Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the opinion of the U.S. Department of Justice that the pending legislation is unconstitutional be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on a matter of this enormous import, where we are talking about the meaning of life, as articulated by the Senator from Indiana earlier, we ought to have a hearing in a limited period of time. We ought not to rely upon hearsay statements that are brought to the floor of the Senate, where we do not have an opportunity to question and elicit more detailed information. We ought not allow ``Nightline,'' as urged by some on the floor of this body, to substitute for deliberations by the U.S. Senate. This is a matter which could have been brought to the floor at any earlier time, and certainly for the world's greatest deliberative body, it is not asking too much to have a very brief period of time--some 19 days-- for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, report this matter back, and then the Senate could express its will in accordance with Senate procedures.

Mr. SPECTER. Has all time expired on the amendment, Mr. President?

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I am not getting involved now, as to whether I take it personally or not. But it has not just been this lawyer. It is the whole profession. It is the whole profession that somehow comes into disrepute, not just when we are talking about tort reform or product liability or medical malpractice--we are talking about the Constitution. How about those nine lawyers across the street, the Supreme Court of the United States? How about Justice Thomas? Did Justice Thomas ever need a lawyer? How about all those pro-life Justices whom this Senator has supported because, as a matter of principle, they are lawyers and they have some useful function to perform? [[Page S 16780]] So, when the comment is made that this Senator is engaged in legalese--and now, Mr. President, I will go to my time because I want to respond to the Senator from New Hampshire--I am just a little concerned, candidly, about some of the personal invective. When the Senator from New Hampshire says that the Senator from Pennsylvania does not even want to look to see this, he is wrong. As soon as he puts his chart up, I go down and take a look at it. When the Senator from New Hampshire says, I don't care what Senator Specter says about--legal jargon, I would say to the Senator from New Hampshire two things. First of all, he ought to be concerned about the Constitution. If he wants to call that legal jargon and minimize it, that is up to him. But these are not unimportant matters. And when the Senator from New Hampshire says that there are people who do not want to see this matter come to the vote, that he is ``sick and tired of the ducking,'' this Senator does not duck. I have proved that again and again and again. When the Senator from New Hampshire says people do not want to come out here and vote their conscience, I object to that. I do vote my conscience. And I do not call the Senator from New Hampshire an extremist. I do not get involved in those pejorative, name-calling matters. But I do expect that there be an accurate representation, that I am not talking legalese when I start off and I say the first two considerations that I have are the humanitarian matters and the matters of the medical procedure. That is before I get to the Constitution, before I get to statutory interpretation. Not that those matters are insubstantial. I have heard the Senator from New Hampshire say ``grisly'' three times and ``cruel'' four times and ``brutal'' and ``horrible'' and ``grotesque'' and ``sickening.'' This Senator is very concerned about that. This Senator also witnessed the birth of his two sons, and this Senator held the placenta of his older son right after his son was born. And this Senator has a grandchild. And, like the Senator from Oklahoma, this Senator has another grandchild expected in December. And I am very much concerned about the pain and suffering. When the Senator from New Hampshire says that there is no anesthetic, no pain killer, he may be right. And if he is right, there ought to be something done about it. That ought to be done in terms of what this body takes into consideration in the law. If the Senator from New Hampshire is right that this is an unacceptable procedure, then let us not just limit it to the vaginal canal. Let us cover C sections or let us cover conditions before it gets to the vaginal canal, if the Senator from New Hampshire is right. If he says this Senator changed the 45 days, that is not true. Others had talked about the 45 days. My staff had talked about the 45 days. They do not make decisions for me. When I took a look at it, I said we ought to do it as fast as possible. And I will be willing to do it in 9 days. Let the Senate report it back by a week from Friday. But the fact is, we are going to be in recess for 10 days beyond that time. So the 10 days do not really hurt anyone. It may be necessary in the hearings to call some other witnesses. We may not be able to get it all done in the snap of a finger. It is a matter which may require some time. So what I want to do is find out what this case is all about, what this statute is all about, and what this medical procedure is all about. I do not want to have it decided on a poster with three sentences from two doctors. I want to hear what they have to say. I may have a question or two that I want to ask. When the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Oklahoma say when the time passes other children are going to be involved--they could have brought this matter to the floor last week, last month, last year if they want to legislate on the subject, if they are concerned about every day. And this Senator is concerned about every day. That is why I talked about 9 days plus the recess time. So that is what I want to accomplish. I now yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Maine.

Mr. SPECTER. No. And, pardon me--and pardon me if we need a lawyer or judges to help interpret the Constitution of the United States, which protects the rights of all of us. Now that I finished my sentence, I will be glad to yield if it is on the time of the opponents of the motion.

