterday that I was returning to Washington on the 4 o'clock Metroliner and would make the speech on the Senate floor, but we were not in session yesterday--was to congratulate the Teamsters Union for being willing to look at the political process without being tied to one political party or another, but to make judgments and decisions based upon the merits and based upon the facts. The example of the British Empire was, I think, a very good one. Speaking about the British Empire, the point was made that, in Britain, they maintained a consistency of interest, but not necessarily a consistency of allies. The Teamsters have demonstrated a significant degree of political independence with supporting political candidates on both sides of the political aisle, supporting President Nixon, supporting President Johnson, supporting President Reagan, supporting President Clinton. My point was to commend them for their kind of political independence, and especially where there seems to be a declaration of war of a sort between labor and the Republican Party which I think is bad for everybody--bad for the parties who are participants in the war. And it is really bad for America that there is not more independence and more analysis of the individual merits as opposed to blind political loyalty. The words of John Kennedy, President Kennedy, have been quoted with some frequency when he said that ``sometimes a party asks too much.'' My point in speaking yesterday--and I now make these comments on the floor of the Senate--is to congratulate the Teamsters in the past for their political independence. It is my hope that as that political convention moves forward in Philadelphia today that there will be order there so that there can be an exchange of political ideas. Whether the election is one for a President of the United States or the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the orderly way to proceed is to hear everyone out, and then to make a judgment and a decision at the ballot box which the Teamsters will be afforded. It is no secret that the Teamsters have had a troubled past in the course of the past four decades. The Senate McClellan committee conducted a very extensive investigation years ago in the 1950's. When I was an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia I got the first convictions of Teamsters for conspiracy to commit fraud in local 107 of the Philadelphia Teamsters Union. All the defendants were convicted. Six of them, and all went to jail. That local was cleaned out but profited from the mistakes of the past, and the International Teamsters is currently under trusteeship. So that it is more important perhaps than in any other single instance when the Teamsters convention convenes that there will be order, decorum, and due process so that those who are invited to speak can exercise the constitutional right to freedom of speech, and that there will be an appropriate way to resolve the differences there at the ballot box instead of with demonstrations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my speech yesterday at the Teamsters convention in Philadelphia be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of increasing the minimum wage because there has been no increase since 1989 while cost of living adjustments have been provided to others. I am pleased to note that this bill, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 provides benefits to small business which will offset their higher wage payments. Among important provisions to help small business, the bill as amended includes over $11 billion in tax incentives, such as tax incentives for employer-provided tuition aid, increased expensing limits for small business equipment purchases, pension simplification rules, and extension of expired tax credits for research and development, employment of certain targeted individuals, and the orphan-drug tax credit. With respect to the minimum wage provisions of this bill, while I have given serious consideration to the provision to exclude businesses with less than $500,000 in annual revenues, I have decided to vote against the Bond amendment because of the provision that delays the increased minimum wage for 6 months regardless of the age of the employee. That would allow too much opportunity for circumventing the law by discharging employees just short of the 6-month period and employing new people. I am voting against the Kennedy amendment because I believe the provisions of the underlying House bill provide a better balance with the longer waiting period of 90 days before the new minimum wage must be paid compared to only 30 days in the Kennedy amendment and because the House bill provides more equitable treatment for restaurant owners on the tip issue. In this statement, I am including, at the manager's request, an explanation for my amendment which will help small businesses in their efforts to operate defined benefit pension plans. This amendment will help small businesses in their efforts to comply with new stricter funding rules enacted as a part of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act [GATT]. It gives the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] the authority, under very limited circumstances, to waive the excise tax that is imposed on a company that fails to meet a liquidity requirement mandated under the new law. By way of background, at least two small Pennsylvania companies, Freedom Forge Corp. of Burnham and Erie Forge Corp. of Erie were not aware of the new liquidity requirements when they became effective less than 1 month after the GATT enabling bill was enacted. The bill had no transition rules that applied to the new liquidity requirements. I am advised that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Federal agency with jurisdiction, called companies proactively to inform them of the new liquidity requirements, but that these two Pennsylvania companies are among the only companies not to receive such counseling. Consequently, these companies were unable to prepare for their new obligations in a timely manner and, I am informed, had to increase their