Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues from Alaska and Georgia for yielding me a moment. I compliment my distinguished colleague from Nebraska for his eloquent statement. I think it is very important, as Senator Kerrey has outlined, the bipartisan, nonpartisan nature of the Intelligence Committee being emphasized. As Senator Kerrey, I approach this investigation with a total open mind and no predisposition and determination to see the inquiry is totally nonpolitical, bipartisan, nonpartisan, as we take a look at the shipment of Iranian arms to the Bosnian Moslems. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in response to the comments of the Senator from Kansas, it is my strong view that a healthy start program is directly germane and directly relevant to the pending legislation on health care and that it is a jurisdictional question. I do not quite understand the argument. This program has been in existence, has been a success, and there has been no denial by the managers that it is in existence and has been a success. It is hardly the kind of program which is going to require additional hearings. It seems to me that it is right for disposition. That is why I am offering the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I understand we are stacking the votes. At this time I am offering this amendment and speaking about this amendment. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. I am not.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an amendment which provides for reauthorization of Healthy Start. This amendment would reauthorize the Healthy Start program for an additional 5 years at $100 million a year. It is important that the reauthorization occur on this bill because, given the Senate calendar, it is highly doubtful that this issue will be raised on any other bill. In my capacity as Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Health and Human Services, I can say with some authority that we need the authorization so that we are prepared to make the appropriate appropriations. Healthy Start is a program which is designed to provide prenatal care to infants. I saw my first 1-pound baby more than a decade ago at the Alma Ellery Clinic in Pittsburgh and, at that time, I saw a baby about as big as my hand, weighing a pound. Some babies weigh as little as 12 ounces, and they are human tragedies, carrying scars for a lifetime, and they are very expensive for our society, costing as much as $250,000 each. In my position on the Appropriations Committee, I worked to start this program of Healthy Start, and it has had a really remarkable success. It has been in existence for 5 years, which is a relatively short period of time. But we already have statistics available that show the success of the program. The 1994 statistics received from the projects demonstrated that from 1984 to 1988, baseline statistics in Philadelphia show that infant mortality had decreased some 28 percent. In Pittsburgh, the infant mortality rate decreased 20 percent since the start of the Healthy Start Program in 1993. The Maternal and Child Health Bureau reports that for the State of New York, between 1990 and 1994, infant mortality rates decreased by 38 percent in the Healthy Start project area, compared to a 22 percent decline citywide. Without going into any greater demonstration of statistics, Mr. President, I think it is apparent that Healthy Start is an important program. Dr. Koop commented that with these minimal four prenatal visits, women carrying children would not give birth to low-birthweight babies. It, obviously, has been a very important program. It exists in some 22 cities at the present time: Boston; New York; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Baltimore; Washington, the DCPD region; South Carolina; Birmingham, AL; Cleveland, OH. I read these listings so that my colleagues will know how many of these units are in existence in their locales. Troy, IN; Chicago, IL; New Orleans; the Northern Plains Indian Reservations; communities in South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa; Oakland, CA; and special projects in Dallas, TX; Essex County, NJ; the Florida Panhandle; Milwaukee, WI; the Mississippi Delta; Richmond, VA; and Savannah, GA. The plan is to expand these projects from the 17 projects which are now--from the 22 projects which are now in existence, to an additional 35 projects. Mr. President, I think the value of this program is apparent on its face. It has been in existence for 5 years. It has been very successful and does not encumber or impede this bill in any way. It is a little hard to understand why it is not accepted, but I think it ought to command the attention of this House and the House of Representatives. And I urge its adoption.

Mr. SPECTER. I am right here and ready to go, madam manager.

Mr. SPECTER. I am going to start with the first amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I am glad to do that.

Mr. SPECTER. The distinguished Senator from Kansas expresses it accurately. I think that will accomplish the purpose and lead to authorization, or a reauthorization. That is acceptable, and I formally withdraw the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. As I understand it, we are stacking the amendments. But I am not prepared to set the amendment aside at this point. I would like to see if the managers have contrary argument.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, responding to the majority leader's question, I think it can be disposed of in 20 minutes, 10 minutes a side.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while we are doing the order here, I think it might be appropriate to spend just a minute on a discussion which I had with the distinguished manager, the Senator from Kansas, talking about hearings before the Labor Committee, hopefully, by the end of May, looking for reauthorization or authorization of the healthy start program.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2337, which was just received from the House, be placed on the calendar.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and with that conclude the activities of the Senate today.