Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of final passage of the budget reconciliation bill because I believe the prospective benefits of balancing the budget outweigh the concerns expressed in my floor statement of October 24, 1995. As indicated by that statement and my votes on individual amendments, I believe the bill would have been fairer with more funding for Medicare, education, and Medicaid without the tax cuts. OK, the tax cuts should have gone to deficit reduction. But, on balance, the bill should be passed. At the insistence of our group of centrist Senators, this bill has been materially improved by floor amendments which did add some significant supplemental funding for Medicaid, Medicare, and education. It is my expectation that further improvements are likely in the House-Senate conference with additional funding for Medicare and recipients of the earned income tax credit, because the House of Representatives has higher figures in those accounts. After the House-Senate conference and the expected Presidential veto, it is likely that the ultimate legislation will better address the fairness issue and provide better assurances that tax cuts will not undermine a balanced budget. Passage of this bill by the Senate today will move the process forward and promote the primary objective of balancing the federal budget by the targeted year of 2002.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President I call up amendment No. 2985. I ask unanimous consent there be 1 minute equally divided to comment on the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds to explain this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I object.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I was recently advised of the passing of a distinguished American, Frances W. Nolde, of Reading, PA. In addition to an illustrious career as a pioneer in aviation and in the theater, she is the mother of a distinguished Washingtonian, H. Christopher Nolde, who is the husband of another distinguished Washingtonian, Mrs. Sylvia Nolde, who was my Executive Assistant for almost 14 years after serving in a similar capacity with Senator Jacob Javits. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the life of Frances W. Nolde with a brief recitation of her career for the Congressional Record. Frances W. Nolde was a woman ahead of her time, whose life spanned nearly the entire 20th century. She made unique contributions to the field of aviation as a pilot, World War II Civil Air Patrol leader, visionary, and achiever, all the while raising a family of seven children, founding and directing a country day school, and receiving acclaim as a civic leader in her home community. Musically talented, with a flair for the dramatic, Mrs. Nolde had a budding career on stage and in radio. Born in Deposit, NY, in 1902, she attended Oberlin Conservatory of Music and graduated from Syracuse University with a BA and BS in Music. She married Carlton Brown, who later became an accomplished Hollywood screen writer. Their marriage ended in divorce. Frances lived in the New York City area and played in a hit Broadway musical ``Lady Be Good,'' starring Fred Astaire in the 1920s, and starred in one of the first radio soap operas, under her stage name Gloria Gay. Upon marrying a successful businessman, Hans W. Nolde, Frances moved to Reading, PA, where she was one of the first to combine career and family and became well known for civic and philanthropic activities. She was a board member of the Junior League and founded and directed The New School, and country day school. A pioneer in aviation, Frances Nolde was one of the early women pilots, beginning in 1940. During World War II she commanded a Civil Air Patrol [CAP] courier base, flying cargo and key personnel for the war industries. She held the rank of full colonel, the highest allowable to women at that time, and was the first National Director of Women in Aviation for the CAP. In 1948 she won the inaugural All-Women's Transcontinental Air Race-- Powder Puff Derby--from Los Angeles to Miami. The Distinguished Citizen's Award for Leadership in the Advancement of Aviation was presented in 1950 to her by the Altrusa International Organization. Mrs. Nolde served as an Airport Commissioner and arranged with General Carl A. Spaatz and the U.S. Air Force to rename the Reading municipal Airport as the General Carl A. Spaatz Field. She later became associated with the Reading Aviation Service and was Public Relations Director of Aviation Consultants, Inc. Upon her divorce from Hans, she moved to the Washington, D.C., area where she lived for more than 40 years. During that time she was employed by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the Director of General Aviation in the Defense Air Transportation Administration. She was responsible for the Civil Air Reserve Fleet and the National Emergency Airlift Plan. Mrs. Nolde was a member of the American Newspaper Women's Clubs, the Top Flight Club, and the Ambassador's Club. Her accomplishments and contributions include: vice-president National Aeronautics Association; delegate to Federation Aeronautique Internationale [FAI]; vice-president, FAI Economic Technical Commission; Governor 99's (International Organization of Women Pilots) and Vice President of its Contest Division; Vice President and Treasurer of Aero Club of Washington, DC.; Board of Governors and membership Chairman of National Aviation Club; member President's ``Women's Advisory Committee on Aviation.'' Mrs. Nolde held a commercial pilots rating, and logged more than 10,000 hours flying time over her outstanding aviation career. A full biography can be found in Who's Who In The World Of Aviation and also in Who's Who of American Women. A long time resident of Bethesda, MD, Mrs. Nolde was 93 when she passed away on October 22. She is survived by her son, H. Christopher Nolde, of Washington, D.C.; daughter Sally Lutyens of Manset, ME; daughter Frances D. Nolde of Maynard, MA; 9 grandchildren and 8 great- grandchildren.