Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Youth Violence of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, at 10 a.m., in the Senate Dirksen Building room 226 to hold a hearing on ``the changing nature of youth violence.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am optimistic today that the Congress will move forward with an omnibus appropriations bill to cover the departments now not covered in existing legislation. I have been particularly concerned about what has happened to the subcommittee of Appropriations which I have the honor to chair, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. The absence of an appropriations bill in these departments has been very, very, very problemsome. It has been impossible for the Secretary of Labor to plan on worker safety and impossible for the Secretary of Education to advise various States as to the allocation of their funding. It has been impossible for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make allocations on very important items, although we have taken some items out like the National Institutes of Health, where we have maintained, again, an increased appropriation on that very important line. I had scheduled last week a hearing of the three Secretaries to outline the needs of their Departments and to the approaches which they might be able to take. I deferred that hearing because, in the absence of knowing how much the additional funding would be, it was impossible to have that hearing in a meaningful way. I had been in touch with the Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, on a number of occasions spreading over several weeks trying to push ahead to see to it that we had an opportunity to construct this legislation well in advance of the March 15 date when the current continuing resolution would expire. As a matter of fact, I even made an effort to talk to Chief of Staff Panetta when he was traveling with the President recently, when he traveled Friday to Wilkes-Barre, where the President was due to stop to look at flood damage in Pennsylvania, which was very extensive. There is flood damage all over the State, not only with the Susquehanna in Wilkes-Barre, the Lackawanna River in Scranton, and the Susquehanna through central Pennsylvania, very great damage off Dauphin and Cumberland counties, other places, Pittsburgh as well, and western Pennsylvania. When the President came to Wilkes-Barre, he was scheduled to have Mr. Panetta with him. I thought I would be able to get the facts there. But Chief of Staff Panetta had left the party, so I had a chance to talk with the President about the additional funding. The President was in agreement we needed to do just that. Yesterday I was advised that there would be an additional $4.5 billion in budget authority, slightly in excess of $1.7 billion in budget outlays, so we can go ahead. I am looking forward to rescheduling the hearing with Secretary of Labor Reich, Secretary of Health and Human Services Shalala, Secretary of Education Riley, to make a determination as to where those funds ought to be added. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter to Chief of Staff Leon Panetta dated February 20, 1996, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and the Parliamentarian, Mr. Dove.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. For the benefit of those in the gallery and whoever may be watching on C-SPAN 2 and for me, too, we now have a new legislative day. Would the Chair, without reference to the Parliamentarian, explain the procedural purpose?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment for 1 minute and that, immediately following the reconvening of the Senate, time for the two leaders be reserved, the Journal of 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 that I be recognized as if in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the immigration bill which is scheduled to come before the Judiciary Committee tomorrow and, first of all, an amendment which will be offered by a number of Senators, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator DeWine of Ohio, under the leadership of Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, to divide the appropriations bill into two parts, that relating to legal immigration and that relating to illegal immigration. I think it is important to do so, that the bills have independent status and that there not be an effort made to tie either bill to the other. The bill on legal immigration has no more to do with the bill on illegal immigration than, say, the telecommunications bill has to do with the crime bill. Illegal immigration is a major problem in America. I picked the telecommunications bill not at random but because the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee walked in for a moment. The bill on illegal immigration is a very important bill. We ought to protect our borders. We ought to take it up, in my view, separately. On the bill on legal immigration, I have already stated my intention to introduce an amendment, but I think it worthwhile to make this statement in the Chamber of the Senate so it will appear in the Congressional Record and my colleagues and others will have notice as to what I intend to do. But the amendment would make the following changes. First it would increase the worldwide level of employment-based visas from 90,000 to 135,000 a year. Second, it would eliminate the fee that employers must pay for each immigrant employee they sponsor, which is now $10,000 or 10 percent of the employee's compensation annually, whichever is greater. Third, my amendment would eliminate the fee that certain employers must pay for each temporary foreign worker that they employ. Next, it restores the maximum length of the H visa to 6 years and the maximum length of the L visa to 7 years. Next, it restores the ``Outstanding Researchers and Professors,'' which is a category that is exempt from the labor market screening requirement. It also eliminates the requirement that employers must pay foreign workers 105 percent of prevailing wages. Mr. President, there has been an effort made to limit legal immigration under the general guise of protecting American workers. But I believe this bill is exactly wrong and exactly counterproductive because the kinds of people who are going to be excluded from this bill are Ph.D.'s, scientists, M.D.'s, and those who have great proficiency and capability for adding much to employment potential in this country. In 1989-90, I sponsored the lead amendment to add people to come in people who were in demand in industry. I did that because the chamber of commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers were interested in that as a job-producing approach. Again, this year, after having meetings with extensive numbers of my constituents in Pennsylvania, both in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, I have found that there is a tremendous demand for these highly skilled people, and that the people are not available in the United States to take the jobs. Rather than decreasing employment opportunities for American workers, the bringing in of these additional people will increase the employment opportunities. I also say, Mr. President, that Americans should never lose sight of the fact that this is a nation of immigrants. It is something that I feel particularly strongly about since both of my parents were immigrants. My father came to the United States at the age of 18, literally walked across Europe from the Ukraine with barely a ruble in his pocket, rode steerage, the bottom of the boat, to come to America for a better life for himself and his family. My father was a great contributor to the United States. He did not know when he came over steerage he had a round-trip ticket back to Europe, back to France, not to Paris and the Follies Bergere, but to the Argonne Forest, where he served with great pride in the United States Army. He rose to the rank of buck private. I say that somewhat facetiously because my dad was at the bottom of the totem pole in rank but at the top of the totem pole in dedication, loyalty, bravery. In the Argonne Forest, he sustained shrapnel in his legs, wounds he carried with him until the day he died. But he was a great American, a great contributor to this country. He was an immigrant. If he had been barred from the United States, I would not be in the U.S. Senate today. In fact, I would not be. My mother, too, came as an immigrant, as a child of 5 with her parents from a small town on the Russian-Polish border. She, too, was a great American, raising a family. My brother, two sisters and I have had the advantage of an education in America and have been able to share in the American dream, as have so many Americans. More than sharing in the American dream, the immigrants have created the American dream. This is a factor that I think has to be borne in mind. I talked to my distinguished colleague, Senator Simpson, about this bill. Senator Simpson made the unusual effort of coming to see me twice. When Senator Simpson walked in, he said, ``I've been here for lunch frequently with the Wednesday Group, but I never looked at the pictures.'' I showed Senator Simpson a picture of Mordecai Shem, my mother's father, who came in 1905, another great American. I showed him a picture of my father in military uniform marrying my mother in St. Joe in 1919. I said to Senator Simpson, ``I'm going to agree with you on just about nothing on this immigration bill.'' I think the future of our country is wrapped up in inviting these highly skilled, highly trained immigrants to create more jobs and more prosperity in America.