Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I want to be sure I understand this. At the conclusion of the debate on this amendment, then the Gregg amendment would follow, and there would be back-to-back votes on my amendment and the amendment by the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. The amendment was then defeated on a constitutional point of order 47 to 48, that prisoners are legally entitled to adequate medical care when there exists a serious medical need. The thrust of this amendment would place women in prison in a very disadvantaged position, and it is my view this language ought to be stricken.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire on the condition I do not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from New Hampshire hold off on that for a brief reply to what the Senator from Texas had to say?

Mr. SPECTER. I object to the interruption of the pendency of the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. No; it has not been cleared on that side.

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I am prepared to accede to the vote at 6 o'clock providing there is a consent to my amendment which I discussed with the manager.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object. I wonder if the manager would be amenable to permitting me to offer two very brief amendments at this time? This pending amendment has been debated now for several hours. We have a lot of amendments to complete. And I would very much appreciate the chance--I have two amendments we could complete debate on between now and 3 p.m. if the distinguished manager and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico would forgo further debate. We have had hours on it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from New Mexico. I do so after having had considerable experience as a lawyer. I think I understand the need for representation of the poor in America on many of the complex legal issues and problems which they face. My first exposure to representation of the poor came as a volunteer defender when I was a year and a half out of law school. That was before the Gideon versus Wainwright case, which established a constitutional right for defendants to have lawyers in criminal proceedings. It is unthinkable in 1995 that there was ever a time when someone would be ``haled into court,'' as Justice Black put it, and not have an attorney represent him when his liberty was at stake. But there was a day, and I was a year and a half out of law school and at a big Philadelphia law firm. There was an enormous backlog of criminal cases, and people were held at detention at the Montgomery County prison. I went over for a month to represent indigent criminals in the courts of Philadelphia. It was a real eye-opener for me in many, many ways. The first way was to learn that these people had nobody to represent them in a courtroom. They were faced with two counts of rape, four burglaries, and I was a year and a half out of law school, and I was better than nothing, but barely, under those circumstances; and I saw at that time how people had to volunteer, how the community had to come forward to provide legal assistance to people who needed to have their rights represented in a courtroom. It also did something very profound for me, and that was it opened my eyes to public service and to the criminal courts. I had been there for only a month. Notwithstanding that, I was in a very prominent law firm. It was wall-to-wall life. I soon became an assistant district attorney because I wanted to learn to be a trial lawyer, and I wanted to participate in the public process. And it has all been downhill since then, to district attorney and U.S. Senator. But that was a real experience for me to see the importance of legal representation. Now we have legal services. The first year I was here in 1981, there was an effort to reduce the funding to $100,000, which would have been grossly inadequate. Senators Rudman, Domenici, and a few of us stood up, and my recollection is that we had $261,000 for community legal services in that year. Last year, we had a battle on the floor of the U.S. Senate when there was an effort to limit community legal services from representing people in welfare reform cases, because the community legal services had gotten into a New Jersey case over welfare reform. It seemed to me unthinkable to limit community legal services from participating in representing poor people in challenging Federal or State laws. Now we have just gone through welfare reform in this body, dealing with matters which are tremendously complicated and have raised very many important legal issues. And you have to have representation for the poor in America. It is something we ought to be doing. The amount of money involved, in comparison to the scope of the problem, is minimal. Senator Domenici is the leading expert on the budget. I cite him all the time, and I have great confidence in our glidepath for a balanced budget, because Senator Domenici is a man I have seen operate for over 6 years as chairman of the Budget Committee, from 1981 through 1986 and again this year. These dollars for legal services are very, very well spent. I, frankly, have some concerns about the limitations which are present in this bill. I talked to Senator Domenici about them, especially the limitations on the use of non-Federal funds, and I know that this is a compromise to try to get the extra funding, to have some limitations. I have grave reservations about these limitations. But I do know this--even with the money which is left, this is not enough to handle individual cases where individuals need representation on complex legal matters. I have tried to hold my comments to a few moments in the hope that we may act on this amendment. I do not think any souls are going to be saved or any votes are going to be changed on this amendment on my speech, the speeches before mine, or the speeches going back to about 11 o'clock this morning. We have a lot of other amendments which I hope we can take up. I hope we will move to conclude this amendment. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment because it is important for America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I certainly agree that the Benefits Review Board should take all steps necessary to ensure that all appeals are acted upon within one year from the date of filing the appeal. Anti-Government Criminal Activity Funding