pension plan funding by approximately 1,500 percent. Once the companies became aware of the new law and the resulting dramatic increase in pension obligations, I understand that they acted as quickly as possible to come into full compliance with the law and remain in compliance today. However, because they did not receive the same warning from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as other companies did, they are subject to a penalty excise tax for the first quarter in which they were not in compliance with the new law. Currently, the Internal Revenue Service has no statutory authority to waive the penalty excise taxes that apply in these instances, even where the contribution due the plan was due to reasonable cause and reasonable steps have been taken to remedy the liquidity shortfall. In the absence of a legislative remedy, these companies will be forced to pay penalties to the IRS because they did not immediately comply with a law they had no knowledge of, in spite of their proven best efforts to fund their pension plans once made aware of their new responsibilities under the law. While ignorance of the law generally is not an excuse, I believe, Mr. President, that where the Government actually notified and counseled companies, but not these, it is appropriate that the tax penalty be waived. Accordingly, my amendment that the distinguished managers of the bill included in their package of amendments would provide authority to the IRS to waive the excise tax in those cases where the shortfall was due to reasonable cause and reasonable steps were taken to remedy the liquidity shortfall. In consulting with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation about this problem and a possible legislative solution, I am advised that the agency said that their primary interest is ensuring that pension plans have adequate funds to pay their benefits. The agency recognizes that some companies had difficulties complying with the new liquidity requirements due to a lack of transition rule. Therefore, I am advised that the agency has no objections to my amendment so long as it requires that reasonable steps have been taken to remedy the shortfall as a condition of the waiver, which my amendment provides. This change in law will enable Freedom Forge Corp., Erie Forge Corp. and any other company that may find itself in a similar circumstance to be treated with fairness. Without fair pension laws, small companies will be unlikely to undertake this substantial responsibility. As legislators, we should be encouraging small employers to provide a pension plan for their employees, not discouraging them. Therefore, I commend Chairman Roth for his understanding of pension policy and for including this important amendment in the managers' amendments package. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator from Arkansas will also focus, in the very limited time, just on the issue of substantial investment. What Secretary Shalala had to say, with all due respect, is totally irrelevant. I have a very crisp question. If your generic company has to have a determination of substantial investment within 7 months, would that not be a lot better than this elongated, uncertain legislative process?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to reclaim my time. I want to conclude my argument in the very brief time that I have left. With all due respect for my very distinguished colleague from Arkansas--and I do agree with Senator Chafee in complimenting Senator Pryor for his tenacity here--this is a matter which requires a determination of what is a substantial investment. This matter has been pending now for more than a year--since May 25, 1995. If the parties really wanted to resolve this, we could come to terms on expedited judicial proceedings which Senator Hatch is prepared to accept. That would take, of course, a maximum of 7 months. Then the generic company would have a determination of substantial investment, and they would be in the field. In addition, they would be entitled to collect their damages in the interim. I believe, as a matter of fairness, that we ought to get the judicial determinations as promptly as possible. But we also need to have fair protection for the substantial investments made by the pharmaceutical pioneer companies. This expedited procedure would ensure justice for all parties, and I submit that we ought to proceed forward with it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I inadvertently referred to a judicial time line of 70 days. I really meant 7 months. My point is this. This controversy first arose on May 25, 1995. Had we had in effect a procedure, which I am suggesting, for a maximum 7- month determination regarding companies that the Senator from Arkansas refers to, we could have had a judicial determination made on or about January 1, 1996. It could have already been made. This legislation is really not the best way to solve the problem. There is a question as to what will happen in conference on this Department of Defense authorization bill, and whether the amendment will be adopted in the first place. There is also a question of whether the President will veto this Department of Defense authorization bill because it has substantially more spending than he is prepared to accept. But, if the parties agree to a procedure where there was expedited judicial determination as to what is a substantial investment, we could have generic products on the market within 7 months. If my colleague from Arkansas would engage in a brief discussion--it has to be brief because I do not have too much time left--what would the problem be with the generic companies that the Senator from Arkansas refers to to accept the procedure where there would be a court determination made within 7 months as to whether they had made a substantial investment. Then, if the court finds in their favor, they could sell the generic drug plus recover full damages for the period from the time that they could not sell the generic drug until the time the court determined there was substantial investment and they could sell the generic drug?