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the increasing public concern about the unlimited amounts of money that individuals spend from their own private fortunes to gain public office in the United States, which I believe poses a real threat to democratic government in our society. I have spoken about this subject in the past and have, along with Senator Hollings, supported constitutional amendments, because that is what is necessary to deal with this campaign finance reform issue, because the Supreme Court of the United States decided a little more than 20 years ago, on January 30, 1976, in a case captioned Buckley versus Valeo, that an individual can spend as much of his or her money as he or she chose, notwithstanding spending limitations on everyone else. As I have said on this floor, that case had a substantial personal impact on me because I had declared my candidacy for the U.S. Senate in late 1975 when the campaign finance law had recently been enacted. In 1974, specified on a population basis for the State, a State the size of Pennsylvania had a limit of $35,000, which is about what I had in the bank, having recently returned to private practice after having been district attorney of Philadelphia. That year I contested a man who later became a very distinguished U.S. Senator--he won the election in 1976--a very close personal friend of mine, Senator John Heinz, who was able to spend beyond the limits established under the statute because the Supreme Court of the United States declared the law unconstitutional, on first amendment grounds, limiting the amounts anybody else could spend. My brother, for example, could have contributed substantially but could only spend $1,000 by way of contribution. This has become a proliferating, expanding problem in our society, with many Senate seats having been, in effect, bought with enormous personal contributions. Now we are seeing the matter played out on the national level, obtaining a lot of national notoriety, with recent disclosures showing expenditures in excess of $15 million because people are not limited by the Federal laws if they choose to spend their own money. Those Federal laws on matching funds for the Presidency limit the amount that anybody can spend, if they take Federal funding, to about $600,000 in New Hampshire, about $1 million in Iowa. Those funds are not the limit for those who spend their own funds. I was fascinated to see on Friday in the New York Times, a column by Anthony Lewis, about this precise subject. I was surprised to see it because Mr. Lewis is well known for his defense of the Constitution and his defense of the first amendment. I think I have that same record, concern about the Constitution, concern about the first amendment. So, when Anthony Lewis wrote a column in effect calling for the overruling of Buckley versus Valeo, which was decided on first amendment grounds, I thought it a very important event. At the conclusion of my presentation I will ask this be printed in the Record. But I only want to cite one sentence from it at this time, referring to the current events, on the tremendous expenditures by an individual, that these events may pose. A ``real contribution should be to make us think of ways to overcome the Supreme Court's misguided 1976 decision that limiting how much political candidates can spend on themselves violates their freedom of speech.'' I think it worth noting, when Anthony Lewis calls the Supreme Court decision ``misguided,'' he, in effect, joins Senator Hollings and myself and others in calling for a constitutional amendment. On Friday, February 2, the day this appeared, I called Mr. Lewis. Before I could tell him the purpose of the call, he said, ``I think I know what you are calling about.'' He was exactly right. On Sunday in the Philadelphia Inquirer there is an extensive article by Mr. Dick Polman, on the same subject, starting off, ``If money talks.'' Again, quoting only one small section, Mr. Polman noted, referring to Buckley versus Valeo: The justices ruled that candidates could spend their own money as they wanted, as an exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of expression. Publicly financed rivals, on the other hand, must obey spending ceilings in each state-- $600,000 per candidate in New Hampshire, $1 million in Iowa. Now, Mr. Polman quotes from a comment by Miss Ellen Miller, who directs the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, ``That ruling made no sense 20 years ago, and it certainly makes less sense today.'' As the Presidential campaign moves forward and we see the impact, I am surprised that money could have made as much a difference as it has in what has resulted so far as shown by the public opinion polls in New Hampshire and Iowa. It may really be possible to buy the White House if enough money is spent from an individual who reportedly has $400 million. And if that individual chooses to spend, say $200 or $300 or $350 million--what is the difference if you have $50 million more left over? You probably have enough for any other contingency--the impact of that kind of spending has really potentially cataclysmic impact on the electoral process in the United States. I do not want to keep the Senate here too late. It is now 6:15. I know the leader wants to wrap up, but I did want to make these brief comments. At this time I ask unanimous consent the full text of these articles by Anthony Lewis in the New York Times of February 2, and the article by Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer of February 4 be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is acting so quickly on H.R. 1718, a bill to designate the U.S. courthouse in Wilkes-Barre, PA as the Max Rosenn United States Courthouse. Max Rosenn is one of our Nation's most eminent jurists and one of Pennsylvania's outstanding citizens. Judge Rosenn has dedicated his life to serving the people of Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, PA, and the United States. There is no one more deserving of this great honor. Judge Rosenn was born in Luzerne County in 1910 and raised there. After graduating from Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, he returned to Luzerne County to practice law. In 1941, Judge Rosenn began his distinguished career in the service of his community and country by becoming an assistant district attorney for Luzerne County. In 1944, he entered on active duty with the U.S. Army, serving in the judge advocate general's corps in the South Pacific during World War II. After the war, he returned to Luzerne County, where he resumed the private practice of law and was active in civic and public matters. From 1964 to 1966, he served as a member of the State Welfare Board and in 1966 was appointed by Governor Scranton to be Pennsylvania's Secretary of Public Welfare, serving until 1967 after being retained in office by Governor Shafer. In 1969, he was appointed to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, a post he held when named a Federal judge. Recognizing Max Rosenn's dedication to his community and his State and his legal skill, President Nixon nominated him to serve as U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit in 1970. For over 25 years, Judge Rosenn has been one of this country's most distinguished appellate judges. If the hallmarks of justice are fairness and wisdom, then Judge Rosenn is a leader in achieving justice, as he is widely recognized for both qualities. Naming the U.S. courthouse in Wilkes-Barre after its most famous and respected lawyer and judge is the most fitting tribute I can imagine. I am pleased that the Senate is joining with the House and the members of the legal community in Pennsylvania in recognizing Judge Rosenn's achievements. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Representative Kanjorski, who represents Luzerne County, for introducing this bill in the House and seeing it through to passage there, and Senators Chafee and Baucus for their willingness to move the bill so quickly in the Senate. I also appreciate the services of the staff of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, especially Dan Delich and Kathryn Ruffalo, for their work on this matter.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to recognize one of Pennsylvania's distinguished citizens as he retires after 60 years of service to his community and his country. Dr. Leon Riebman has served his country as a naval officer, his community as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and our national defense needs as a founder and long-term chief executive officer of AEL Industries, a premier defense electronics organization. As a naval officer during World War II, Dr. Riebman served at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, where he conducted research in the then-new science of fire control radar systems. Following his Navy service, Dr. Riebman returned to the University of Pennsylvania for advanced studies, and to serve on the staff as a research associate and instructor. Since 1950, when he cofounded AEL Industries, he has been an active contributor to technological advances in the defense electronics industry. Under Dr. Riebman's leadership, AEL Industries has grown continually to the point where it now employs 1,300 people in Pennsylvania and five other States. Dr. Riebman's interest in research and development has resulted in 10 patents. In 1966, he was named a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and continues to be an active participant through service on several committees. I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize the many accomplishments of Dr. Leon Riebman and hope my colleagues will join me in tribute on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 743, the Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act of 1995 [CRTC] and today I join several of my colleagues in cosponsoring this bill. I commend Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her sponsorship of this legislation designed to encourage business investment in economically distressed areas. I also want to commend my Pennsylvania colleague, Representative Phil English who has introduced this same legislation in the House. I believe this measure will help to create jobs and expand economic activity, in addition to improving the physical appearance and property values in these areas. Earlier in this session, I introduced legislation to replace our current cumbersome Tax Code with a simple and efficient 20-percent flat tax. My legislation, the Flat Tax Act of 1995 (S. 488) will bring tremendous economic growth to all areas of our country, and especially our cities by freeing up capital and lowering interest rates. While I continue to support the principles and necessity of a flat tax, I believe that in the interim we must proceed with measures such as the Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act to bring economic growth to our cities immediately. This legislation provides a targeted, limited tax credit to businesses to help defray their costs of construction, expansion, and renovation in urban areas. The CRTC would be another tool to aid localities and States in boosting jobs and business investment in America's most troubled neighborhoods. If enacted, estimates indicate the CRTC could attract over $7 billion in private sector investment to these communities, create thousands of jobs, and generate new tax revenue. America's urban areas serve an important role as centers of commerce, industry, education, health care, and culture. Yet these urban centers, particularly in the inner cities, also have special needs. As a Philadelphia resident, I have first-hand knowledge of the growing problems that plague our cities. I have long supported a variety of programs to assist our cities such as increased funding for community development block grants, extension of the low income housing tax credit, and legislation to establish enterprise and empowerment zones. I have also promoted legislation to provide targeted tax incentives for investing in minority- or women-owned small businesses. This issue of urban renewal is not new to me. In the 104th Congress, I introduced the New Urban Agenda Act of 1995--S. 17--which would redress urban decay and decline without massive Federal outlays. S. 17 embodies many of the proposals of Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell. The bill is intended to stimulate the economies of our urban centers. Increased economic growth resulting in increased employment is the key to reversing current urban economic conditions. Specifically, my legislation would: First, require certain Federal and foreign aid purchases to be made from businesses operating with urban zones; second, favor distressed cities for the location or relocation of Federal facilities; third, expand the historic rehabilitation tax credit, expand the use of commercial industrial development bonds, and modify the arbitrage rebate rules concerning municipal bond interest; fourth, study streamlining Federal housing programs into block-grant form, and encourage community building by locating original tenants in new units on old sites; and fifth, ease environmental restrictions for governments, speed up the remediation process, and establish a pilot powerplant for the benefit of city residents and energy intensive industry. Mr. President, I believe the CRTC will complement my legislation because it would encourage new construction and rehabilitation of structures in distressed areas. The CRTC would provide businesses with the option of taking either a one time 20-percent tax credit against the cost of new construction or rehabilitation, or a tax credit of 5 percent a year for 10 years. The credit is intended to help encourage businesses locate to economically distressed areas. The original concept of enterprise zones provided for broad based incentives for capital formation. Current these zones primarily encourage wage-based tax, and other investment incentives to locate within the zone. There is no incentive for a business within the zone to expand so that larger numbers of employees can be hired. That is a gap which the CRTC fills. I believe the CRTC will be an efficient and productive program. The tax credit will only be available after private sector investment has been made and the competed project is generating income. This bill authorizes a maximum of $1.5 billion in tax credits over a 5-year period. The credits will be allocated to each State according to a formula which takes into account the number of localities where over half the people earn less than 60 percent of the area's median income. Local governments, not the Federal Government, will determine their priority projects and forward them to the States which will allocate the tax credits according to an evaluation system which the States themselves establish. Furthrmore, communities which have already been designated as economic revitalization areas by the Federal, State, and local governments would now become eligible for the CRTC Program. This is particularly good news for Philadelphia, PA, and Camden, NJ, which were jointly chosen as 1 of 6 urban empowerment zones by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The cities of Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, and Allegheny County in my home State were also designated as enterprise communities and will benefit from S. 743. Last June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted the attached resolution sponsored by Edward Rendell, the mayor of Philadelphia, which endorsed the commercial revitalization tax credit. Other organizations which have endorsed this bill include the National Association of Counties, the American Institute of Architects, the National Association of Industrial Office Properties, the American Planning Association, the American Enterprise Zone Association, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, the International Downtown Association, the National Congress of Community Economic Development, and the American Society of Landscape Architects. We must address any very serious issues--jobs, teenage pregnancy, welfare reform--if we are to save our cities. It may well be that many in America have given up on our cities. That is a stark statement, but it is one which I believe may be true, but, I have not given up. And I believe there are others in this body on both sides of the aisle who have not done so. There must be new strategies for dealing with the problems of urban America. The Commercial Tax Revitalization Tax Credit Act is one such strategy that strives toward the ultimate goal of restoring the former vitality of our cities which can only help make our country stronger and more competitive. The days of expansive Federal aid are