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I support the pending legislation to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because I believe that our Embassy should be located in the capital of Israel, which is the custom for all our other Embassies. I have long supported this proposition, Madam President. A bill was introduced back on October 1, 1983, Senate bill 2031, which I cosponsored. Back on March 26, 1990, Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 was submitted. Again, I was a cosponsor of that measure. I have cosponsored the pending legislation. I do have some concerns, Madam President, as to whether such legislation would be an impediment to the peace process, but on balance I think it would not, especially as the legislation has been worked out giving a Presidential discretionary period to expand the time when the Embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I believe that basically this is a decision which ought to be made by the U.S. Government, and it is entirely appropriate for the legislation to come from the U.S. Senate and for us to take a stand on this matter. Madam President, today is an auspicious moment for me and many here in the Senate. We are taking action by the passage of S. 1322 to call again on the President of the United States to move the United States Embassy to its rightful location in the city of Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. This is a welcome moment. [[Page S 15522]] I have supported this action since I came to the Senate. I first cosponsored a resolution on this issue introduced on October 1, 1983. That resolution (S. 2031) was cosponsored by 50 Senators. Now, some 15 years later, it is my hope that with the momentum of the peace process, the message of the cosponsors to this bill will resonate sufficiently to move the administration to action on this. On March 26, 1990, Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 was submitted and was subsequently passed calling for the move of the Embassy to Jerusalem. Again, the Congress acted on this subject through its recent correspondence on February 24, 1995 in its letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher signed by 93 Senators. During the August recess, I traveled to Israel as well as other countries. On September 28, I stated here on the Senate floor my impressions of the challenges facing American foreign policy in the near future. It was during that travel that I was able to speak directly with the President of Israel, Ezer Weitzman, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the leader of the opposition party Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Mr. Arafat and significant Palestinian personalities now engaged in attempting to fashion a means to live side by side, Israelis with Palestinians. Many times during these conversations, we spoke of Jerusalem and the future. All of us were aware of the importance of Jerusalem to the future of the region. Tomorrow, Members of Congress and their guests will convene in the Capitol Rotunda to celebrate the Inaugural ceremony for Jerusalem 3,000, a 15 month long celebration commemorating 3,000 years since the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel by King David. I hope to be in attendance at this ceremony. The action we take today is consonant with the observance of the ceremony as well as with the policy we have around the world in every country we recognize. The United States today locates its embassies, around the globe, in the city designated by the respective country as its capital. It is long overdue that this is our action in Israel. It is most appropriate that, as we move toward the period when both sides in the conflict are scheduled to move into negotiations over a permanent resolution, that the commitment to a date certain be made for the opening of our embassy. We have been, and continue to be, the catalyst in bringing the parties to resolution; it is my hope that our action in the Senate today will be accepted and acted upon by President Clinton and that no further roadblocks will be put up which would impede the opening of the Embassy in Jerusalem on May 31, 1999, as provided for in this legislation. I think it is very, very important that Jerusalem remain undivided, and I think the expression by the U.S. Congress putting into law the timetable for moving our Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is entirely appropriate, and accordingly I support that legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 1 year ago we Republicans won control of the Congress based on commitments to balance the budget, reduce the size of Government, and lower taxes. These commitments remain our basic goals. I have sought recognition this morning to speak on the reconciliation bill which will be coming up tomorrow. I know that tomorrow time will be very precious, so I want to express some of my thoughts at this time. These reservations which I am about to discuss have been expressed to the leadership. There was difficulty in even coming to preliminary conclusions because much of the material had not been made available until very recently, some of the tables on the tax reductions only coming as late as yesterday. As we address the reconciliation process in the next few days, I ask my colleagues to reconsider certain aspects of the proposed legislation. As much as I favor tax relief for Americans, I question tax cuts that may jeopardize our No. 1 priority, which is balancing the Federal budget. As much as I want to reduce the size of Government, I question spending cuts directed so