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, At this time, I join with my colleagues in offering two amendments to address concerns about financial practices and management at the National Reconnaissance Office. The first amendment will reduce the amount authorized to be appropriated for the National Reconnaissance Office in order to eliminate excess carry-forward funds in fiscal year 1996. As the Members are aware, the Conference Committee on the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 recently reduced the NRO appropriation in an amount equal to the excess funds accumulated in the carry-forward accounts. The amendment ensures that the cut in Fiscal Year 1996 appropriations for NRO is also reflected in the authorization. The second amendment is designed to prospectively address the NRO carry-forward accounts and financial management generally by imposing a statutory cap of 1 month on carry- forward accounts (in line with DOD general policy); requiring a joint review by the Inspectors General for CIA and DOD of NRO's financial management to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and internal controls over the NRO budget; and requiring the President to report no later than January 30, 1996 on a proposal to subject the budget of the intelligence community to greater executive branch oversight, including the possibility of a statutory financial control officer and greater OMB review of the NRO budget. The President shall also report on the impact, if any, on national security brought about by reduction in the carry forward accounts at NRO. These amendments addresses an issue that the committee first identified in 1992 but which has received a good deal of press attention in the past several days and has raised questions about the National Reconnaissance Office's financial management practices. It has been alleged that the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress. It has been further alleged that this is one more example of how intelligence agencies sometimes use their secret status to avoid accountability. These are serious charges which the committee has been looking into, most recently with a closed hearing on Wednesday, September 27, at which we questioned Mr. George Tenet and Mr. Keith Hall from the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, and Mr. Jeff Harris and Mr. Jimmie Hill, the Director and Deputy Director of the NRO. As I have noted, the Intelligence Committee first identified this issue in 1992 when it determined that NRO had accumulated an unusually large sum of [[Page S 14786]] funds in some of its forward-funding accounts. Some forward funding, generally up to 1 month, is normal for NRO research and development accounts to cover unforseen overruns on contracts and bridge any gaps in fiscal year funding that may result from a delay in appropriations. NRO assured the Committee in 1992 that the excessive funds that had accumulated would be eliminated within 4 years. We now understand that this obligation was not fulfilled. Hence, our amendment reduces the funds in conformance with the appropriations bill. Let me emphasize, however, that while public attention has focused on one element of those practices--those that involve the carry-forward accounts in the National Reconnaissance Office, a broader inquiry is being undertaken by the Intelligence Committee and is reflected in the second amendment related to the NRO. It is important to determine if the NRO's past financial management practices in this area have been as tight as they should have been. While the NRO sits in the Department of Defense, it is a critical element of the national intelligence community. Thus, it is also essential that we gain an understanding of any management practices which need to be changed in order to strengthen the role of the Director of Central Intelligence so that he can manage more completely the intelligence community. These are some of the issues the Intelligence Committee will be examining in the coming months as it reviews the intelligence community's role in the post-cold-war world and how that community should be restructured or refocused to meet the challenges of this changed environment. Mr. President, acknowledging that this is just one step in a broader effort to address legitimate public concerns about the NRO and the intelligence community as a whole, I urge adoption of these amendments. amendment no. 2882 (Purpose: To provide for improvements in the financial management of the National Reconnaissance Office) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section:

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment along with the vice chairman to address two issues that arose after the committee markup of this bill. The first provision of the amendment is intended to assist the Department of the Army as it assumes Executive Agent responsibility for the Bad Aibling and Menwith Hill stations. Specifically, this provision would permit the Department of the Army to use up to $2 million of appropriated O&M funds per annum, at Menwith Hill and Bad Aibling, to rectify infrastructure and quality of life problems. The amendment make clear that it would in no way obviate or modify current law or practice with regard to reprogramming amounts in excess of $2 million, At the present time, the Army is prohibited by 31 U.S.C. section 1301, from using appropriated funds to support an NSA installation, notwithstanding the fact that the Army has become the Executive Agent for these field sites. Although the Director of Central Intelligence could use his special authorities under section 104(d) of the National Security Act of 1947, the procedures available under that law are extremely time consuming and were not intended to accommodate relatively minor transfers of funds. A good example of the problems that this amendment is intended to rectify is contained in a memorandum prepared by a joint NSA/Army inspection team entitled. ``DoD Child Development Program Inspection Report'' dated June 23, 1995. The memo, which describes the childcare facility at Menwith Hill station states: The Child Development Center (CDC), originally constructed as a office building, is a 35 year old dilapidated structure with major health and safety violations. The CDC capacity of 89 children cannot accommodate the increasing demands for child care. The current station population includes 289 children ages four and under. As a result of the conversion from a civilian to a military facility, the demographics are changing to younger, junior enlisted personnel with many single parents who will rely on based-provided child care. There are no similar facilities available on the economy . . . Six major deficiencies, those that severely affect health, safety, and the well-being of staff were identified in this inspection. All five categories relating to health and safety were in major violation. Last fall, two members of the committee staff visited the Menwith Hill Station and toured its Child Development Center. Their views are fully consistent with the findings described in this memo. The staff can also attest to the fact that there are many other maintenance and qualify of life issues at these two facilities, particularly Menwith Hill, that need to be urgently addressed. My colleagues should understand that this legislation was requested by the Department of the Army and enjoys the full support of the Director of the National Security Agency. It is also worth noting that the Department of the Army has consulted with the Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees and encountered no objections. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Admiral McConnel requesting this legislation, and the memorandum I quoted from earlier, be included in the Record at this point. The second provision in this amendment is designed to offset the direct spending cost of the extension of the authority provided for in the CIA Voluntary Separation Pay Act as provided in section 402 of our bill. Specifically, it establishes procedures to conform with the pay- as-you-go provision, section 252, of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, by requiring the Director of Central Intelligence to remit to the Treasury an amount equal to 15 percent of the final basic pay of each employee who, in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999, retires voluntarily or who resigns and to whom a voluntary separation incentive payment has been or is to be paid. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment. amendment no. 2884 (Purpose: To require a description and analysis of voluntary separation incentive proposals in the report required by the legislation and for other purposes) On page 10, line 7, after ``(22 U.S.C. 4008),'' insert ``and to provide for other personnel review systems,''. On page 10, at the end of line 10 add the following new sentence: ``The report shall also contain a description and analysis of voluntary separation incentive proposals, including a waiver of the two-percent penalty reduction for early retirement.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on June 14, 1995, my distinguished colleague and vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence [SSCI], Senator Kerrey, and I filed a bill which authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government. The Select Committee on Intelligence approved the bill by a unanimous vote on May 24, 1995, and ordered that it be favorably reported. The bill was subsequently referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee [SASC] for up to 30 days, as it has been every year. The Armed Services Committee reported the bill at the end of the 30-day period, on August 4, 1995, with one amendment. This bill would: Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for first, the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government; second, the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System; and third, the Community Management Account of the Director of Central Intelligence; authorize the personnel ceilings as of September 30, 1996, for the intelligence activities of the United States and for the Community Management Account of the Director of Central Intelligence; authorize the Director of Central Intelligence, with Office of Management and Budget approval, to exceed the personnel ceilings by up to 2 percent; permit the President to delay the imposition of sanctions related to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction when necessary to protect an intelligence source or method or an ongoing criminal investigation; provide for forfeiture of the U.S. Government contribution to [[Page S 14788]] the Thrift Savings Plan under the Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS], along