Mr. SPECTER. Is it on Senator Smith's time? I will yield on Senator Smith's time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I believe that campaign finance reform is long overdue. I have just had a conversation with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut--if I could have the attention of the Senator from Connecticut--and one of the real problems in the electoral process involves the soft money, where, on both sides of the political spectrum, Republicans and Democrats have sought enormous sums of money with the $100,000 contribution being made which is totally outside the system. I have just talked to Senator Dodd about that. And I am glad to know his acquiescence on the issue of eliminating the soft money, because you can have all the limitations you like in many other respects, but if that soft money is available, it is all for naught. So I thank my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may pursue that discussion for one more moment with the Senator from Connecticut. I get concerned when you say caveat. What kind does the Senator have in mind?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to lend my support to a request made by the prosecutor on the International War Crimes tribunal on the Bosnian situation, where the International tribunal on War Crimes in Bosnia has formally asked the United States to make the surrender of the indicted suspects a condition for any peace accord. As we know, right now in Dayton there are negotiations underway to try to resolve the Bosnian conflict. But indictments have already been issued for Gen. Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb military commander, and Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, on indictments which specify their leadership role in the ethnic cleansing and reported massacres and organized rapes that marked the first months of the Bosnian war. The tribunal prosecutor, the distinguished lawyer Richard J. Goldstone, has been pursuing these matters with real diligence, and it poses a real test for the international community. Part of the test arises because the President of Serbia, President Slobodan Milosevic, is involved in these negotiations. He was identified some time ago by the then-Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, as having been involved possibly in international war crimes in connection with the Bosnian Serbs' ethnic cleansing in the early months of that campaign. I am pleased to note that ranking Clinton administration officials have committed that there will be no amnesty granted, but I think it is very important as a matter of international law that these prosecutions go forward and the United States cooperate with these prosecutions. For more than a decade, Mr. President, I have urged the formation of an international criminal court to deal with crimes such as hostage taking, terrorism, and drug dealing where we find that there are people in custody who they will not extradite to the United States; for example, in Colombia where there are drug leaders and drug criminals who ought to be brought to trial, but because of domestic politics in Colombia, they are not willing to extradite them to the United States. If there were an international criminal court, then I do believe there would be a tribunal set up where the political disadvantage of extraditing, say, to the United States would not be present. And I note today, Mr. President, that there are ceremonies marking the tragedy of Pan Am 103, where indictments have been issued for two Libyans implicated in the tragedy of Pan Am 103, and the intransigence of the Libyan [[Page S 16653]] Government and their leader, Mu'ammar Qadhafi, who is refusing to allow those suspects to be tried in the United States or in Scottish or in British courts. Were we to have an international criminal court, there is at least a chance that those individuals would be extradited to be tried in an international criminal court. Perhaps if such a court were in existence, Qadhafi would find another reason for declining to allow that trial to take place, but at least it would provide a possible alternative for such a trial. The rule of law is indispensable, Mr. President, in a civilized society. We have benefited enormously in those countries which do have the rule of law. It is a high priority in the United States, obviously, with our constitutional rights. We should have established an international criminal court a long time ago. It has been on the horizon. It has received favorable comment from the U.S. Senate and from the House on sense-of-the-Congress resolutions. But we ought to be moving to really put it into effect. With the Bosnian war crimes tribunal, we have a chance to advance the rule of law internationally. So I do hope that we will see to it that the request made by the international tribunal on war crimes to have the surrender of these indicted suspects be made as a condition to any peace accord that will take place. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a subject which has been spoken about on our floor and has been the subject of action by the House-- that is, the subject of not having military action in Bosnia, which utilizes United States troops without prior consent by the Congress of the United States. This is a very, very important subject, Mr. President, for many reasons. We have learned from the bitter experience of Vietnam that the United States cannot successfully wage a war which does not have public backing, and the first indicia of public backing is approval by the Congress of the United States. We have deviated from the constitutional requirement that only the Congress can declare war. In Korea, we had a conflict, a war without a declaration of war and, again, in Vietnam. When a Republican President, President George Bush, wanted to act under Presidential authority to move into the gulf with military action, I was one of many Senators who stood on this floor and objected to that, because it was a matter that ought to have been initiated only with congressional action. Finally, in January 1991, in a historic debate on this floor, the Congress of the United States authorized the use of force, and I supported that policy for the use of force. But the more important principle involved was that the President could not act unilaterally, could not act on his own. Similarly, I think that is a mandatory consideration on the Bosnian situation. I have disagreed--many of us have--with the President's policy in Bosnia. On