disproportionately against the elderly, the young and the infirm. And on a political basis, I suggest to my Republican colleagues that we all rethink support for a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts that may lead to the perception of the Republican Party as the party of wealth, power and privilege, and not the party of ordinary American working families. Last fall we Republicans swept to historic victories in both Houses based on our responsiveness to the people's demand for less, not more Government, for a Government that lives within its means, and for a reduction of the tax burden on ordinary Americans. I am fearful, Mr. President, that we will forfeit that political high ground in an instant if we adopt a budget that not only fails to end the deficit, but that, either in appearance or in fact, makes the least affluent Americans bear the heaviest burdens while giving most of the tax benefit to the most affluent among us. I am concerned, Mr. President, that these tax cuts threaten a balanced budget, which is by far the most critical aspect of the electoral mandate of 1994. Many of us have been working for a balanced budget for many years. And I have been making that effort for all of my 15 years in the Senate. But until this year, I have never seen legislation passed that actually had a likelihood of achieving that goal. Finally, after years of shadowboxing, after years of spending restraint initiatives that were mere smoke and mirrors, not really substance, this Congress has been willing to make the painful changes necessary to achieve a balanced budget. We are moving toward real reform of entitlements, thereby for the first time giving us a real ability to restrain future spending in those programs. Painful though these actions are, we are willing to make these sacrifices in the name of future generations. And we do that in order to achieve a real balanced budget within the 7-year glidepath. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, which I chair, and where the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, serves as ranking member, has made very, very painful cuts on a budget which had exceeded $70 billion in discretionary spending. These reductions totalled almost $8 billion, down to somewhat more than $62 billion in spending. I would suggest to you, Mr. President, that we made these cuts with a scalpel and not a meat ax. But we had to pare back critical programs, difficult as it was, such as compensatory education for the disadvantaged, substance abuse treatment and prevention, drug-free schools, dislocated worker training--and we did so, I believe, in a way that left intact the basic safety net that protects America's neediest and most disadvantaged--and with a special concern for children and the elderly. We were able to make these difficult spending cuts because of our commitment to a balanced Federal budget. But the current reconciliation bill may undercut that commitment while leaving those painful spending cuts in place. The largest spending cuts occur in the so-called outyears while many of the tax cuts occur at the outset. These savings may materialize, but there is no guarantee that they will. Estimates of rates of economic growth, inflation, tax revenue generation are only estimates, and estimates invariably become less accurate the further out in time they occur. The proposed reconciliation bill offers the certain tax cuts right now paid for by spending cuts later and anticipated savings. That sounds too much like the approach which has put us in a predicament with almost a $5 trillion national debt. Mr. President, I am very concerned that these tax cuts are unfair or at least give the perception of unfairness. I express this concern because much of the pain of the spending cuts goes to the elderly, the young, and the infirm while allowing tax cuts for corporate America and those in higher brackets. I question, Mr. President, cuts in student aid, job training, low- income energy assistance, workplace safety, Head Start, childhood immunization, and mother and child health programs while we give corporate tax breaks such as accelerated depreciation for convenience stores and expanded equipment depreciation. I am concerned, Mr. President, as I take a look at the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. This is a subject that was highly controversial, leading many Republicans from my neighboring State of New Jersey to vote against the Medicare Program in the House of Representatives. I point specifically to Medicare part A disproportionate share payments relating to extra payments to hospitals that serve a high proportion of poor patients. This program is reduced by some $4.5 billion over 7 years. This change impacts very, very heavily on many of the hospitals in my State of Pennsylvania and on many training institutions across the country. And I point further to the Medicare part A indirect medical education payments, which are financial adjustments to teaching hospitals to cover excess costs due to training. This program is reduced by some $9 billion. I also point to the change in the index for future payments to hospital providers, which will be reduced by some $36 billion over the course of 7 years. While it is admitted that Medicare changes are necessary in order to remain solvent and that we have to have a handle on Medicare, there are many questions being raised by senior citizens and the elderly all over America today as to the fairness of these reductions. I specify that they are not cuts, but we are trying to get a handle on Medicare so that as costs increase, we can reduce the rate of increase. But there are many questions legitimately being raised about these budget considerations on Medicare. On Medicaid, there is a change from entitlements to block grants. We have bitten the tough