with interest, if an employee is convicted of national security offenses; restore spousal benefits to the spouse of an employee so convicted if the spouse cooperates in the investigation and prosecution; allow employees of the excepted services to take an active part in certain local elections; amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to permit the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain consumer credit reports necessary to foreign counterintelligence investigations under certain circumstances and subject to appropriate controls on the use of such reports; and make certain other changes of technical nature to existing law governing intelligence agencies. As it does annually, the committee conducted a detailed review of the administration's budget request for the National Foreign Intelligence Program [NFIP] for fiscal year 1996. The committee also reviewed the administration's fiscal year 1996 request for a new intelligence budget category, called the Joint Military Intelligence Program [JMIP]. The committee's review included a series of briefings and hearings with the Director of Central Intelligence [DCI], the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, and other senior officials from the Intelligence Community, numerous staff briefings, review of budget justification materials and numerous written responses provided by the Intelligence Community to specific questions posed by the committee. In addition to its annual review of the administration's budget request, the committee performs continuing oversight of various intelligence activities and programs, to include the conduct of audits and reviews by the committee's audit staff. These inquires frequently lead to actions initiated by the committee with respect to the budget of the activity or program concerned. The Intelligence Committee's consideration of the authorization bill this year coincides with a major review effort by this committee, its House counterpart, and a Presidential Commission mandated by Congress last year. This review is aimed at examining how changes in the world, particularly since the fall of the Soviet Union, should be reflected in the roles and missions of the intelligence community. A major part of this examination will include determining how the intelligence community might better be organized to accomplish those changing roles and missions. While this review by the committee in not likely to conclude until early next year, one of the issues already emerging is the need for stronger, more coherent management of the intelligence community. The nominal head of the community, the DCI, must become the de facto head of the community--with the authority to make adjustments and trade-offs between its disparate elements. One example of a problem resulting, in part, from the lack of unified management is the disconnect between the vast amounts of intelligence we are now capable of collecting and our capacity for analyzing and disseminating that intelligence in a way that is useful for decisonmakers. We cannot afford to continue spending money in one area without ensuring that its objectives are not frustrated by inadequate funding in another. Yet, it is difficult to strike the necessary balance if you do not have the authority to move funding from one area to another. The same principle is at work in congressional oversight, where a comprehensive and coherent review of intelligence programs is essential. When the SSCI was established in 1976, the Senate, in Senate Resolution 400, chose to give the committee jurisdiction over all intelligence activities, including those of the Department of Defense. ``Intelligence activities'' are defined very broadly in the charter legislation, but expressly exclude ``tactical foreign military intelligence serving no national policymaking function.'' Over the years, this has been interpreted to mean that programs and activities funded in the [TIARA]--which stands for tactical intelligence and related activities--budget category have been authorized by the Armed Services Committee in the Defense authorization bill, with the SSCI providing recommendations in a letter to the SASC. All activities funded in the NFIP, or National Foreign Intelligence Program, have been authorized by the Intelligence Committee in the Intelligence Authorization Act, which is automatically referred sequentially to the Armed Services Committee before going to the floor. Traditionally, this breakdown between the strictly tactical activities supporting the battlefield commander--which are logically subject to Armed Services oversight--and activities serving some broader national policymaking function--over which integrated oversight by the Intelligence Committee is essential--has worked well and our two committees have cooperated very closely. Today, however, I believe both committees recognizes that it is increasingly difficult to classify intelligence systems as either strictly national or strictly tactical. The same images of Bosnia taken by aerial reconnaissance can be used simultaneously by Admiral Smith to protect our pilots, by Assistant Secretary of State Holbrooke to show his interlocutors the true situation on the ground, and by the President's National Security Advisor to determine if a change in policy is indicated. U-2 photography of Iraq helps the commanders of our joint task forces enforce the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. Ambassador Madeleine Albright uses the same images to great effect in convincing other countries on the United Nations Security Council to keep in force the sanctions against Iraq. Budget politics has also contributed to the blurring of the two budget categories. Over the last 5 years the executive branch has moved