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while in Paris, and at the Embassy on the evening of April 2, I visited with Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown for whom a reception was held in his honor along with the Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. As we all know, on the very next day Secretary Brown and his company met their untimely deaths with the crash of their plane making a landing approach into Sarajevo. When Secretary Brown and I spoke on the evening of April 2 at about 6:45 he was robust, enthusiastic, and very anxious to carry out his responsibilities as Secretary of Commerce. He had brought with him a group of United States businessmen who could be instrumental in the rebuilding and the revitalization of Bosnia. It is well accepted that, if the peace in Bosnia is to stay and is to hold, there will have to be a buildup of the infrastructure there, and Secretary Brown was there in connection with those duties. He and I talked about meeting in Sarajevo or Zagreb. But that meeting unfortunately did not take place. The next morning I departed for Serbia, was in Belgrade, and had a plane on April 3 to travel to Sarajevo. That plane was canceled because of weather. We did not go to Sarajevo, and the same weather conditions resulted in the fatal crash of Secretary Brown and his company. I traveled the next day to Tuzla, arrived there early in the morning, was met by General Cherry, and we immediately talked about Secretary Brown's visit the preceding day. Secretary Brown had arrived at 6:40 a.m. on April 3 and visited the United States military establishment in Tuzla, and departed at 1:58 p.m. And then, as we know, shortly thereafter the fatal crash occurred on the approach to the landing in Dubrovnik. Secretary Brown was certainly a stalwart advocate of U.S. interests, and his loss will be deeply felt by the U.S. Government. On behalf of my wife Joan, I want to convey our deepest sympathies and condolences to Ron's wife, Alma, and their two children, Michael and Tracey, and the rest of their family. Exhibit 1 Disinvesting in Diplomacy Large projected cuts in the 150 account will hamper our ability to attain U.S. economic, security and political objectives worldwide for many years to come. Among the hardest-hit will be our large embassies in Western Europe. These Embassies protect and promote vital U.S. interests. Western Europe is home to most of our biggest and most powerful trading and investment partners. NATO is our most important military alliance. Our European allies share our democratic ideals and are willing to join us in coalitions to promote global stability. A few, such as France, have global military, economic, technological and commercial interests which parallel our own. In France, our diplomacy reaches well beyond bilateral relations to include cooperation and burdensharing on a broad range of global issues. Embassy Paris, like most other major Embassies, is cutting back sharply its operations while trying to economize. The consulate in Lyon was closed in 1992. In 1996, the Bordeaux consulate also had to be closed. The latter had been in operation since George Washington's Presidency. In 1996, the Embassy was required to close its travel and tourism office. Its ten person staff, which was handling 100,000 requests for information annually from potential foreign visitors to the U.S., was eliminated. The calls will have to be absorbed or redirected with no increase in staff. In the past two years, Embassy Paris has cut the operating hours of its communication center by 65 percent. A hiring freeze has been in place for four years, and the Embassy's French work force has not received a pay increase in three years. Twenty-five French employee positions have been marked for elimination. The list of other reductions is long. In view of these reduced resources, Embassy Paris is making a concerted effort to ``work smarter'' with fewer resources. It has formed ``teams'' to pool interagency assets more effectively. It has negotiated savings of $3,000,000 over five years in local service contracts. It instituted a new interactive automated telephone service for visa applicants which generates $8,000 to $10,000/month in revenues. A consolidation of warehouses is saving $400,000 per years. A new computerized pass and ID system allowed the Embassy to cut 10 Marine guards. This kind of innovation has allowed cuts to be distributed and absorbed within the Embassy without drastic cutbacks in services thus far. However, this is now likely to change. The State Department is calling for another round of deep personnel cuts. For Paris, this would entail a 43 percent drop in core diplomatic personnel in the 1995 to 1998 period. Reductions this large will impact heavily on core diplomatic strengths and the Embassy's effectiveness. Some of the effects will be: Advocacy for U.S. trade and business interests will be reduced in frequency and effectiveness (recent investment problems handled by the Embassy included U.S. firms in the food processing, pharmaceutical and information industries). The loss of the Embassy's ability to monitor the Paris Club, the organization which negotiates debt rescheduling affecting billions owed the USG by developing countries. A 50 percent reduction in contacts with the key French officials we must reach if we are to influence French policy and advocate U.S. positions on questions of vital interest to us. Closure of the Science office at a time when our cooperative exchanges with France on nuclear, space and health technology matters (to mention only three) should be growing rapidly. Significant cutbacks and slowdowns in passport and welfare services to U.S. citizens. Passport issuance will take 3 to 5 days instead of one. Prison visits will be cut to one per year. Consuls will no longer attend trials of U.S. citizens. The consulate will be open to the public for only two hours per day. A 60 percent reduction in State Department reporting from Paris, including the political and economic analysis we need on France's activities in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, and Asia. These trends are disturbing and merit closer attention. The Administration and Congress must work together to assess carefully how budgetary and personnel cutbacks affect our core diplomatic capabilities in Western Europe and elsewhere. This is especially true at a moment when business and information is globalizing and our national interests dictate that we be even more intensively engaged with our key allies than in the past. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of Senate Resolution 247 are printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'') (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 1681 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on April 2, on behalf of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I traveled to Paris and then to The Hague, where I consulted with the prosecution teams of the war crimes tribunal to assess their progress. Then, on April 3, on to Belgrade April 4, then to Tuzla, and back to Paris on the evening of April 4. While in Paris, I had the opportunity to observe the operation of the Paris Embassy, under the direction of Ambassador Pamela Harriman. I was very much impressed with what I saw of the operation there. Ambassador Harriman conducts a large Embassy. Really, Paris is the crossroads of the European continent. There are many complex issues that confront the Embassy involving security matters with NATO, involving commercial matters, involving activities that touch upon the operation of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Central Intelligence Agency. I was very much impressed with those operations. During the course of my discussions with Ambassador Harriman, I discussed with her the cuts in the budget of the State Department in the so-called 150 Account. And from the work I have done on the Appropriations Committee, and in the past having been on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of State, it is my sense that the cuts that have been imposed are excessive. I asked Ambassador Harriman to prepare for me a list of specifics, which she has done, entitled ``Disinvesting in Diplomacy,'' pointing out how hard hit large Embassies will be, like the Embassy in Paris, and with the specification of the cuts and the impact of those cuts on her operation. I was especially impressed with one of her offices, from which 17 officers had been cut, under last year's reduction, to 12, and if the anticipated cuts are put into effect for next year, down to 7. Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that the specification under the caption ``Divesting in Diplomacy'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the leader, Senator Dole, that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, April 18; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin consideration of S. 1028, the Health Insurance Reform Act of 1996.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for thousands of years, the Aegean Sea, and the Eastern Mediterranean as a whole, has been a critical geopolitical region. I believe it is in the national interest of the United States to have the countries in this region resolve their disputes peacefully. As former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrook recently noted, ``you cannot have the southern flank of NATO in constant tension without having strategic instability, which will ultimately wreck NATO.'' Unfortunately, Greece and Turkey--both members of NATO, and both allies of the United States--have been locked in bitter conflict for many hundreds of years. The case of Cyprus is a tragic recent example. I am concerned that in such a climate of hostility, relatively minor disputes could erupt into major conflict. It could be a war which would spread to that area. The most recent manifestation of tension between Greece and Turkey centers on Imia and other islets in the Aegean. The sovereignty questions are quite complex, and involve treaties and other agreements signed after World War I and World War II, including the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947, the Italo-Turkish Agreement of 1932, and the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Simply put, each nation claims the islet of Imia, called Kardak by Turkey, as part of its national territory. However, I believe that this dispute should be resolved in the International Court of Justice [ICJ] at The Hague. The ICJ was established to promote the peaceful resolution of international disputes in conformity with international law. The dispute over the islet of Imia is, in my judgment, an ideal candidate for adjudication by The Hague. It is for that reason I am submitting this sense of the Senate resolution, which calls upon Greece and Turkey to submit their dispute to the ICJ, and agree to be bound by the decision of the court. The Eastern Mediterranean is a region of critical importance. I believe that it is essential to resolve conflict peacefully, and to work with the countries of the region to resolve key issues in a way that is consistent with the rule of law. This resolution, in my judgment, is a critical first step in ensuring that relatively minor conflicts do not escalate into major ones. Mr. President, I will read the resolve clause of the resolution: That it is the sense of the Senate that the Government of Greece and the Government of Turkey should-- (1) submit to the International Court of Justice in The Hague the dispute of such governments over sovereignty to the islet in the Aegean Sea called Imia by Greece and Kardak by Turkey; and (2) agree to be bound by the decision of the Court with respect to that dispute.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is well known that there is an enormous international threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Testimony which was recently heard by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I chair, disclosed that some 25 nations have weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons. In testimony offered by John Deutch in 1994, when he was Deputy Secretary of Defense, he pointed out that ``If North Koreans build the Taepo Dong II missile, Alaska and parts of Hawaii would be potentially at risk.'' I think it is not well known that parts of the United States are potentially at risk from long-range missiles. We have seen the development of biological weapons by Saddam Hussein which was confirmed last August by his son-in-law following his defection. We see the building of chemical weapons by Qadhafi noted recently by Secretary of Defense Perry with his statement that we could not tolerate the completion of those weapons of mass destruction. We have seen China sell missiles to Pakistan. We have seen the tremendous tension building up on the subcontinent with both Pakistan and India engaging in a missile race. In the United States, Mr. President, while we have noted the enormous problems on weapons of mass destruction, we have seen a governmental structure which is extraordinarily