bullet on changing the block grants on welfare payments, and we are in the process of making real reforms in the entitlement programs. There is a particular concern as to what will happen in many of the States. There was a lead article in the New York Times in the last few days about what is happening and what may happen further. The State illustrated was Mississippi. A particular concern of my State, Pennsylvania, is the formula for the allocation of Medicaid funds under a block grant, with some [[Page S 15516]] of the pending legislation hitting Pennsylvania very, very hard. Mr. President, it is a herculean effort to rein in entitlements and balance the budget under the best of circumstances in a way that will be accepted as fair. I believe the American people are prepared to tighten their belts to balance the budget, so long as the sacrifices are fair and equitable. We consistently hear constituents urge spending cuts except for their own pet projects. But leadership calls for the Congress to take the political risks on those hard votes to cut popular programs for the future economic stability of the country. It simply may be too much to cut about $1.4 trillion, and that is an approximation--$200 billion a year over 7 years--plus another $245 billion for tax cuts, which at least gives the appearance of unfairness. I further suggest that the reconciliation bill may well be bad politics as well as bad public policy. To balance the budget and reform entitlements are tough under any circumstance, but they are even more difficult along with the tax cuts and corporate benefits. In the wake of Congress' proposed tax cuts, the lead story in the Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer of October 15, 1995, headlined, in the upper right hand corner: ``Bearing the Brunt of GOP Cutbacks, Low- Income Families Would Lose Billions in Benefits. Tax Cuts Would Benefit the Affluent.'' That story then details the cuts in popular programs. It is especially difficult, Mr. President, I suggest, to justify curtailments in the earned income tax credit at the same time the tax cuts are going to Americans in higher brackets. The earned income tax credit was expanded in 1986 under President Reagan and again in 1990 under President Bush. President Reagan called the program the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of the Congress. What is the measure of fairness in eliminating facets of the earned income tax credit at the same time that we are adding tax breaks for those in higher brackets? The specifics on this, frankly, have been difficult to obtain, but the Senate reconciliation bill would reduce funds for the earned income tax credit by some $43.2 billion, which is substantially more than the House reduction of some $23.2 billion over 7 years. The Senate bill would eliminate the earned income tax credit for taxpayers without children, who now receive a limited credit up to $324. The changes made in the Senate bill on the earned income tax credit tighten up eligibility and expand the income included for phaseout purposes. Further, the credit would be entirely phased out for individuals with one child with income over $23,730. The Senate proposal would also freeze the credit at 36 percent rather than allowing it to rise up to 40 percent under current law. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill contains many credits which I like very much. I especially like the $500 tax credit per child, but is there not a question as to extending that tax break to individuals in the $75,000 bracket or $110,000 for married couples, at a time when we are curtailing the earned income tax credit for people who earn $23,730? There is no doubt about the justification for giving a tax credit for families in middle-income America, but should we be doing it at the same time when the taxes are being increased or the earned income tax credit is being reduced for people in much lower brackets? This legislation, the reconciliation bill, contains an increase on IRA's, independent retirement accounts, and that is a measure that I have long supported and fought for. I recall in 1986 we had a vote, 51 to 48, eliminating the IRA's. I very strongly opposed the elimination of the IRA's. But is it sound public policy to be increasing IRA availability for singles who earn up to $85,000 and for families earning up to $100,000, from the current limits of $25,000 and $40,000, at a time when we put limitations on the earned income tax credit? I do not have absolute answers to these questions, but I think they deserve very, very careful thought. Mr. President, these political problems have been candidly noted by many of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate. Our distinguished majority leader on a Sunday talk show a few weeks ago raised a question about having these tax cuts and quoted a number of Republican members on the Senate Finance Committee, and then, in the wake of objections, retreated from the questioning of these tax cuts. I believe that if there were a secret ballot among the 53 Republicans, many would vote against the tax cuts in the context of balancing the budget and in the context of difficulties for others in lower brackets. One of my colleagues estimated that as many as 20 of our Republican Senators might oppose the tax cuts if we were to have a secret ballot. I raise these issues in the context of having debate at the start of this bill, again saying that I do not have absolute answers but think that these issues have to be thought through very, very carefully. Mr. President, I suggest that it is time to face the facts that the Emperor, as well as the poor, may well be wearing no clothes if the reconciliation bill passes in its present form. I remind my colleagues about the political consequences back in 1986. Many who are now in the