clearly past, but that is no excuse for the National Government to turn a blind eye to the problems of the cities. The resolution follows: Resolution No. 62--Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Whereas, many American urban centers and rural areas are plagued by chronic economic distress, including aging infrastructure and business disinvestment; and Whereas, to be successful in breaking the cycle of economic erosion, unemployment and abandonment of older neighborhoods, new measures must be taken to regenerate private investment; and Whereas, new approaches must be fostered to address the problems of our cities; and Whereas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) has introduced the Commercial Revitalization Tax Credit Act (CRTCA) of 1995 to encourage business investment and reinvestment in specially designated revitalization areas; and Whereas, the CRTCA would offer a 20 percent tax credit in one year, or a 5 percent credit each year for 10 years, to defray the cost of business construction, expansion or rehabilitation in specially designated areas; and Whereas, tax policies designed to target private entrepreneurial activities in declining urban and rural areas enjoy bipartisan support, Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That The United States Conference of Mayors strongly urges Congress to support this session the CRTCA; and be it further Resolved, That The United States Conference of Mayors urges Congress to approve this credit this session at the full benefit level for which it is proposed.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kohl as a cosponsor of this bill to make theft of proprietary information a crime. Senator Kohl is also a cosponsor of a bill I have introduced to cover economic espionage by foreign governments or those acting on their behalf and this bill is designed to protect that same vital economic information from theft by nongovernmental entities and individuals. While economic espionage by foreign governments presents a clear issue of national concern, the economic cost of industrial espionage by domestic and nongovernment-owned foreign corporations may be even greater. Federal law already provides some sanctions to protect technology and innovation within the United States. For example, we accord protection to patents, trademarks, and copyrights. The Federal Government will not enter into a contract with a bidder who has inside information of another bidder's price. There are also laws in some States that specifically address the theft of proprietary information. These laws may not, however, be adequate. Thus, I am also joining Senator Kohl in cosponsoring legislation to provide criminal penalties in title 18 of the United States Code for cases in which corporations and individuals, foreign or domestic, steal proprietary information from U.S. entities. While the bill I have introduced amending the National Security Act of 1947 focuses on our Nation's economic security against foreign governments, similar arguments can be made that protection is also needed for domestic economic interests from theft by nongovernmental sources. Moreover, even where there are strong indications that a foreign government is behind the theft of proprietary information, it may not be possible in all cases to prove such government involvement. The normal recourse for protecting proprietary information from theft by private sector sources is through civil remedies governed by State law. Some businesses and Federal law enforcement agencies, however, believe that current State laws are inadequate and fail to provide remedies, particularly with respect to the kind of intangible proprietary information that is typical in today's computer age. They argue that comprehensive federal criminal sanctions are needed at this time to provide an adequate deterrent. While I believe there are legitimate questions about the need for federal criminal penalties in this context, I am also convinced the issue needs to be considered. It may be that after thorough review, criminal penalties are the best means of deterring the misappropriation of proprietary information by individuals or business competitors. On the other hand, we may determine that a more efficient response would be to create a federal civil cause of action or to leave it to State law to develop sanctions against such theft if not committed by, or done on behalf of, a foreign government. As part of this effort to address the economic threat from the theft of proprietary information from U.S. businesses, I therefore believe we need to consider how to address such thefts when carried out by the private sector. As a result, I am cosponsoring this second bill, with the expectation that it will generate discussion and debate and assist us in developing the best approach to this problem. I look forward to working with all interested parties to reach such a result.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution to designate March 25, 1996, as ``Greek Independence Day: A Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' One hundred and seventy-five years ago, the Greeks began the revolution that would free them from the Ottoman Empire and return Greece to its democratic heritage. It was, of course, the ancient Greeks who developed the concept of democracy in which the supreme power to govern was vested in the people. Our Founding Fathers drew heavily upon the political and philosophical experience of ancient Greece in forming our representative democracy. Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that, ``to the ancient Greeks * * * we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' It is fitting, then, that we should recognize the anniversary of the beginning of their efforts to return to that democratic tradition. The democratic form of government is only one of the most obvious of the many benefits we have gained from the Greek people. The ancient Greeks contributed a great deal to the modern world, particularly to the United States of America, in all areas of art, philosophy, science, and law. Today, Greek-Americans continue to enrich our culture and make valuable contributions to American society, business, and government. It is my hope that strong support for this resolution in the Senate will serve as a clear goodwill gesture to the people of Greece with whom we have enjoyed such a close bond throughout history. Similar resolutions have been signed into law each of the past several years, with overwhelming support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Accordingly, I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kohl as a cosponsor of this bill to make theft of proprietary information a crime. Senator Kohl is also a cosponsor of a bill I have introduced to cover economic espionage by foreign governments or those acting on their behalf and this bill is designed to protect that same vital economic information from theft by nongovernmental entities and individuals. While economic espionage by foreign governments presents a clear issue of national concern, the economic cost of industrial espionage by domestic and nongovernment-owned foreign corporations may be even greater. Federal law already provides some sanctions to protect technology and innovation within the United States. For example, we accord protection to patents, trademarks, and copyrights. The Federal Government will not enter into a contract with a bidder who has inside information of another bidder's price. There are also laws in some States that specifically address the theft of proprietary information. These laws may not, however, be adequate. Thus, I am also joining Senator Kohl in cosponsoring legislation to provide criminal penalties in title 18 of the United States Code for cases in which corporations and individuals, foreign or domestic, steal proprietary information from U.S. entities. While the bill I have introduced amending the National Security Act of 1947 focuses on our Nation's economic security against foreign governments, similar arguments can be made that protection is also needed for domestic economic interests from theft by nongovernmental sources. Moreover, even where there are strong indications that a foreign government is behind the theft of proprietary information, it may not be possible in all cases to prove such government involvement. The normal recourse for protecting proprietary information from theft by private sector sources is through civil remedies governed by State law. Some businesses and Federal law enforcement agencies, however, believe that current State laws are inadequate and fail to provide remedies, particularly with respect to the kind of intangible proprietary information that is typical in today's computer age. They argue that comprehensive federal criminal sanctions are needed at this time to provide an adequate deterrent. While I believe there are legitimate questions about the need for federal criminal penalties in this context, I am also convinced the issue needs to be considered. It may be that after thorough review, criminal penalties are the best means of deterring the misappropriation of proprietary information by individuals or business competitors. On the other hand, we may determine that a more efficient response would be to create a federal civil cause of action or to leave it to State law to develop sanctions against such theft if not committed by, or done on behalf of, a foreign government. As part of this effort to address the economic threat from the theft of proprietary information from U.S. businesses, I therefore believe we need to consider how to address such thefts when carried out by the private sector. As a result, I am cosponsoring this second bill, with the expectation that it will generate discussion and debate and assist us in developing the best approach to this problem. I look forward to working with all interested parties to reach such a result.