programs from the national portion of the budget into the tactical, at least in part to get out from under a perceived spending ``ceiling'' on the national budget. When the administration created the new JMIP budget category this year, a number of these formerly NFIP programs were included. The committees acknowledge that a number of the programs in this new budget category serve important national policymaking functions and previously have been authorized by this committee--programs like the U- 2 spyplane and unmanned aerial vehicles such as those that have provided important intelligence on Bosnia to the decisionmakers at State and in the White House. However, this new budget category also contains some programs that are tactical in nature and would normally have been within the sole jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. When considering how to approach this new budget category for fiscal year 1996, the Intelligence Committee turned to Senate Resolution 400. We determined that the national policymaking-related activities in JMIP meant that it did not fit that statue's definition for items excluded from committee jurisdiction. Thus, the SSCI used the expertise developed from day-to-day oversight of all intelligence activities to formulate authorization recommendations for all of the activities in this program. When the SASC received our bill on sequential, as it routinely does, that committee disagreed with our assertion of authorization jurisdiction. The Armed Services Committee took the position that the Intelligence Committee had no oversight interest in the JMIP programs and voted to offer an amendment to the Intelligence authorization bill to strip it of all JMIP authorization. After extensive discussion, we have arrived at a compromise that will allow the Intelligence authorization bill to move forward, recognize the national interest served by the oversight of each of the committees--SSCI and SASC--and set up a mechanism for addressing these issues in the coming year. In order to resolve the disagreement for this year and bring this bill before the Senate in a timely fashion, we have agreed that the Armed Services Committee will authorize and conference JMIP for fiscal year 1996. The Intelligence Committee has provided its JMIP recommendations to the Armed Services Committee, and I think the two committees concur on the details of almost every JMIP activity for this year. [[Page S 14789]] At the same time, the chairmen and ranking members of the two committees agree that this action does not reflect a determination that Senate Resolution 400 does not provide authorizing jurisdiction for the Intelligence Committee over JMIP. It is, rather, a compromise to allow this bill, this year, to go to the floor. Left unresolved, then, it how the Senate should conduct oversight and authorization of the Intelligence Community in today's changing world. As I have previously noted, there have been significant changes over the years that have been reflected in the way intelligence activities are budgeted. In the coming years, we see even greater change. Our committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Brown Commission on Intelligence Roles and Capabilities, are examining what changes should be made in the intelligence community in the post-cold-war world. Together, these efforts comprise the greatest opportunity to improve U.S. intelligence since 1947. Budget categories, and many other familiar features of today's intelligence landscape, are likely to change still further. To make sure that the Senate's authorization process appropriately reflects the changes that have already occurred and that may be coming, Senator Kerrey and I, together with Chairman Thurmond and Senator Nunn, have directed our staffs to form a working group to recommend to the two committees how authorization responsibilities should apply to specific categories or activities. Mr. President, we will be prepared for the future, and I think the Senate and the country will be the beneficiaries of our collaboration. I am most grateful for the vast knowledge and the attitude of constructive cooperation which the President pro tempore and Senator Nunn brought to this problem. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished senator from Nebraska.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the balance of the time to Senator Nickles.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority leader and pursuant to the consent agreement, I move to proceed to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, H.R. 2127. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, at 10 a.m. there will be a 15- minute vote on a motion to proceed. If there are not 60 votes in the affirmative on the motion to proceed, there will then be a second vote at 11 a.m. on a motion to proceed. If there are not 60 votes on the second vote, the Senate will be recessed until later in the day to allow the Finance Committee to meet. Remaining appropriations would be the State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill and the continuing resolution. Therefore, according to the instruction of the distinguished majority leader, a late night session is expected with rollcall votes throughout the day. Now I do move to proceed, on behalf of the majority leader, to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Mr. President, I spoke at some length yesterday afternoon on the import of this bill. It is my hope we would proceed to debate this bill. It is a very important piece of legislation, containing in excess of $62 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It contains an additional $200.9 billion in nondiscretionary expenditures. It is within the 602(b) allocations given to the committee