Senate, especially on the Republican side, were not here in 1986 when we faced a question about cutting Social Security benefits. Those benefits were cut. Later in 1986, Republicans lost control of the Senate. Those who voted in favor of the Social Security tax cuts were defeated at the polls. I think that is something that has to be remembered, especially since, even though the Social Security tax cuts passed the Senate, they did not come into law. They ultimately were abandoned. Many of the items we are going to be voting on here, as we seek to pass this reconciliation bill, are conceded not to be in final form-- that this is a test run and that this reconciliation bill is highly likely to be vetoed by the President. He already announced his intention. Then it is going to come back for further consideration, again raising the question about making these votes which are so politically perilous and which really may not have any effect at all. Mr. President, I further suggest that we can have all of the advantages in the reconciliation bill in terms of tax breaks for middle-income Americans and more. We can have not just a reduction in the capital gains rate but an elimination of the capital gains tax, and an elimination of tax on dividends if we move to the flat tax, which I introduced earlier this year, Senate bill 488. I take second place to no one in this body when it comes to supporting tax relief for all Americans. But real tax relief cannot come from tinkering at the margins, by adding a new break here or a new loophole there. Breaks and loopholes are part of the problem, not the solution. The solution to tax oppressiveness is a completely new method of income taxation, a method based on the fundamental principles of fairness, simplicity, and growth. That solution, Mr. President, is the flat tax. Our current Internal Revenue System is a mammoth bureaucracy requiring Americans to spend billions of hours each year to complete their tax forms and hundreds of billions of dollars in compliance, estimated as high as $595 billion by Fortune magazine. It is reliably estimated that some 5.4 billion hours annually are spent by Americans on tax compliance. Worse, our tax system is fundamentally antigrowth, diverting otherwise productive resources to compliance costs, promoting economic decisions based on tax avoidance rather than productivity, and discouraging savings and investment by the double taxation of dividends and capital gains. My flat-tax proposal, Senate bill 488, was introduced in March of this year. It would scrap our current Tax Code and replace it with a simple 20 percent rate, keeping only two deductions--interest on home mortgages up to $100,000 in borrowing, and charitable deductions up to $2,500. Individuals would be taxed at the 20 percent rate on all income from wages, pensions, and salaries. They would not pay tax on interest or savings and dividends because those would be taxed at the source. They would also not pay any tax on capital gains because the answer to encouraging investment and [[Page S 15517]] growth is not simply to reduce capital gains tax but to eliminate it entirely. Under my bill, a family of four earning up to $25,500 would pay no tax. Low- and middle-income Americans would benefit from my tax cut because millionaires, who often pay little or no tax because of the myriad loopholes and shelters in the Tax Code, would have to pay tax at the 20 percent rate because these loopholes and shelters would be eliminated. It has been shown that under our current tax system, more than half of all personal income in the United States, or some $2.6 out of $5 trillion, escapes taxation entirely. A fair tax system, like my flat-tax proposal, taxes all income equally--and just once. Businesses would also be taxed at a flat rate of 20 percent. My plan would eliminate the intricate scheme of depreciation schedules, deductions, credits, and other complexities that complicate business filing, and that in some cases permit tax evasion. Businesses would only deduct wages, direct expenses, and purchases. Businesses would be allowed to expense 100 percent of the cost of capital formation, including purchases of capital equipment, structures, and land, and to do so in the year in which the investments are made. Although the elimination of most deductions means that business taxes will increase in the aggregate--thus assuring that investment income is fully taxed before it is paid out--that extra cost to business will be offset by the elimination of their enormous tax compliance costs. For both businesses and individuals, the hours and hours of tax- related recordkeeping, the litany of schedules, the libraries full of regulations and decisions, would be replaced by a postcard sized form that almost all Americans and business owners could complete in about 15 minutes. But the most important reason for adopting a flat-tax system is in its potential to foster economic growth and job creation. With the elimination of taxation on interest, dividends, and capital gains, the pool of capital available for investment will grow dramatically. Conservative economic projections are that interest rates will come down two full points, and that renewed economic activity will add $2 trillion to the gross national product over 7 years--an additional $7,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. My tax proposal has been carefully calculated to be revenue neutral, so that it will not add one penny to the national debt. My flat tax is based on the analyses done over a period of years by highly respected economic professors, Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, of Stanford's Hoover Institute. Hall and Rabushka's calculations show a national flat tax with no deductions and a 19 percent rate matching current tax revenues. My bill deviates from the