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today, along with my colleague, Senator Kohl, entitled the ``Economic Security Act of 1996,'' which amends the National Security Act of 1947 to protect against the theft of vital proprietary economic information by or for foreign governments. The bill would punish those who steal vital proprietary economic information from a U.S. owner for the benefit of a foreign government or a corporation, institution, instrumentality, or agent that is owned or guided by a foreign government. It provides penalties of up to $500,000 in fines or 25 years in prison, except that corporations working on behalf of a foreign government can be fined up to $10,000,000. The law would ensure that fruits of the espionage would be forfeited, and that victims would receive some restitution from funds recovered. This bill also provides for a ban for up to 5 years on the importation into, or export from, the United States of any product produced, made, assembled, or manufactured by a person convicted under this provision. To address concerns by industry that criminal proceedings might result in the disclosure of the very trade secret the prosecution is aimed at protecting, the bill also gives courts authority to enter protective orders and take any other such measures as may be necessary, consistent with the applicable rules and laws. It also provides for an interlocutory appeal by the United States from a decision or order of a district court authorizing the disclosure of vital proprietary economic information. The bill provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction where the offender is a U.S. person or the victim of the offense is a U.S. owner and the offense was intended to have, or had, a direct or substantial effect in the United States. In addition, the bill adds this newly created crime to the list of offenses in title 18, chapter 119, of the United States Code--Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications--so that it may be investigated with authorized wire, oral, or electronic intercepts. We have drafted this new provision as an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947 to emphasize the importance of this issue to the national security of our Nation. Anyone who doubts that this is a national security issue need only stop to consider why foreign governments would devote so much effort to obtaining this information from U.S. companies. The reality is that U.S. economic and technological information may be far more valuable to a foreign government than most of the information that is classified in the United States today. The March 1990 and February 1995 national security strategies published by the White House focus on economic security as an integral part not only of U.S. national interest but also of national security. Economic espionage by foreign governments targeting U.S. industry and innovation is an issue the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been examining for some time. The Committee has held a number of hearings which addressed this issue and has met extensively with the intelligence and law enforcement communities. In 1992, then-Director of Central Intelligence Robert M. Gates told the Committee: We know that some foreign intelligence services have turned from politics to economics and that the United States is their prime target. We have cases of moles being planted in U.S. high-tech companies. We have cases of U.S. businessmen abroad being subjected to bugging, to room searches, and the like * * * [W]e are giving a very high priority to fighting it. This reflects a shift from the traditional counterintelligence efforts directed at military, ideological, or subversive threats to national security. Beginning as early as 1990, the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Communities have been directed to detect and deter foreign intelligence targeting of U.S. economic and technological interests, including efforts to obtain U.S. proprietary information from companies and research institutions that form our strategic industrial base. These counterintelligence efforts, however, must be complemented by, and carefully coordinated with, a coherent and rigorous law enforcement effort. It is to strengthen this aspect of the fight against economic espionage that I introduce this bill today. Some foreign governments have been quite open about the importance they attach to obtaining U.S. commercial secrets. Former French Intelligence Director Pierre Marion, for example, was quoted in a recent Foreign Affairs article as saying about the French-United States relationship: ``In economics, we are competitors, not allies. America has the most technical information of relevance. It is easily accessible. So naturally your country will receive the most attention from the intelligence services.'' It is important to emphasize that no one country can be singled out for engaging in economic espionage. While there are a handful of well- publicized incidents involving a few countries, the problem is actually much more widespread. FBI tells us that 23 countries are being actively investigated and that there has been a 100 percent increase in the number of investigative matters relating to economic espionage in the United States during the past year--from 400 to 800. Thus, this bill is not aimed at any one country, or even a handful of countries. It is designed to address a widespread threat from a broad spectrum of countries, including traditional counterintelligence adversaries and traditional allies. Last year, the Congress included in the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 a requirement that the President submit an annual report on the activities of foreign governments to obtain commercial secrets from U.S. companies and how the U.S. Government counters this threat. The Intelligence Committee received the first report in July 1995, accompanied by a classified annex. According to the report, prepared by the National Counterintelligence Center in coordination with relevant agencies, ``economic and technological information is often not specifically protected by Federal laws, making it difficult to prosecute thefts of propriety technology or intellectual property. Law enforcement efforts instead must rely on less specific criminal laws--such as espionage, fraud and stolen property, and export statutes--to build prosecutable cases.'' At our request, the FBI has provided some examples of the difficulties caused by this patchwork of laws. According to the Bureau, there have been three specific declinations of prosecution over the past year. In the first, passage to a foreign power of proprietary economic information was declined for lack of a specific statute. In the second case, the unauthorized disclosure of a confidential U.S. Trade Representative document was not prosecuted because the document was not considered to contain ``national defense information'' as required by the espionage statute. In a third case, a foreign government-owned corporation attempted to use its position of power after a merger to gain access to proprietary economic information despite a specific prohibition in the sales agreement which would have provided for a ``Chinese wall'' between the foreign government corporation and the information. Again, the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute because of the lack of a specific statutory basis. These examples do not include cases that were not fully investigated because of the lack of adequate statutory basis. A legal review by the Administration has shown that there is currently no specific criminal statute that would apply to many of the 800 cases involving 