Mr. SPECTER. We are.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe that the problems presented in the pending amendment could be solved if the parties would get together and agree to a procedure which would provide for prompt judicial determination as to what is a substantial investment. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island that this matter ought to be cured and acted upon, because the more time that passes, the greater the potential damages on one side or another, depending upon whether there has been a substantial investment. That is the issue which is outstanding, and it is my view that the generic manufacturer should be compelled to show that it has complied with the provisions of law and that it has, in fact, made a substantial investment before it can enter the marketplace. With all due respect, I do not believe that this is a matter for editorial comment, or for generalization. Instead, it requires a hard look at the facts and a careful analysis of the law. What we are dealing with here is public policy to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make very substantial investments to produce pharmaceutical products. The other public policy consideration is to make available generic products for the benefit of many parties, once the patent has had a reasonable life term. Those who benefit from generics are many. They are the senior citizens. They are the veterans. They are the Government. Many interested parties ought to have access to generic products. The critical key issue is whether the generic company has made a substantial investment or not, and it is my view that that has to be judicially determined. We had a very extended discussion on the Record back on June 20, just 8 days ago. It is summarized really as follows: I offered a procedure, first in the Judiciary Committee and now incorporated into the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah, which would provide for expedited proceedings which could be completed within 70 days. What is really happening when the Senator from Arkansas is offering this amendment is that nothing is going to happen for a lot longer than 70 days. This matter has been pending for months. If the parties had agreed to expedited judicial proceedings, which the Hatch amendment is prepared to accept, if Senator Pryor would accept that, we could have a determination of any generic company which had made a substantial investment within a relatively short period of time. That generic company could then begin to market its product. I do not believe this matter ought to be left undefined. I think really we ought to have a definition of what is a ``substantial investment.'' We hear a great deal of talk about the undesirability of judicial legislation; that we ought to have Congress act on these matters. My staff and I made a very concerted and extended effort to try to define ``substantial investment'' and ``equitable remuneration,'' sitting down with parties on both sides at some substantial length. I continue to believe that, if the parties really wanted to resolve this and have a determination as to which generics had made a ``substantial investment'' so that those generic products would be made available to the public at large, that could be done instead of this extended debate. But in the absence of that kind of an agreement, it seems to me that what is fair is to have the generic with its burden of proof of showing that a substantial investment had been made. And, with the additions I have made to the pending amendment offered by the Senator from Utah, we would have those proceedings concluded within a few short months. If the Senator from Arkansas was willing to adopt that kind of a procedure, he could have set the judicial mechanism in place long ago so that we could have had a determination of this matter. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is of critical importance to the security of the United States and its allies: The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In my remarks on the Senate floor on April 17, 1996, I addressed this issue stating that we can no longer afford to treat this proliferation as some merely hypothetical threat. The United States could soon be at risk from long-range Taepo Dong II missiles now being developed by North Korea. We have also seen evidence of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program confirmed by Saddam's son-in-law who defected from Iraq last year. We have seen China sell missiles and other nuclear technology to Pakistan, and a tremendous missile race between India and Pakistan on the subcontinent. Finally, we have seen the murderous activities of the Supreme Truth cult in Japan, which was responsible for a poison gas attack that injured more than 5,500 Tokyo subway passengers. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, I have long been concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I believe the administration was correct when it stated in the most recent edition of ``A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement'' that ``weapons of mass destrucion--nuclear, biological, and chemical--along with their associated delivery systems, pose a major threat to our security.'' I also believe that the administration has not done nearly enough to prevent the spread of these weapons. In my view, Mr. President, we have a tremendously unwieldy U.S. Government bureaucracy for combatting proliferation. By my estimate, some 96 departments, agencies and other organizations have some responsibility in this area. Mechanisms for effectively integrating the activities of the Department of State, Defense, Justice, Treasury, and Commerce, to name just a few, are lacking. Given the complexity of the tasks involved, the need for marshaling resources from many agencies, and the necessarily protracted nature of these efforts, the failure to assign clear and empowered leadership has impeded the U.S. effort. It was for that reason that I introduced legislation on April 17, 1996, that would create a high-level commission, appointed by the White House and the Congress, to conduct a governmentwide study of the complex organizational structure charged with combatting proliferation. Members of this commission would also be responsible for providing Congress and the President with a set of recommendations designed to improve U.S. Government performance, and reduce the amount of unnecessary duplication by the various agencies involved. As I indicated in my remarks last April, I examined closely a number of possible organizational changes. One option, I noted, was the creation of a high-level czar, such as the drug czar empowered to coordinate activities against drug trafficking. I also mentioned that I have considered the creation of a high-level position on the National Security Council [NSC] staff. I was very pleased, therefore, to find while reviewing the Nunn-Lugar amendment now under consideration by the Senate that my distinguished colleagues advocated the creation of both a ``national coordinator on nonproliferation,'' and a new standing NSC committee on nonproliferation, composed of the Secretary of Defense, State, Treasury, the Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, and other cabinet-level officials. This committee, chaired by the national coordinator, would be responsible for reviewing and coordinating all Federal programs, policies, and directives relating to proliferation. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation is a critically important step in our efforts to improve the ability of the United States to combat proliferation. Creating a single body with overall responsibility for this critical national security responsibility is a step in the right direction. U.S. efforts to combat proliferation are not well organized. Significant institutional and organization changes in the U.S. Government are required if the United States is to improve its ability to combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Select Committee on Intelligence has been engaged over the last year in an intense examination of the Intelligence Community and its role in the post-cold-war world. The Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 reflects the conclusions of the Committee and its proposals for renewal and reform of U.S. intelligence and I hope the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on these proposals in the near future. Similarly, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, as reported by the Armed Services Committee contained a number of intelligence reform provisions, including authorization for a major reorganization of the intelligence community through the creation of a new agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, as well as a number of provisions directly conflicting with the committee's efforts this year to make substantial improvements in the management and operation of U.S. intelligence activities. In order to consider these provisions in the context of our overall reform effort, the Intelligence Committee sought referral of the Defense bill, pursuant to the Committee's charter, Senate Resolution 400. After careful review, including extensive discussions and negotiations at the staff and member level with the Armed Services Committee and with the Director of Central Intelligence, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the committee voted to report the bill with amendments on June 11--well before the expiration of the 30 days of session allotted in Senate Resolution 400 for consideration upon referral. prior committee action These amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, along with the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, S. 1718, reflect the conclusions this committee has reached through 6 years of efforts aimed at making the U.S. intelligence community operate more effectively, more efficiently, and with greater accountability in light of the significant changes in the world over the last decade. In 1994, this effort led Congress, at the urging of Senator Warner, Senator Graham, and others, to establish a Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the U.S. Intelligence Community--the ``Aspin-Brown Commission''--to conduct a ``credible, independent, and objective review'' of U.S. intelligence. The Commission was given a deadline of March 1, 1996, with the expectation that its report would inform a legislative debate resulting in enactment of needed changes during this Congress. Armed with the Commission's report and enlightened by the committee's own examination, including numerous hearings, briefings, and interviews, the Select