according to the Congressional Budget Office. I, frankly, would have liked to have seen more funds allocated to our subcommittee so we could have had more for very vital services under this bill. As it was, the allocation to the Senate subcommittee was almost $1.6 billion above the House of Representatives, and those additional funds were placed significantly in the education account. With the cooperation of Senator Harkin, with whom I have worked for many years--last year Senator Harkin was chairman, I was ranking; this year our roles are reversed--we made the best allocation we could, assisted by very able and competent staff, allocating funds in a very, very complex bill. We have maintained funding for Goals 2000, which is in response to a 1983 report about the shambles in education, where sufficient actions have still not been taken. These goals are voluntary on the States. The States can accept the Federal standards and goals or can adopt standards and goals on their own as they choose. We have made provision for LIHEAP, low-income fuel assistance, which goes principally to the elderly who are without sufficient funds to buy their fuel. It is really a proposition, as the expression goes, of heating or eating that plagues those individuals. We have made allocation for funding for violence against women. With the House figure being at $32 million on the shelter issue--the full authorization was $50 million--in our subcommittee allocations, we have found the funding for the full $50 million. We have presented a bill which has taken care of key issues of plant safety. We have stripped the bill of provisions relating to legislation because of our conclusion that legislation ought not to be included on an appropriations bill, a policy adopted by the full committee as a general matter on all appropriation bills under the leadership of our distinguished chairman, Senator Hatfield. On biomedical research, Mr. President, we have for the National Institutes of Health nearly $11.6 billion, an increase of some $300 million over the fiscal year 1995 appropriations. These funds will boost the biomedical research appropriations to maintain and strengthen the tremendous strides which have been made in unlocking medical mysteries which lead to new treatments and cures. Gene therapy offers great promise for the future. In the 15 years that I have been in the Senate, all those years on the appropriations subcommittee dealing with health and human services, where cuts have been proposed by Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, we have increased funding for medical research, which I think it is very important. Two years ago, I had a medical problem and was the beneficiary of the MRI developed in 1985, after I had come to the Senate, a life-saving procedure to detect an intracranial lesion. So I have professional, political, and personal experiences to attest to the importance of health research funding. On Alzheimer's disease, Mr. President, this last year the United States spent over $90 billion to care for Alzheimer's patients. This devastating disease robs its victims of their minds while depriving families of the well-being and security they deserve. We have been working to focus more attention and more money into the causes and cures of Alzheimer's. To address this problem, the bill contains increased funding for research into finding the cause and cures for Alzheimer's disease. The bill also includes nearly $5 million for a State grant program to [[Page S 14439]] help families caring for Alzheimer's patients at home. The statistics are enormously impressive, Mr. President, that if we could delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease, we could save billions of dollars. On women's health, in 1995, 182,000 women will be diagnosed as having breast cancer and some 46,000 women will die from the disease. The investment in education and treatment advances led to the announcement last year that the breast cancer death rates in American women declined by 4.7 percent between 1989 and 1992, the largest such short-term decline since 1950. And while this was encouraging news, it only highlighted the fact that the Federal Government investment is beginning to pay off. While it was difficult in a tight budget year to raise fundings levels, the subcommittee placed a very high priority on women's health issues. The bill before the Senate contains an increase of $25 million for breast and cervical cancer screening, increases to expand research on the breast cancer gene, to permit the development of a diagnostic test to identify women who are at risk, and speed research to develop effective methods of prevention, early detection, and treatment. Funding for the Office of Women's Health has also been doubled to continue the national action plan on breast cancer, and to develop and establish a clearinghouse to provide health care professionals with a broad range of women's health-related information. This increase has been recommended for the Office of Women's Health, because of the very effective work that that office has been doing. On Healthy Start, Mr. President, children born of low birthweight is the leading cause of infant mortality. Infants who have been exposed to drugs, alcohol, or tobacco in utero are more likely to be born prematurely and of low birthweight. We have in our society, Mr. President, thousands of children born each year no bigger than the size of my hand, weighing a pound, some even as little as 12 ounces. They are human tragedies at birth carrying scars for a lifetime. They are enormously expensive, costing more than $200,000 until they are released from the hospital. Years ago, Dr. Koop outlined the way to deal with this issue by prenatal visits. The Healthy Start