22 foreign countries currently being investigated. The National Counterintelligence Center Report states that ``the aggregate losses that can mount as a result of [Foreign economic espionage] efforts can reach billions of dollars per year constituting a serious national security concern.'' Determining the full qualitative and quantitative scope and impact of economic espionage is difficult. Industry victims have reported the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, lost jobs, and lost market share. However, U.S. industry may in fact be under-reporting these occurrences because of the negative impact publicity of a loss could have on stock values and customers' confidence, as well as the risk of broader exposure of the trade secret itself. The industries that have been the targets in most cases of economic espionage, according to this report, include those ``of strategic interest to the Untied States because they produce classified products for the Government, produce dual use technology used in both the public and private sectors, and are responsible for leading-edge technologies, critical to maintaining U.S. economic security.'' Mr. President, these are complex issues and I do not assume that this bill represents the prefect solution. However, I believe this bill represents a reasonable and carefully tailored approach to addressing an issue of tremendous importance.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today, along with my colleague, Senator Kohl, entitled the ``Economic Security Act of 1996,'' which amends the National Security Act of 1947 to protect against the theft of vital proprietary economic information by or for foreign governments. The bill would punish those who steal vital proprietary economic information from a U.S. owner for the benefit of a foreign government or a corporation, institution, instrumentality, or agent that is owned or guided by a foreign government. It provides penalties of up to $500,000 in fines or 25 years in prison, except that corporations working on behalf of a foreign government can be fined up to $10,000,000. The law would ensure that fruits of the espionage would be forfeited, and that victims would receive some restitution from funds recovered. This bill also provides for a ban for up to 5 years on the importation into, or export from, the United States of any product produced, made, assembled, or manufactured by a person convicted under this provision. To address concerns by industry that criminal proceedings might result in the disclosure of the very trade secret the prosecution is aimed at protecting, the bill also gives courts authority to enter protective orders and take any other such measures as may be necessary, consistent with the applicable rules and laws. It also provides for an interlocutory appeal by the United States from a decision or order of a district court authorizing the disclosure of vital proprietary economic information. The bill provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction where the offender is a U.S. person or the victim of the offense is a U.S. owner and the offense was intended to have, or had, a direct or substantial effect in the United States. In addition, the bill adds this newly created crime to the list of offenses in title 18, chapter 119, of the United States Code--Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications--so that it may be investigated with authorized wire, oral, or electronic intercepts. We have drafted this new provision as an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947 to emphasize the importance of this issue to the national security of our Nation. Anyone who doubts that this is a national security issue need only stop to consider why foreign governments would devote so much effort to obtaining this information from U.S. companies. The reality is that U.S. economic and technological information may be far more valuable to a foreign government than most of the information that is classified in the United States today. The March 1990 and February 1995 national security strategies published by the White House focus on economic security as an integral part not only of U.S. national interest but also of national security. Economic espionage by foreign governments targeting U.S. industry and innovation is an issue the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been examining for some time. The Committee has held a number of hearings which addressed this issue and has met extensively with the intelligence and law enforcement communities. In 1992, then-Director of Central Intelligence Robert M. Gates told the Committee: We know that some foreign intelligence services have turned from politics to economics and that the United States is their prime target. We have cases of moles being planted in U.S. high-tech companies. We have cases of U.S. businessmen abroad being subjected to bugging, to room searches, and the like * * * [W]e are giving a very high priority to fighting it. This reflects a shift from the traditional counterintelligence efforts directed at military, ideological, or subversive threats to national security. Beginning as early as 1990, the Intelligence and Counterintelligence Communities have been directed to detect and deter foreign intelligence targeting of U.S. economic and technological interests, including efforts to obtain U.S. proprietary information from companies and research institutions that form our strategic industrial base. These counterintelligence efforts, however, must be complemented by, and carefully coordinated with, a coherent and rigorous law enforcement effort. It is to strengthen this aspect of the fight against economic espionage that I introduce this bill today. Some foreign governments have been quite open about the importance they attach to obtaining U.S. commercial secrets. Former French Intelligence Director Pierre Marion, for example, was quoted in a recent Foreign Affairs article as saying about the French-United States relationship: ``In economics, we are competitors, not allies. America has the most technical information of relevance. It is easily accessible. So naturally your country will receive the most attention from the intelligence services.'' It is important to emphasize that no one country can be singled out for engaging in economic espionage. While there are a handful of well- publicized incidents involving a few countries, the problem is actually much more widespread. FBI tells us that 23 countries are being actively investigated and that there has been a 100 percent increase in the number of investigative matters relating to economic espionage in the United States during the past year--from 400 to 800. Thus, this bill is not aimed at any one country, or even a handful of countries. It is designed to address a widespread threat from a broad spectrum of countries, including traditional counterintelligence adversaries and traditional allies. Last year, the Congress included in the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 a requirement that the President submit an annual report on the activities of foreign governments to obtain commercial secrets from U.S. companies and how the U.S. Government counters this threat. The Intelligence Committee received the first report in July 1995, accompanied by a classified annex. According to the report, prepared by the National Counterintelligence Center in coordination with relevant agencies, ``economic and technological information is often not specifically protected by Federal laws, making it difficult to prosecute thefts of propriety technology or intellectual property. Law enforcement efforts instead must rely on less specific criminal laws--such as espionage, fraud and stolen property, and export statutes--to build prosecutable cases.'' At our request, the FBI has provided some examples of the difficulties caused by this patchwork of laws. According to the Bureau, there have been three specific declinations of prosecution over the past year. In the first, passage to a foreign power of proprietary economic information was declined for lack of a specific statute. In the second case, the unauthorized disclosure of a confidential U.S. Trade Representative document was not prosecuted because the document was not considered to contain ``national defense information'' as required by the espionage statute. In a third case, a foreign government-owned corporation attempted to use its position of power after a merger to gain access to proprietary economic information despite a specific prohibition in the sales agreement which would have provided for a ``Chinese wall'' between the foreign government corporation and the information. Again, the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute because of the lack of a specific statutory basis. These examples do