Committee on Intelligence voted on April 24, 1996, to report S. 1718, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, containing a number of measures to improve policy guidance to the intelligence community, strengthen the DCI's ability to manage the community on behalf of all intelligence consumers, and enhance the ability of the Congress and the American public to ensure that the secrecy necessary for the conduct of intelligence does not prevent the vigilance and oversight necessary for an effective democracy. The Armed Services Committee took the bill on a 30-day sequential referral as they have done every year since the establishment of the Select Committee on Intelligence. On May 13, the Armed Services Committee reported out S. 1745, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, which included a number of provisions for intelligence reorganization, including the creation of a new national imagery agency and a new structure for military intelligence under a Director of Military Intelligence [DMI]. The bill also included a number of other provisions that directly conflicted with the reform attempts of the Intelligence Committee contained in S. 1718. The Intelligence Committee requested referral of the bill to consider these intelligence provisions, pursuant to section 3(b) of Senate Resolution 400, which provides for referral to the Committee of any legislation containing provisions within its jurisdiction for up to thirty days, not counting days on which the Senate is not in session. Discussions with Armed Services Committee During the weeks of negotiations that followed, the Intelligence Committee agreed to a number of changes in S. 1718 to address concerns raised by the Armed Services Committee about protecting the equities of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Notwithstanding that the objective of the reform provisions in S. 1718 was to improve the quality of intelligence provided to all consumers, including the Department of Defense, the Armed Services Committee did not want any change that might diminish the current authority of the Secretary of Defense, who now controls about 85 percent of the intelligence community budget. The Intelligence Committee is concerned that the current arrangement, under which the Director of Central Intelligence is responsible for ensuring the nations intelligence needs are met effectively and efficiently yet has direct authority over only the CIA--which represents only a small portion of the intelligence budget--has led to problems. One clear example is the recent revelations regarding several billion dollars at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in funds that were never expended and were carried forward year after year. As the current DCI John Deutch, who was formerly Deputy Secretary of Defense, testified on April 24, [t]he Deputy Secretary of Defense has got a tremendous set of issues covering a much larger range of resources--10 times--managing ten times the resources * * * of the whole intelligence community. So to say that you are going to go to the deputy--and I am not talking about personalities--and say to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, why didn't you catch this, he's going to say, well, I count on the DCI to keep track of this and to let the Secretary of Defense know. So in some sense, if we are going to say that the Director of Central Intelligence does not view himself or herself as being responsible for the NRO, fundamentally nobody will be. The Director of Central Intelligence is in a unique position to balance the cost and effectiveness of intelligence programs throughout the government. It makes sense to hold this person responsible for ensuring that the various elements of the intelligence community are more responsive to this national objective then to parochial, turf- driven goals that too often typify bureaucracies. Yet he lacks the authority needed to accomplish this objective, particularly with regard to the intelligence elements within the Department of Defense. The DCI can be given enhanced authority without removing the elements of the intelligence community from the various agencies in which they reside or interfering with the ability of those agency heads to manage their departments, i.e., without creating a ``Department of Intelligence.'' The reform provisions in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 were designed to accomplish this goal. This fundamental difference of opinion over the need to strengthen the authority of the DCI to match his responsibility as the overall manager of US intelligence made reaching consensus with the Armed Services Committee over its provisions in the DOD bill and the provisions in the Intelligence bill difficult. However, both sides made accommodations and ultimately resolved all but a few issues, agreeing to changes in both bills. On June 6, the Armed Services report S. 1718 with amendments that reflected the consensus and one remaining area of disagreement. The next week, on June 11, the Intelligence Committee reported S.1745, the DOD Authorization bill, with amendments that similarly reflected the compromises reached with Armed Services Committee. Subsequently, the Armed Services Committee proposed some changes to our amendments, which we agreed to. The area of disagreement that remains