complicated and really unable to deal in a coordinated method with this tremendous problem. This chart depicts the problems in the United States of the numerous agencies which have jurisdiction in one way or another over weapons of mass destruction. This chart contains boxes depicting 96 different entities which have authority of one sort or another over this field. We have some authority vested in the National Security Council. We have some authority vested in the Department of Defense, some authority vested in the Department of State, some in the Department of Justice, some in the Department of Energy, some with the Director of Central Intelligence, others even with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, still further authority in the Secretary of the Treasury and authority in the Secretary of Commerce. This is on its face an enormously unwieldy Federal bureaucracy, and that is our response to the problem of weapons of mass destruction. And as shown by this chart it is obviously a bureaucracy which cannot function efficiently. In 1993, when I studied the Clinton health program, I asked an assistant to make a listing of all the agencies, boards and commissions, and my assistant made a chart instead which depicted an enormous bureaucracy, which was influential in helping to defeat that health care program. If a picture is worth 1,000 words, a chart may be worth 1,000 pictures, Mr. President, and I think that this chart shows the urgency of some reorganization of the Federal Government to deal with this enormous problem. The study of the congressionally mandated Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces pointed out that ``Despite the declared national emergency, there is no evidence that combating proliferation receives continuous high level attention.'' The study's conclusion is worth noting and emphasizing: Mechanisms for effectively integrating the combating proliferation activities of all departments and agencies 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 United States effort. That conclusion is obvious in taking a look at the enormous complicated bureaucracy in the United States assigned to deal with this problem. In looking at the solution, I have considered a number of alternatives. One option is the creation of ``czar,'' such as the drug czar empowered to coordinate activities against drugs in United States. I have considered the creation of a high-level position on the National Security Council staff. I have considered the option of having a second Deputy Secretary of Defense. I have also considered the option of a new Assistant Secretary of Defense [ASD], like the ASD for special operations and low-intensity conflict created in the late 1980's as a result of legislation introduced by Senator Cohen and Senator Nunn. I have decided instead that this matter ought to be studied by a high level special commission like the Aspin-Brown Commission, which recently filed a comprehensive report to reorganize the U.S. intelligence community. This is a matter which can be most effectively dealt with by experts on a commission. Rather than the introduction of legislation and the holding of hearings, the commission would have a much broader purview and that is the legislation which I am introducing today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislation, together with a chart depicting this complicated bureaucracy which now seeks to deal with this problem of great national and international importance, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. That tells me how brief I have to be. We have had repetitive petitions filed. They have been a major irritant in the Federal court system. The idea of the Court of Appeals as a gatekeeper came to me from a law school classmate, Judge Jon Newman, chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I am concerned, Mr. President, about a couple of provisions. I think the bill is too restrictive in limiting the ability to present a claim of innocence, requiring that it be proved by clear and convincing evidence. I joined Senator Levin in seeking to change that standard. But the reality is that the standard of proof is a very variable thing. I think if it is established innocence, it may not make a whole lot of practical difference, but I think clear and convincing evidence is too high a standard from a theoretical point of view. Similarly, I do not favor the deference which is allowed to the State court decision, requiring that it has to be unreasonable in order for the Federal court to overturn it. But I think in a Federal habeas corpus proceeding, if the court thinks it is unreasonable, it will be able to overturn the decision, notwithstanding a standard that is really not as precise as it ought to be. I think the exhaustion requirement is misplaced here. We would be better off without it. But the net effect, Mr. President, is that this legislation is very good legislation taken as a whole. It will help out on terrorism with the additional resources. We have a tremendous problem in this country with the potential for terrorism. We have seen it in the World Trade Center bombing. We have seen it in Oklahoma City. In my capacity as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I see a lot of problems which we cannot discuss openly, but we can move for the additional resources. On law enforcement, the death penalty is the law of the land in 37 jurisdictions in this country. It is favored by more than 70 percent of the American people. If States do not want it, they do not have to have it. But the States that do have it ought to have it enforced. I think the overwhelming weight of authority is that it is a deterrent. These provisions are fair to the defendant. The European Court on Human Rights held it cruel and unusual punishment to impose a delay of more than 6 to 8 years. So it is fair to the defendant. Certainly it provides closure for the victims' families, and it will reinvigorate law enforcement by taking out the habeas corpus provisions which really made the death penalty a laughingstock. So in total I think it is a good bill. I commend all of my colleagues who have worked on it in the House. I think we will see passage of something which will be very, very significant for law enforcement in this country. Mr. President, violent crime has been one of the worst problems faced by the people of our country for several years. Homicide rates, fueled by