this floor, I have said on a number of occasions, as have others, that the arms embargo against the Bosnian Moslems was bad public policy, that the Bosnian Moslems ought to be able to defend themselves against Serbian atrocities. After the Senate voted overwhelmingly to lift that embargo, and the House voted overwhelmingly to lift that embargo, only then did the President become involved in the Bosnian situation and effectuated a policy of United States airstrikes. And I, among many others, argued with the administration and the military leaders that we should have undertaken airstrikes to use U.S. military power in a way which did not put large numbers of our troops at risk. We were told by the administration and by military leaders that air power without ground support would be ineffective. But, finally, when the administration was faced with no alternative, except to face a possible override on their veto of the legislation lifting the arms embargo, then, and only then, was air power employed, and very, very effectively. I believe that the use of U.S. air power is entirely appropriate, but the use of ground forces is not. We have seen the policy in Somalia, where this administration went beyond [[Page S 16492]] humanitarian purposes to nation building. It was up to the Congress of the United States to withhold funding. That might be necessary again, in a very unsatisfactory way, to have the constitutional mandate that only the Congress can declare war, enforced through the congressional power of the appropriations process. It is most unsatisfactory to have a Presidential commitment and to have U.S. troops involved and then to have it terminated only by the withholding of funds. So it is my hope, Mr. President, that President Clinton will not act unilaterally, as he did in Haiti, against the overwhelming sense of the Senate and sense of the House that there not be an invasion of Haiti. Fortunately, it was done without bloodshed. But this is a constitutional issue of the highest import. If the President wishes to exercise the use of force in Bosnia, he ought to follow the constitutional doctrine, the precedent of the gulf war, and he ought to come to Congress for authorization. Then, and only then, will there be an appropriate opportunity to debate the matter and for Congress to exercise its will under the Constitution. On the state of the record, my view is that there ought not to be an American commitment of troops. But, certainly, that ought not to be done by the President unilaterally. The matter ought to come before the Congress, and it ought to be a congressional decision one way or another, under the constitutional provision that only the Congress has the authority to declare war. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations, I am pleased to speak in support of the fiscal year 1996 Transportation appropriations conference report. This is an important piece of legislation, providing $37.5 billion for purposes including funding our Nation's highway, rail, and air transportation infrastructure, mass transit, Amtrak, and pipeline safety. This legislation will keep Americans on the move, create jobs, and improve our infrastructure, resulting in additional environmental and energy benefits. I commend Chairman Hatfield and our ranking minority member, Senator [[Page S 16470]] Lautenberg, for their efforts in negotiating this comprehensive bill and for recognizing the particular importance of some provisions to Pennsylvania, including highway and transit funding levels. Given the difficult budget constraints faced by the subcommittee, I am particularly pleased that the bill provides $750 million for Amtrak, including improvements to the Northeast corridor. Amtrak service is essential to Pennsylvanians and I have long stressed the importance of ensuring the viability of a truly national passenger rail service. The conference report has also adopted a $1.45 billion funding level for airport construction grants-in-aid, $200 million more than the Senate version of the bill. The statement of managers directs the Federal Aviation Administration to fairly consider a letter of intent application from Philadelphia International Airport, which has sought funding for construction of a new runway. Given the significance to Pittsburgh of the airport busway project, I am very pleased that the conference report provides $31.6 million for fiscal year 1996 to continue construction. I urged our subcommittee to provide this level of funding because this project will ease traffic congestion between downtown and the Pittsburgh International Airport and will mitigate the impact of the Fort Pitt Bridge closing, which would otherwise create a monumental headache for Pittsburgh residents. With spending cutbacks in so many areas, we are fortunate to get this substantial amount of funds for the busway, which means so much to people who live in the Pittsburgh area. I remain disappointed that the conference report only provides $400 million for mass transit operating assistance, which will lead to cuts of as much as 40 percent for some transit systems. In fiscal year 1995, transit systems received $710 million in Federal operating assistance, which they used to keep fares down and maintain service. On August 9, my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, and I offered an amendment to restore $40 million to the $400 million provided in this bill for mass transit operating assistance. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated by 68 to 30. As always, I remain committed to the millions of Pennsylvanians and other Americans who rely on public transit to commute to work, shop, and carry on their lives. Mass transit operating assistance keeps the Nation moving by keeping fares lower and maintaining existing routes. Pennsylvania's citizens and communities depend on good public transportation for mobility, access to jobs, environmental control, and economic stability. It lets the elderly visit their health care providers, shops, or friends. In rural areas, buses are essential to reduce isolation and ensure economic development. And, children use public transportation to go to school in some areas. Without affordable mass transit people in America's inner cities can't get to work. Congress has been considering welfare reform and requirements that people have jobs. If they can't afford to get to work, or bus routes are cut, we are just making it that much harder for lower income Americans to get off welfare. Although I am troubled