Hall-Rabushka model by its retention of limited deductions for home mortgage interest on up to $100,000 of borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications limit the purity of the flat-tax principle, I believe that these deductions are so ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness. Based on computations provided by the Joint Tax Committee, the additional 1 percent in my flat-tax proposal above the Hall- Rabushka proposal--a 20 percent rate instead of 19 percent--will fully cover the cost of these deductions. In fact, there is every reason to believe that as the growth aspects of flat taxation take hold, and the economy expands, tax revenues will rise significantly--which will permit either a further lowering of tax rates or actual reduction in the national debt. However, since those savings are speculative, I have not included them in my calculations to set revenue neutral, deficit neutral rate. I am obviously reluctant to vote against legislation that offers needed tax relief to some Americans. But we ought not be tinkering at the margins where some Americans benefit and others don't. Under a flat tax such as I have proposed, everyone benefits and everyone pays their fair share. The current tax breaks are, at best, a Band-Aid. A flat tax is a cure for the cancer which retards the productivity of the American economic engine. The relevant committees have had hearings on the flat tax and are in a position to act on these proposals. Mr. President, I make these comments because of my concern that the pending reconciliation bill may be going too far at a time when our primary objective is to balance the budget, and that Americans are prepared for those cuts if they are fair and if they are just. At a time when we are tightening our belts, I question the wisdom of the additional tax cuts to people who are in much higher brackets and to corporate tax breaks at this particular time. Again, I say I am not in concrete on this matter, but I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this matter before we move to the voting state and consideration of final passage of the reconciliation bill. The Republican leadership has heretofore been advised of my concerns and reservations. While it is late in the process, there is still time to revise the reconciliation bill in the interest of fairness and sound tax policy. It is my hope that modifications can be made so that I and a broad coalition of Members can support this landmark legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 2 days from today, on October 19, 1993, the second anniversary will be marked of the passing of my brother, Morton Specter, an honest, hard-working American who paid more than enough taxes to be memorialized in a brief statement in the Congressional Record. I now ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the eulogy which I delivered at his funeral in October 1993.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the cloture motion which will be voted on this afternoon at 5 o'clock, because I believe that it is very important that this legislation be considered by the Senate and acted upon by the Senate. While I ordinarily support an active international role for the United States and active involvement with other nations around the world, I believe that the current situation in Cuba presents a situation where we ought not to do anything to strengthen the hand of Fidel Castro. I believe that the legislation will increase the pressure on the Castro regime and lay the groundwork for future U.S. support for a democratic transition. The State Department's 1994 human rights report to Congress paints a grotesque picture of repression by the Castro regime. It shows Government-organized mob attacks on dissidents. It shows nationwide political surveillance. It shows extrajudicial killings of Cubans attempting to flee; for example, the sinking of boats loaded with refugees by Government forces last year. It shows, by every significant human rights standard, the Castro regime has an appalling record on freedom of speech, of assembly, and freedom from arbitrary arrest. Castro has been largely immune to the democratic changes that have swept the hemisphere during the past 10 years and what that regime has in common with totalitarian states such as the ones created by Erich Honecker in East Germany and Kim Il-song in North Korea. Mr. President, the legislation will be a significant step forward in isolating Fidel Castro and in hastening the day when democracy can return to Cuba so that that community, that nation, may be liberated from Castro's totalitarian regime and may take its place in the family of nations as a productive nation and a productive society.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, permit me a personal moment or two on the floor of the U.S. Senate and in the Congressional Record to comment on my own family values on the occasion of the 74th birthday of my sister, Hilda Specter Morgenstern. It is a major occasion for our family because Hilda is the first member of the Specter family to reach a 74th birthday. My father died at 72, my mother and brother, Morton, at 73. An excellent indicator of family values is longevity of marriage, and I speak with great pride about the Specter family on that subject. My parents, Harry and Lillie Specter, were married 45 years before my father's death in 1964. My brother, Morton, and his wife, Joyce, were married 51 years before his death in 1993. My sister, Hilda, and her husband, Arthur, have been married 52 years. My sister, Shirley, and her husband, Dr. Edwin Kety, were married 46 years before his death last August. Joan and I celebrated our 42d anniversary last June 14. That is a total of 236 years without a divorce. On Sunday last, October 15, 1995, Hilda Specter Morgenstern celebrated