illegal drugs, spiraled upward in the 1980's. While the rate of violent crime has recently started to decline, there remains far too much violence in our society. And while the violent crime rates are down, the future is grim: the rate of murder and violent crime committed by children under 17 is soaring, and the number of youth in our society is increasing. Therefore, we may expect another surge in violent crime unless we take action. There are many avenues to take to curb violent crime. We need a balanced approach that includes law enforcement, drug prevention and treatment, crime prevention programs and other means of steering juveniles away from drugs and crime. Based on my personal experience as an assistant district attorney and as district attorney of Philadelphia, I am convinced that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to violent crime. Criminal justice experts agree that in order for any penalty to be effective as a deterrent, it must be swift and certain. When years pass between the commission of the crime and the carrying out of the sentence, the link between crime and punishment is broken. The great writ of habeas corpus is the means by which criminal convictions and sentences in State court are reviewed in Federal court to ensure that the trial satisfied the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. It has been an indispensable safeguard of constitutional rights in this country, especially since the 1930's when the Supreme Court began reviewing State-court convictions in cases like the Scottsboro case. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have gone too far in habeas corpus cases. These cases drag on for years, and there is no end to them, as inmates, especially those on death row with nothing to lose, file endless rounds of petitions. There is no statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions. This leads inmates who have been sentenced to death to wait until they are facing their imminent execution before filing their habeas corpus petition in Federal court. An example of this abuse is the case of Stephen Duffey in Pennsylvania. Duffey murdered his victim in 1984. His conviction was finally upheld by the Pennsylvania courts in 1988. His death warrant was not signed until 1994, 10 years after the murder. It was only when the death warrant was signed by the Governor that Duffey first sought habeas corpus review in Federal court. The requirement that all claims raised in Federal habeas corpus petitions be presented and fully adjudicated by State courts has also led to excessive delays and unsound rules as to whether Federal courts can even consider a habeas corpus petition. The case of Michael Peoples, which I have discussed with my colleagues on numerous occasions, shows graphically how the exhaustion rule leads to excessive formalism and delay. People was convicted of a vicious robbery in 1981, and his conviction was upheld by the intermediate Pennsylvania appellate court in 1983. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review by an order that did not make it clear whether it was based on the merits or on the court's procedural discretion not to hear cases that do not present a substantial legal issue. Peoples then filed a habeas corpus petition in 1986. The district court denied the petition for failure to exhaust his State remedies. The Court of Appeals for the third circuit then reversed on the ground that the exhaustion requirement had been satisfied when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review. Peoples then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review--making the case 1 of just 147 it heard that year out of over 4,550 petitions for Supreme Court review--and reversed the third circuit. On remand, the third circuit issued a complicated ruling finding that Peoples' habeas petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims and sent the case back to the district court. Years were spent considering just this initial procedural hurdle of exhaustion. I believe we would have been better served had the courts simply reviewed the substance of Peoples' claims. Another problem causing the excessive delay in carrying out death sentences has been the ability of inmates to file repeated habeas corpus petitions. Once again, I turn to an example I have often discussed with my colleagues, the case of Robert Alton Harris. After being convicted of a double murder in a California court in 1980, Harris filed over the next 14 years 10 petitions for State post- conviction relief and five Federal petitions for habeas corpus. The Supreme Court of the United States considered 11 different applications relating to the Harris case. Many of the petitions Harris filed contained similar or overlapping claims, although none raised doubts about his guilt. Finally, after 14 years, Harris was executed. I regret to say that the Harris case is far from unique in its multiple habeas corpus filings. Abuse of the writ of habeas corpus has led to the death penalty being not an effective deterrent, but a mockery. Inmates on death row spend an average of over 9 years awaiting execution. And may wait much longer, with some cases dragging on 18 or more years. During these periods of lengthy delay in carrying out death sentences, the families of the victims are left in a sense of suspension, unable to put the tragedy behind them. Putting an end to these excessive delays will once again restore vitality to the death penalty as an effective deterrent to violent crime, which I know from personal experience it is. I have told my colleagues on numerous occasions over the past several years about the case of Cater, Rivers, and Williams, three young hoodlums who I prosecuted as an assistant district attorney. These three were planning on robbing a Philadelphia pharmacy. When Cater and Rivers saw that Williams was carrying a revolver, they told him they would not participate in the robbery if he took the weapon because they feared the death penalty. Williams put the gun in a drawer, but as the three were leaving, Williams sneaked it back into his pocket. Williams used the gun in the commission of the robbery to kill Jacob Viner, the pharmacist. All three men convicted and sentenced to death because, under the law, Cater and Rivers were equally responsible for Viner's murder as Williams. Ultimately, Williams was executed, but Cater and Rivers had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment because they were unaware that Williams had carried the gun. As a prosecutor, this case was just one of many I encountered in which burglars and robbers refused to carry firearms because they feared the death penalty. In order to make the death penalty once again an effective deterrent, I have actively been attempting to streamline habeas corpus procedures since 1990. When the Senate considered anticrime legislation that year, I offered with Senator Thurmond an amendment to reform habeas corpus procedures to speed up and streamline the process. My amendment was adopted by the Senate, 52 to 46, and included in the final bill. Unfortunately, at the insistence of the House conferees, the provision was dropped from the conference report adopted the last day of the 101st Congress. In the 102d Congress, I introduced legislation, S. 19, that was substantively identical to the 1990 amendment the Senate had passed. When the Senate considered anticrime legislation in 1991, however, Senators Hatch and Thurmond offered a slightly different habeas corpus reform amendment that was based on my legislation but included language limiting the scope of Federal review of State convictions. After careful consideration, I spoke at length in favor of that amendment and voted for it. This amendment also passed the Senate, 58 to 40, and included in the final bill that passed the Senate. When the bill went to conference, however, the House insisted on its habeas corpus provisions which, rather than reducing delays and streamlining the process, would have allowed for greater delay and more manipulation of the process. The conference report that contained that provision was filibustered in the Senate because of its habeas corpus provisions and never came to a vote. Once again in the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation similar to my previous efforts. When the 1993 anticrime bill was debated in the Senate, the managers decided that habeas corpus reform was too tough an issue to resolve and remove the bill's habeas provisions. I strenuously objected and brought before the Senate a bill I introduced to streamline the process. While many of my colleagues wanted to see us take action on the bill, it was tabled in order to keep the habeas issue from interfering with efforts, which I also supported, to secure Federal assistance for police hiring and prison construction. When Republicans took control of the Senate and House this Congress, I had high hopes that we would finally be able to resolve the issues that had previously derailed efforts to reform habeas corpus. Together with Senator Hatch, I introduced legislation, S. 623, to impose a statute of limitations on the filing of habeas corpus petitions, restrict the ability to file successive petitions, impose time limits on Federal court consideration of habeas petitions in capital cases, and encourage States to provide adequate counsel in capital habeas cases. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, as the Senate developed antiterrorism legislation, I worked to ensure the inclusion in the bill of my habeas corpus reform legislation. As introduced and passed by the Senate, S. 735 includes in full the provisions of S. 623. When the House ultimately considered its antiterrorism bill, it included my habeas corpus reform language as well. As I mentioned, there are several aspects of the habeas corpus reform provisions that I would prefer were different. Most glaringly is the restrictive standard of review. The bill continue to require deference to State courts' findings of fact. Federal courts will owe no deference to State courts' determinations of Federal law, which is appropriate in our Federal system. However, under the bill deference will be owed to State courts' decisions on the application of Federal law to the facts. Unless it is unreasonable, a State court's decision applying the law to the facts will be upheld. I am not entirely comfortable with this restriction, but upon reflection I believe that the standard in the bill will allow Federal courts sufficient discretion to ensure that convictions in State court have been obtained in conformity with the Constitution. I also believe that the formulation in the bill is too restrictive in limiting successive petitions when the inmate raises a claim as to innocence. For this reason, I supported Senator Levin's amendment when the bill was initially considered by the Senate. That amendment, however, was tabled. Finally, I am disappointed by the absence of two provisions from the habeas corpus reform sections. Since 1990, I have been convinced that we can improve the process by eliminating the exhaustion requirement. I have tried repeatedly to do so. Both prosecutors and representatives of the defense bar have strenuously objected to these efforts, albeit for different reasons. Despite my certainty that the bill would be improved had we eliminated the exhaustion requirement, I am willing to move forward without its elimination in the interest of getting habeas corpus reform. I am also concerned that the bill does not establish standards for trial counsel in capital cases. In my previous efforts I had sought to ensure that the States provided adequate counsel in capital cases at both trial and in the post-conviction process. Improving trial counsel in capital cases is a critical step to making the trial rather than the habeas proceedings the central event in death-penalty cases. This bill, while seeking to ensure adequate counsel for habeas proceedings, does nothing to strengthen the minimal constitutional standard for ensuring adequate counsel at trial. Despite the provisions that concern me and the failure of the habeas reform to include two elements important to a fair and comprehensive scheme of habeas reform, I support the habeas corpus reform provisions of this bill. In politics, one learns that the best is the enemy of the good. Since the restoration of the death penalty in 1976, we have seen its effectiveness as a deterrent sapped by delays attributable to defects in the habeas corpus system. The reforms included in this bill, while not perfect, will go a long way to restoring vitality to the death penalty as an effective deterrent to violent crime. I was therefore willing to sponsor these provisions in conjunction with Senator Hatch and am please to see them enacted. They are the culmination of many years of effort, and I am deeply