by the extent of the mass transit assistance cuts, on balance the Transportation appropriations bill is a good bill, containing much else of importance to Pennsylvania and the Nation, and that is why I supported the conference report as a conferee. However, I intend to keep up my efforts next year to preserve funding for mass transit, and to work with our chairman to ensure that Congress does not go too far, too fast in reducing assistance to transit agencies throughout the Nation. In closing, Mr. President, I would note that the conference report contains a provision on telecommuting that I authored, section 345, which requires the Secretary of Transportation to study successful private and public sector telecommuting programs and to disseminate to the general public and to Congress information about the benefits and costs of telecommuting. As my colleagues are aware, telecommuting is the practice of allowing people to work either at home or in nearby centers located closer to their home during their normal working hours, substituting telecommunications services, either partially or fully, for transportation to the traditional workplace. I believe that it is in the national interest to encourage the use of telecommuting because it can enable flexible family-friendly employment, reduce air pollution, and conserve energy. Further, as a Senator from Pennsylvania, with major urban areas such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, I recognize there is a real need to improve the quality of life in and around America's cities. According to a July, 1994 Office of Technology Assessment report, between 2 to 8 million American workers already telecommute at least part time. A 1994 survey by the Conference Board found, however, that in 155 businesses nationwide, only 1 percent of employees telecommute, although 72 percent of the businesses had such an option. According to the Office of Technology Assessment, the most significant barriers to telecommuting are business and worker acceptance and costs. My provision responds to the need to broaden public awareness of the benefits and costs of telecommuting, and to identify and highlight successful programs that can be duplicated. Mr. President, the fiscal year 1996 Transportation appropriations conference report is worthwhile legislation and deserves to be signed into law by the President.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, and supported by others, Senator Leahy and Senator Boxer as well. It seems to me a fundamental proposition that a private organization ought to be able to use its funds overseas for any purpose which it chooses. The Kassebaum amendment provides that there will be no U.S. dollars used to pay for abortion, and, in my view, that ought to take care of the objection of anybody who does not want to have U.S. taxpayer dollars spent on abortions. But the factor of not limiting a private organization to a standard which is different than the laws of the host country seems to me to be fundamental. Were these moneys to be spent in another country, let the laws of those countries determine what is appropriate. To try to impose a limitation under the so-called Mexico City policy, the House language, which would prohibit United States dollars to organizations which are bilateral or multilateral, where those organizations use their own funds for whatever purposes, including abortion, seems to me to be a matter which is really within the purview of those private organizations. What concerns me, Mr. President, is that this controversy is part of a broader controversy which has engulfed the U.S. Senate and the House on the confirmation of Dr. Henry Foster, where he was not even given a vote on confirmation in the Senate because he performed medical procedures--abortions--permitted by the U.S. Constitution; a debate on an appropriations bill about whether women in prison would be able to have abortions at public expense, where they were necessary, in the judgment of the doctor, for medical purposes or where that woman might have been a victim of incest; even under the restrictive language of limiting the language of abortion to incest, rape, or the life of the mother. It is not just whether funds ought to be available if a woman in a Federal prison is unable to earn any money or to take care of her own medical needs, and she is denied a medical procedure--an abortion--if she is the victim of incest, or the issue about having medical procedures--abortions--available for women in overseas medical installations. There is really a broad scale attack on a woman's right to choose, a constitutional right that is recognized by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States--not going back to Roe versus Wade in 1973, but a decision handed down in Casey versus Planned Parenthood by the Supreme Court in 1992, an opinion written by three Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, Reagan and Bush, an opinion written by Justices Souter, O'Connor, and Anthony Kennedy. So I hope that we will not further limit the right of a private organization to use their own funds for overseas purposes, even if they include abortion, simply because that U.S. organization may have U.S. funds for totally separate and collateral purposes.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to waive that section.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President--within 30 seconds--this amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should proceed to adopt a flat tax. It does not specify the precise type of a flat tax. There has been a lot of expression in favor of a flat tax as being progrowth, not regressive with a substantial exemption for individuals. And I ask my colleagues to support this concept in general terms with this sense of the Senate resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2986.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, is it in order to modify the amendment? Amendment No. 2986, As Modified (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning a flat tax and reform of the current Tax Code)

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this bill cuts out--if there may be order, Mr. President--this bill cuts out $14.5 billion from disproportionate share payments, and indirect medical education which cripples the major hospitals and the major teaching institutions. And this amendment reinstates $4.5 billion. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. I request the yeas and nays, Mr. President.