her 74th birthday with her husband, her four children, and most of her 9 grandchildren in Teaneck, NJ, on a visit from her home in Jerusalem. A beautiful redhead, Hilda married Arthur Morgenstern after they met in the synagogue at Rosh Hashanah services in Wichita, KS, in 1942, while Arthur was in the cavalry at Fort Riley, KS. She was a straight ``A'' student and a real academic inspiration for me. When she saw my report card in the seventh grade, my first testing with A's and B's, she scoffed at my one A and seven B's and offered a dollar for every ``A'' I got thereafter. When I graduated from college, she and Arthur handed me a check for $266. Hilda Specter was an honor student and an excellent debater at the University of Wichita where she was a member of the prestigious Association of American University Women. She was studying for her masters degree at Syracuse University in the spring of 1942 when Arthur received his orders to embark to the South Pacific as an Army artillery officer. After a coast-to-coast train ride to San Francisco, they married. Their wartime romance gave them only a weekend together before he sailed for a 31-month tour of duty in the South Pacific. After the war, Hilda, Arthur, and their family of four children lived in [[Page S 15203]] Russell, KS, without the benefit of a Jewish education, so they moved to Wichita where Hilda became superintendent to the Hebrew school. When they found the Jewish education there insufficient, they moved to Denver. When that proved insufficient, they moved to New York City. When that was not enough, they moved to Jerusalem where Hilda and Arthur now reside--except for periodic visits to the United States to help in my many campaigns. Hilda Specter Morgenstern is a model wife, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother. She is a real matriarch of the family. She tackles with equal ease an analysis of the ABM Treaty to help me in my Senate duties, or the change of diapers for her new, great-grandson. I have urged her to follow the model of Golda Meir, the Milwaukee- born American, who later became Prime Minister of Israel. Hilda responded by telling me to become President of the United States first. Happy 74th birthday, Hilda.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Utah, and inquire how much time remains on our side.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pell be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in conclusion I say that Congress has oversight; the committee, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, can correct any problems which arise. When they do arise from time to time, that action can be taken. I very much think we ought to keep this Job Corps with the corrections, but keep it a national program.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum to me from Craig Higgins and Jim Sourwine be printed in the Record, as well as a table on the impact of the Job Corps in Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished colleague from Kansas when she says that we have a different group of youth. But I say that the differences in our society today from when the Job Corps was established, simply underscores the need for intensive job training and intensive care and intensive effort be made to see that the young people in America are trained to hold jobs and do not require welfare or enter the crime cycle. My colleague and cosponsor from Illinois puts his finger on a key point, and that is that under a changed position of the bill there would be only an obligation to use a portion of the funds. Although we have $1.1 billion allocated, that really is not too much. Mr. President, the four Job Corps centers which are available in my home State of Pennsylvania have done really an outstanding job. I had occasion to visit the Job Corps training center in Denison, IA--an outstanding job. My able staffer, Craig Higgins, has visited Job Corps centers across the country and finds an outstanding job. It is true that there are some that need to be closed. Our bill, in a more modulated way, provides for closure of 10 Job Corps centers, plus more closures if it is determined, after an audit, that more ought to be closed. I believe that in an era where we are looking to block grants, we ought to proceed with a bit of caution, and that a program like Job Corps, with remedial reform measures, as suggested by GAO and Senator Kassebaum, will enable Job Corps to complete this very important function. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point a letter to me from the National Job Corps Coalition, setting forth an impressive list of sponsors be printed in the Record; that a letter from the Pennsylvania Job Corps Leadership Coalition, with a recitation of a considerable number of student success stories, as compiled by the Pennsylvania Job Corps Leadership Coalition, be printed in the Record; that an open letter to Congress from the Secretaries of Labor and Assistant Secretaries endorsing the Job Corps center be printed in the Record; that a letter from Mayor Tom Murphy of the city of Pittsburgh be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER. Will my colleague yield for a question on my time? I just have one very brief question. I inquire of my colleague from Nebraska if he would see a difference between the Job Corps in a State like Nebraska, administered by a Governor like Governor Kerrey, or a State like Ohio, by my distinguished colleague, Senator DeWine, compared to some of the other States in the United States where with a block grant we might not be so confident that we have Job Corps maintained?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island with whom I served for many years on the authorizing committee, and who knows the subject very well.

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