satisfied by their adoption. We are, of course, dealing with an antiterrorism bill, and there are several provisions of the bill in addition to habeas corpus reform that I want to address briefly. As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, I have long been interested in combating terrorism and have been very active in the area. In 1986, I introduced legislation that made it a Federal crime to commit a terrorist attack against a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. I have also been active in seeking to limit diplomatic immunity for terrorist acts and for punishing acts of terrorism before an international criminal court. Earlier this Congress, I joined Senator Biden and Senator Kohl in introducing S. 390, the fist omnibus counterterrorism bill introduced this Congress, 2 months before the tragic Oklahoma City bombing that gave the issue such currency, I am pleased that the conference report retained my amendment to the Senate bill to authorize assistance to U.S. allies to support the purchase of counterterrorism technology if U.S. interests are at stake. My original amendment authorized $3 million for this assistance, but in the wake of the recent terrorist bombings in Israel that have put the peace process at risk, the amount authorized in the conference report has been increased to $20 million. I also want to express my support for the provision to require the Attorney General to study the availability of bombmaking manuals, evaluate whether current laws are adequate to address the problem, and determine whether anything else can be done constitutionally. My Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Technology held a hearing on this subject in May 1995. We were deeply troubled by what we heard. I am skeptical that the Government can do anything to restrict such information without violating the first amendment. I am pleased that the Attorney General, whose representative testified at our hearing, will study this matter and make appropriate recommendations. The conference report adds a provision to make it a crime to misuse human pathogens and other biological agents. The terrorist threat from such agents is very real. My Terrorism Subcommittee is conducting a study on this issue and the threat from chemical agents as well. I know that the Governmental Affairs Committee has also held hearings on this subject. Recently, the full Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the threat posed by the wrongful use of human pathogens. After that hearing, I joined several other members of the committee in writing the President to express our concern over the gaps in Federal regulation over the distribution of human pathogens. I am pleased to see the conference report include this provision. The conference report deleted the Senate-passed provision to authorize the broader use of multipoint wiretaps. I opposed the inclusion of this provision in the Senate bill and am pleased to see that the conferees deleted it. Current law strikes the appropriate balance, and I feared the Senate-passed provision went too far in threatening privacy interests. I want to note that, while the conference report alters the expedited deportation provisions of the Senate bill, adopted as part of an amendment I offered with Senator Simon and Senator Kennedy, it preserves the requirement that if classified information is used to deport an alien suspected of terrorist activity, an unclassified summary adequate to permit the alien to mount a defense must be provided to the alien. This requirement is the absolute minimum that due process will permit. Anything less could not have survived constitutional scrutiny, and I am pleased that this aspect of my amendment was retained. I am also troubled by the restrictions on domestic fundraising for foreign terrorist organizations. The Senate bill had allowed entities designated as terrorist to seek judicial review. That review would have accorded no deference to the administration's designation and allowed full and searching judicial review. The conference report, while retaining judicial review, establishes a deferential standard for that review. I am far less satisfied with this level of scrutiny. I am also concerned about the first amendment implications of this provision, restricting the ability of U.S. citizens to support favored causes. I acknowledge that the United States is a fertile ground of financial support for foreign terrorist organizations, but am nonetheless concerned about these infringements on U.S. citizens. Finally, I want to express my strong disappointment over the limited scope of the provision allowing U.S. citizens injured by foreign terrorist attacks to sue foreign nations who supported the attack in which they were injured. In 1993, I introduced the first bill in the Senate to allow U.S. victims of foreign terrorism to sue foreign countries they suspected of supporting the terrorists who injured them. My bill was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. When the Senate considered this bill, it included a provision similar to but narrower than my bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee in 1994, allowing suits against foreign nations for supporting terrorism only if the State Department had previously listed the defendant nation as a sponsor of terrorism. The House bill contained a broader provision allowing suit in the U.S. against any foreign country that did not provide due process in its own courts to remedy the injury to an American citizen. As the conference on this bill began, I wrote to each of the Senate conferees urging them to accept the House-passed provision. As the conference proceeded, I had thought that an acceptable compromise would be reached. I deeply regret that the conference report rejected any compromise and adhered to the Senate's provision, which allows the State Department to manipulate those foreign nations that are subject to suit in U.S. courts for injuring U.S. citizens. Giving the State Department this role is contrary to the rationale of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and will allow impermissible foreign policy consideration to affect the ability of Americans to seek redress for their injuries caused by foreign governments. I will continue to work on this issue to remove this unfair limitation. This conference report is not all that could be hoped for. It does, however, represent a significant