not include cases that were not fully investigated because of the lack of adequate statutory basis. A legal review by the Administration has shown that there is currently no specific criminal statute that would apply to many of the 800 cases involving 22 foreign countries currently being investigated. The National Counterintelligence Center Report states that ``the aggregate losses that can mount as a result of [Foreign economic espionage] efforts can reach billions of dollars per year constituting a serious national security concern.'' Determining the full qualitative and quantitative scope and impact of economic espionage is difficult. Industry victims have reported the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, lost jobs, and lost market share. However, U.S. industry may in fact be under-reporting these occurrences because of the negative impact publicity of a loss could have on stock values and customers' confidence, as well as the risk of broader exposure of the trade secret itself. The industries that have been the targets in most cases of economic espionage, according to this report, include those ``of strategic interest to the Untied States because they produce classified products for the Government, produce dual use technology used in both the public and private sectors, and are responsible for leading-edge technologies, critical to maintaining U.S. economic security.'' Mr. President, these are complex issues and I do not assume that this bill represents the prefect solution. However, I believe this bill represents a reasonable and carefully tailored approach to addressing an issue of tremendous importance.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reluctant as I am to disagree with my distinguished colleague from Vermont, the Senate is locked into the allocation. We are locked into the allocation which has been given to the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over these three Departments. If the amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts passes, there is only so much air in the balloon. If you take it out of one section, we are going to lose by 10\1/2\ percent over everything else unless the allocation is increased.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do not believe I have yielded back my time yet. I intend to do so, but first I wish to say that the current level of budget authority and outlays exceed the aggregate levels set forth in the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. The pending amendment provides additional new budget authority and will result in additional outlays in that year and its adoption will cause the aggregate levels of budget authority and outlays to be further exceeded. I, therefore, raise a point of other under section 311 of the Budget Act against this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today for purposes, with the cosponsorship of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, to introduce a constitutional amendment which is broader than any yet pending, which would authorize the Congress and the State legislatures to set spending limits on what any individual can spend of his or her own money in the context of a candidacy. I had wanted to introduce this amendment on January 30, which is next Tuesday, because January 30 is the 20th anniversary of the decision of the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo, which said that an individual can promote his or her candidacy to the maximum extent he or she chooses with their own personal funds as a matter of first amendment protection of freedom of speech. It has always been a little hard for me to understand how anything from the freedom of speech is implicated in a matter of campaign financing. For the past 6 years, Senator Hollings and I and others have tried to advance this constitutional amendment, which is difficult because it picks on the first amendment. But in seeking to amend the first amendment, we do not seek to change the language of the first amendment, which I think is sacrosanct. What we seek to do is to overrule, in effect, a split decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the first amendment. Money is the scourge of politics, and to buy high public office is, obviously, against public policy. There are many who have, in effect, bought public office, including some seats of the U.S. Senate. But it is only recently that this matter has come into sharp focus when a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, who is reputed to have assets in excess of $400 million, set out to, in effect, buy the White House. According to this morning's New York Times, some $15 million has already been expended on that effort. I think it is especially problemsome when a substantial part of that money is dedicated to negative advertising which, in effect, seeks to impugn the reputation of an opponent who spent more than 40 years in public life. I believe what is going on in the Presidential primaries, the Republican primaries, today has caused a great deal of focus of attention, and it is high time that we took some action to stop someone from buying public office, especially the Presidency of the United States, especially the White House. I will add, Mr. President, that I personally feel especially strong about this particular matter, because I filed for the U.S. Senate during the first election cycle following the enactment of the 1974 legislation which limited the amount of moneys which could be spent on Federal elections. That 1974 statute said that for a State the size of Pennsylvania, with 12 million people, the most anyone could spend of his or her own money was $35,000. That year, I contested for that office with then- Congressman John Heinz, who later I served with in the Senate as a colleague and who became one of my very, very best friends, a Senator we sorely miss in this body. But with the playing field somewhat leveled with the $35,000 maximum individual expenditure, I thought that race was one to be undertaken. Then, right in the middle of the campaign, on January 30--we had an August 22 primary in 1976; I declared my candidacy in November of 1975--right in the middle of the campaign, the Supreme Court of the United States said any candidate can spend as much of his or her money that he or she wanted. Somewhat anomalous, my brother, who could have bankrolled my campaign--I do not know he would have, but he could have--was limited to $1,000 under the act, and that remained in place by the Supreme Court decision. It is a little hard to see the first amendment freedom of speech rights of Specter being different than the freedom of speech rights of a candidate. We have lived with Buckley versus Valeo for 20 years, and it is bad legal construction. There is nothing in the first amendment, there is nothing in the logic of the law which suggests the first amendment gives an individual the right to spend as much of his or her own money as he or she chooses. It certainly is bad public policy to have someone seek to buy an office, especially the Presidency of the United States. So I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hollings and myself. As we have talked in the quarters and in the cloakrooms and on the floor of the Senate in these past several days, I believe that there is a growing sentiment in the Congress to do something about Buckley versus Valeo, to see to it that we do not have high public office up for sale in this great country.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before proceeding to the purpose for which I have sought recognition, I would like to express my support for the proposition outlined by the distinguished Senator from Ohio. I believe that Baltimore ought to have a football team, and that is the Colts. I think that Indianapolis is entitled to an expansion team. I believe that Senator DeWine has articulated the issue cogently and forcefully on a travesty which is being perpetrated on many American cities and on many American taxpayers. There is really a situation where sports teams are entrusted with a public interest. The movement of the Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles was the start of pirating in America of sports franchises and should never have been allowed, accompanied by the movement of the Giants from New York to San Francisco. We have seen that matter proliferate. It is hard to understand why the taxpayers of Maryland and Baltimore have to be in a bidding contest, which, as I understand it, approximates some $200 billion to bring a football team to Baltimore. Certainly Baltimore ought to have a football team, and it ought to be the Colts, which moved out of Baltimore in the middle of the night to go to Indianapolis. American has a love affair with sports. I just came from a brief sporting event in