is a provision in the Intelligence bill that gives the DCI the ability to make adjustments in the allocation of funds within the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) during the fiscal year to meet unexpected intelligence needs. Director Deutch, along with all former DCI's who testified before the Committee, publicly supported this enhanced authority as important to effective management of the national intelligence community. The DCI has the authority today to make the initial allocations within the NFIP in formulating the budget. However, when unforeseen requirements arise during the fiscal year and funds are available from a lower priority intelligence activity, the DCI does not have the authority to transfer those funds unless the affected agency head does not object. S. 1718 contained a provision to enhance the DCI's authority by shifting the burden to the affected agency to convince the President or his designee that the transfer is unwarranted. The Armed Services Committee objected to giving the DCI this authority and amended S. 1718 to delete the provision. With the exception of this reprogramming issue, the Committee believes the consensus reached by the two committees preserves significant elements of the reform effort and significantly enhances the ability of the DCI to manage intelligence activities. In addition, the Committee is comfortable that, with the changes agreed upon, the DCI will have the ability to ensure that a new National Imagery and Mapping Agency will be responsive to the needs of all national customers. Specifically, the amendments we have agreed upon to the National Defense Authorization Act will strike provisions that were in direct conflict with the reform efforts in the Intelligence Authorization Act, a number of which would have seriously hampered the ability of the Intelligence Community to function even under existing mechanisms. For example, our amendments strike a prohibition on any non-DOD employee obligating DOD funds. This provision, apparently intended to ensure the DCI did not gain any additional budget execution authority, would have restricted non-DOD employees detailed to DOD intelligence agencies, such as NRO, from managing contracts or performing numerous other tasks they now commonly perform. It also would have interfered with transfers of funds under the Economy Act, which take places regularly when one agency performs a function of common concern on behalf of another agency for reasons of efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, our amendments mandate a larger and more formal role for the DCI in the appointment and evaluation of the heads of the key national agencies: NSA, NRO, and the new NIMA. As I have noted, the Committee focused a good deal of effort on the provisions in the DOD bill that establish a new National Imagery and Mapping Agency--NIMA. Our amendments add statutory language giving the DCI clear authority to set imagery collection requirements and priorities, and to resolve conflicts among priorities. In addition, the Committee worked out language with Armed Services to ensure that NIMA's mission as stated in its establishment clause includes both combat support and its significant national missions. Finally, our Committee had concerns with the changes Armed Services had made to the provisions relating to the appointment and status of the Director of NIMA as worked out by the Administration. Our amendments restore the balance initially proposed by providing that (1) the Director of NIMA can be either a civilian or a military officer; and (2) that the Secretary of Defense must obtain the concurrence of the DCI, or note the non- concurrence of the DCI, when recommending an individual to the President for appointment as Director of NIMA. The past few weeks have not been easy, but I believe they have produced a good outcome for U.S. intelligence and the nation and, based on assurances that the leadership of the Armed Services Committee will do likewise, I wish to state my commitment to joining my colleagues in supporting prompt disposition of both bills, opposing any effort to undermine the agreements we have struck, and fully supporting the Senate positions in our respective conferences.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. He is a good friend. He is not always necessarily right.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, maybe I should save my better arguments for later.

Mr. SPECTER. If my colleague will yield, I am not talking about fraud, I am talking simply about a conclusion that there has not been a substantial investment, and then you have a situation where the generic has been selling its product. How is there a determination made as to what the damages are to the pharmaceutical company that has the patent?

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator from Arkansas would come back to my question, I am not on the Thurmond-Hatch substitute. My question is on the proposal of the Senator from Arkansas; that is, if you allow the generic to enter the field without a determination by a court of what is a substantial investment, and then, as the Senator from Arkansas said, if there is a later determination that there has not been a substantial investment and the generic company has to pay compensation, how is that compensation determined?