Program was initiated, and has been carried forward, to target resources for prenatal care to high incidence communities; it is funded as well as we could under this bill with increases as I have noted. On AIDS, the bill contains $2.6 billion for research, education, prevention, and services to embattle the scourge of AIDS, including $379 million for emergency aid to the 42 cities hardest hit by this disease. When it comes to the subject of violence against women, it is one of the epidemic problems in our society. The Department of Justice reports that each year women are the victims of more than 4.5 million violent crimes, including an estimated 500,000 rapes or other sexual assaults. But crime statistics do not tell the whole story. I have visited many shelters, Mr. President, in Harrisburg and Pittsburgh and have seen first hand the physical and emotional suffering so many women are enduring. In a sad, ironic way the women I saw were the lucky ones because they survived violent attacks. The Labor-HHS-Education bill contains $96 million for programs authorized by the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The bill before the Senate contains the full amount authorized for these programs, including $50 million for battered-women shelters, $35 million for rape prevention programs, $7 million for runaway youth, and $4.9 million for community demonstration programs, the operation of the hotline and education programs for youth. These funds have been appropriated, Mr. President, after very, very careful analysis as to where the subcommittee and the full committee felt the money could best be spent. On the School-to-Work Program, the committee recommends $245 million within the Departments of Labor and Education, which is maintenance of the level provided in 1995. We would like to have had more money, but that was the best we could do considering the other cuts. On nutrition programs for the elderly, for the congregate and Home- Delivered Meals Program, the bill provides almost $475 million. Within this amount is $110.3 million for the Home-Delivered Meals Program, an increase of $16.2 million over the 1995 appropriation because there are such long waiting lists, so many seniors who really depend upon this for basic subsistence. On education, we have allocated the full amount of the increase that our subcommittee received, some $1.6 billion. The bill does not contain all of the funds we would like to have provided, but it is a maximum effort on this important subject. As to job training, Mr. President, we know all too well that high unemployment means a waste of valuable human resources, inevitably depresses consumer spending, and weakens our economy. The bill before us today includes $3.4 billion for job training programs. And again, candidly, I would like to see more, Mr. President, but this is the maximum that we could allocate. As to workplace safety, the bill contains an increase of $62 million over the amount recommended by the House for worker protection programs. While progress has been made in this area, there are still far too many work-related injuries and illnesses, and these funds will provide programs and inspect businesses and industry, weed out occupational hazards, and protect worker pensions within reasonable bounds. LIHEAP is a program which is very important, Mr. President, to much of America. It provides low-income heating and fuel assistance; 80 percent of those who receive LIHEAP assistance earn less than $7,000 a year. It is a program which was zeroed out by the House, and we have reinstated it in this bill. We have effectively included a total of $1 billion here, $100 million of which is carryover funds, as we understand the current state of affairs, although it is hard to get an exact figure, and an additional $900 million. As the Congress consolidates and streamlines programs, Federal administrative costs must also be downsized. In this bill, with the exception of the Social Security Administration, we have cut program management an average of 8 percent. Many view administrative costs as waste and others suggest that deeper cuts are justified. It is our judgment that any further reductions would be counterproductive. In closing, Mr. President, I want to thank the extraordinary staffs who have worked on this program. On the Senate side, Bettilou Taylor and Craig Higgins have been extraordinary and professional in taking inordinately complicated printouts and working through a careful analysis of the priorities. We received requests from many of our colleagues. And to the maximum extent, we have accommodated those requests. We have received many requests from people around the country. We have accommodated as many requests for personal meetings as we could, both with the Senators and with their staffs. And we think this is a very significant bill. There are people on both sides who have objected to provisions of the bill. When a motion to proceed is offered, it is my hope that we will proceed to take up this bill and that we will pass it. We are aware that there has been the threat of a veto from the executive branch, and I invite the President or any of his officials to suggest improvements if they feel they can do it better. There is a commitment in America to a balanced budget and, that is something we have to do. We have structured our program to have that balanced budget within 7 years by the year 2002. The President talks about a balanced budget within 9 years. I suggest that our targeting is the preferable target. To the extent people have suggestions on better allocations, we are prepared to listen, but this is our best judgment. We urge the Senate to proceed with this bill. At this time I yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin.