the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, where she and Senator Santorum and I articulated a bet on the Super Bowl game. If you cannot see this on C-SPAN 2, this is an unusual tie for me to wear. It is a Steelers tie. I am going to be going to the Super Bowl, weather permitting and Senate schedule permitting. Who knows, we may be in session Sunday the way things are going. But I have participated in America's love affair with sports since I was a youngster in Wichita, KS, reading the box scores from the Wichita Eagle every morning because of my love and passion for baseball. I have been attending the Phillies games and the Eagles games, and when I can, in Pittsburgh, the Pirates games and the Steeler games because of my love of the sport. It is tremendously exciting. Just basically, it is unfair for the Browns--I was about to say the Indians--for the Browns to be taken out of Cleveland. I hope we can do something about it. I hope that with the complications of free agency and franchise removal, salary caps and revenue sharing, that we will be able to address this matter in a sane way in the Congress. Baseball enjoys an antitrust exemption. Football enjoys a limited antitrust exemption from revenue sharing for television. I believe those sports are under an obligation to work out the rules so that the teams do not get themselves pirated from one city to another. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today for purposes, with the cosponsorship of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, to introduce a constitutional amendment which is broader than any yet pending, which would authorize the Congress and the State legislatures to set spending limits on what any individual can spend of his or her own money in the context of a candidacy. I had wanted to introduce this amendment on January 30, which is next Tuesday, because January 30 is the 20th anniversary of the decision of the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo, which said that an individual can promote his or her candidacy to the maximum extent he or she chooses with their own personal funds as a matter of first amendment protection of freedom of speech. It has always been a little hard for me to understand how anything from the freedom of speech is implicated in a matter of campaign financing. For the past 6 years, Senator Hollings and I and others have tried to advance this constitutional amendment, which is difficult because it picks on the first amendment. But in seeking to amend the first amendment, we do not seek to change the language of the first amendment, which I think is sacrosanct. What we seek to do is to overrule, in effect, a split decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the first amendment. Money is the scourge of politics, and to buy high public office is, obviously, against public policy. There are many who have, in effect, bought public office, including some seats of the U.S. Senate. But it is only recently that this matter has come into sharp focus when a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, who is reputed to have assets in excess of $400 million, set out to, in effect, buy the White House. According to this morning's New York Times, some $15 million has already been expended on that effort. I think it is especially problemsome when a substantial part of that money is dedicated to negative advertising which, in effect, seeks to impugn the reputation of an opponent who spent more than 40 years in public life. I believe what is going on in the Presidential primaries, the Republican primaries, today has caused a great deal of focus of attention, and it is high time that we took some action to stop someone from buying public office, especially the Presidency of the United States, especially the White House. I will add, Mr. President, that I personally feel especially strong about this particular matter, because I filed for the U.S. Senate during the first election cycle following the enactment of the 1974 legislation which limited the amount of moneys which could be spent on Federal elections. That 1974 statute said that for a State the size of Pennsylvania, with 12 million people, the most anyone could spend of his or her own money was $35,000. That year, I contested for that office with then- Congressman John Heinz, who later I served with in the Senate as a colleague and who became one of my very, very best friends, a Senator we sorely miss in this body. But with the playing field somewhat leveled with the $35,000 maximum individual expenditure, I thought that race was one to be undertaken. Then, right in the middle of the campaign, on January 30--we had an August 22 primary in 1976; I declared my candidacy in November of 1975--right in the middle of the campaign, the Supreme Court of the United States said any candidate can spend as much of his or her money that he or she wanted. Somewhat anomalous, my brother, who could have bankrolled my campaign--I do not know he would have, but he could have--was limited to $1,000 under the act, and that remained in place by the Supreme Court decision. It is a little hard to see the first amendment freedom of speech rights of Specter being different than the freedom of speech rights of a candidate. We have lived with Buckley versus Valeo for 20 years, and it is bad legal construction. There is nothing in the first amendment, there is nothing in the logic of the law which suggests the first amendment gives an individual the right to spend as much of his or her own money as he or she chooses. It certainly is bad public policy to have someone seek to buy an office, especially the Presidency of the United States. So I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hollings and myself. As we have talked in the quarters and in the cloakrooms and on the floor of the Senate in these past several days, I believe that there is a growing sentiment in the Congress to do something about Buckley versus Valeo, to see to it that we do not have high public office up for sale in this great country.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before proceeding to the purpose for which I have sought recognition, I would like to express my support for the proposition outlined by the distinguished Senator from Ohio. I believe that Baltimore ought to have a football team, and that is the Colts. I think that Indianapolis is entitled to an expansion team. I believe that Senator DeWine has articulated the issue cogently and forcefully on a travesty which is being perpetrated on many American cities and on many American taxpayers. There is really a situation where sports teams are entrusted with a public interest. The movement of the Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles was the start of pirating in America of sports franchises and should never have been allowed, accompanied by the movement of the Giants from New York to San Francisco. We have seen that matter proliferate. It is hard to understand why the taxpayers of Maryland and Baltimore have to be in a bidding contest, which, as I understand it, approximates some $200 billion to bring a football team to Baltimore. Certainly Baltimore ought to have a football team, and it ought to be the Colts, which moved out of Baltimore in the middle of the night to go to Indianapolis. American has a love affair with sports. I just came from a brief sporting event in the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, where she and Senator Santorum and I articulated a bet on the Super Bowl game. If you cannot see this on C-SPAN 2, this is an unusual tie for me to wear. It is a Steelers tie. I am going to be going to the Super Bowl, weather permitting and Senate schedule permitting. Who knows, we may be in session Sunday the way things are going. But I have participated in America's love affair with sports since I was a youngster in Wichita, KS, reading the box scores from the Wichita Eagle every morning because of my love and passion for baseball. I have been attending the Phillies games and the Eagles games, and when I can, in Pittsburgh, the Pirates games and the Steeler games because of my love of the sport. It is tremendously exciting. Just basically, it is unfair for the Browns--I was about to say the Indians--for the Browns to be taken out of Cleveland. I hope we can do something about it. I hope that with the complications of free agency and franchise removal, salary caps and revenue sharing, that we will be able to address this matter in a sane way in the Congress. Baseball enjoys an antitrust exemption. Football enjoys a limited antitrust exemption from revenue sharing for television. I believe those sports are under an obligation to work out the rules so that the teams do not get themselves pirated from one city to another. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.