advance in our Nation's ability to fight terrorism without unduly compromising the rights and liberties of our citizens. As a result, I support the conference report and urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding this time. I support this legislation because I think it makes important improvements in our fight against terrorism and also in our fight against violent crime in the United States. The additional $1 billion will be an enormous help to the FBI and law enforcement officials to fight terrorism. The Subcommittee on Terrorism, which I chair in the Judiciary Committee, held extensive hearings after the Oklahoma City bombing. There is absolutely no doubt about the need for more resources by the FBI. The FBI Terrorism Center will provide a clearinghouse which will be of enormous aid and assistance. As is frequently the case, the bill is not entirely to my liking or the liking of anyone. There are a couple of provisions which concern me that I want to comment about because they may be cured at a later date. On the provision relating to expedited deportation, I am concerned about the absence of a right of confrontation. There is a constitutional right to confront your accuser in a criminal case. A deportation proceeding is not a criminal case. It is defined as a civil case, but the consequences are extreme because a person is ousted from the country. There are very important policy considerations to not allowing the right of confrontation because many of the witnesses are confidential informants and the disclosure of their testimony would be very harmful to ongoing law enforcement efforts. We do have an unclassified summary, included in an amendment offered by Senator Simon and myself, and I think that is about as far as we can go. But I believe we have to watch how the act works on this expedited deportation proceeding in the absence of a confrontation right. The restrictions on fundraising are also important. I have some concern about the limited judicial review, but on balance, this legislation against terrorism is very, very important. I am glad to see that we are finally acting on it. Attached to this terrorism bill, Mr. President, are provisions relating to modifications of habeas corpus which limit the time for appeals on death penalty cases. This has been a long time in coming to this country. It is something that I have worked on personally for more than a decade, based upon the experience I had as the district attorney of Philadelphia. We currently have the death penalty applied and then there are delays of up to 17 years while the cases languish in the Federal courts. Most of the arguments about these provisions are made by people who are opposed to the death penalty. The lengthy appeals process in the Federal court has, in effect, defeated the deterrent effect of the death penalty. I am personally convinced, Mr. President, that the death penalty is a deterrent. I saw many cases in my 12-year tenure in the Philadelphia district attorney's office, 4 years as an assistant DA trying murder cases and 8 years as district attorney, arguing appellate cases where the death penalty was imposed, and I am convinced that professional burglars do not carry weapons for fear of the death penalty when it is timely. But the only way a deterrent can be effective is if it is certain and reasonably swift. The time limits established in this bill are very, very important. They break new ground. I first offered these time limits, Mr. President, in 1990. After a long, tough debate we got these time limits established by a 52-to-46 vote. They were incorporated again in 1991, passed by a narrow vote of 58 to 40. In 1993, habeas corpus was left out of the crime bill, and I offered these provisions. They were defeated on a motion to table. Senator Hatch and I later collaborated on the Specter-Hatch bill. It is not too easy to come ahead of Senator Hatch on a bill, but I did. Senate bill 623 established those time limits and they are incorporated into this final bill. They will require that anyone on death row has to file a habeas corpus proceeding within 6 months if counsel is provided, under State law, or within 1 year if counsel is not provided. Mr. President, I think that we should have included provisions for counsel. They are not in this bill. I think that is a serious mistake. I hope it is a mistake we can correct at a later time. When you talk about inmates languishing on death row for up to 17 years, you are talking about a problem for the system, you are talking about a problem for law enforcement, you are talking about a problem for the victims' relatives, and you are also talking about a problem for the defendants themselves on death row. The European Court on Human Rights decided that it was cruel and barbarous treatment, cruel and inhumane treatment, to keep someone on death row for 6 to 8 years. There was an extradition case which came up where somebody was accused of murder in the first degree in Virginia, which had the death penalty, and extradition was sought from Germany. The Court denied extradition on the ground that it would be cruel, barbarous, and unusual treatment to keep someone in jail for lengthy periods of time, for 6 to 8 years. Obviously, 17 years is an extension of the time which was held to be cruel and barbarous treatment. This bill provides a limitation on time so that the district court must decide the case within 180 days, 120 days for brief and hearing, and 60 days for decision. I have been involved in these cases in the State court. I have been involved in habeas corpus proceedings as a trial counsel in the Federal court. What the judges do is put these cases on the back shelf. There is no reason they cannot give these cases priority treatment. Now they will have to. The Congress of the United States recognizes judicial independence on what judges decide, but in terms of timetable, we have the authority to establish timetables, and we have done so under the Speedy Trial Act of years ago. Even in the jurisdictions which have a tremendous number of death penalty cases, like Texas, California, and Florida, the judge does not have more than one of these cases every year and a half. So they can put these on the expedited trial list. This bill also provides that there will not be repetitive decisions, because the court of appeals will be the gatekeeper. Mr. President, I inquire how much time I have remaining of my 10 minutes.