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Kennedy may have 1 minute of my time.

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

Mr. SPECTER. I note the arrival of the Senator from New Hampshire on the floor. I had yielded time earlier, but we do have a speaker. I now yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield to Senator Harkin and Senator Kennedy 4 minutes of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just by way of brief comment on the Goals 2000 program, that is a matter which is going to be subject to very substantial debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate. With my lead, we have funded Goals 2000 because of a view that standards and goals are necessary for education. Way back in 1983, when Terrel Bell was Secretary of Education, there was a report about the crisis of education in America. It may be that we can remove further Federal limitations and Federal restraints within the Goals 2000 bill, but I strongly believe that we need to have goals. The goals which are present are voluntary. The States may put on their own goals if they choose to do so. That is entirely within the discretion of the State. But education is an enormous problem in America. If we really had a generation of educated Americans, it would go to the cure of many of our very basic problems: Problems of teenage pregnancy, problems of welfare, problems of crime, problems of job training. It would all be surmounted if we had adequate education. I believe that Goals 2000, first adopted under a Republican President, President Bush, carried forward in this administration, is very, very important for America. This is not the time to get into extensive debate, but I look forward to an opportunity to discuss this at an appropriate time with my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma. Mr. President, how much time remains?

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of other Senators in the Chamber to debate the motion to proceed, and I know my colleagues will be arriving shortly, I think it appropriate to take a few minutes to comment on a historic ceremony which will take place at the White House at 12 noon today when the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization are scheduled to sign a historic agreement. I well recall the day, a little over 2 years ago, 2 years and 15 days ago, on September 13, 1993, when Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the initial agreement. I must say that was a difficult day for me personally to watch Yasser Arafat honored at the White House after the long record of terrorism in which the PLO had engaged, including being implicated in the murder of the charge d'affaires at the United States embassy in the Sudan in 1974, the No. 2 United States official in that country, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the death of Mr. Klinghoffer, and many other acts of terrorism. It seemed to me, as I think it did to most other Americans, that if Israel--the prime victim of the terrorist attacks by the PLO--through its leaders, Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Peres, were willing to shake hands with Yasser Arafat under those circumstances, that the United States should do what it could to facilitate the peace process. That is in deference to the leaders of that sovereign state. I also recall when a letter was circulated on the floor of the U.S. Senate criticizing then Prime Minister Shamir for refusing to give land for peace. I was one who refused to sign that document on the proposition that U.S. Senators thousands of miles away from turmoil ought not to try to influence, let alone dictate, policies to the leaders of other sovereign states under those circumstances. Now, after very protracted negotiations, we have Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Peres and Chairman Arafat coming to the White House today to sign this historic agreement. During the course of the past several weeks, Senator Hank Brown of Colorado and I have had occasion to travel, including a trip to the Mideast to talk to the leaders of the nations there. After being there, Mr. President, I have a sense of guarded optimism about the future of peace in the Mideast. I have traveled into that region extensively, going back to my first trip there in 1964. I do have very substantial reservations as to the adequacy of the PLO, the Palestinian response, and the response of Yasser Arafat to eliminate terrorism in the area. Last year, Senator Shelby and I introduced an amendment to the foreign operations bill which would have cut off United States aid if the PLO and Chairman Arafat did not take steps to curtail terrorism, and also to amend the PLO charter to eliminate the provisions which called for the destruction of Israel. Frankly, Mr. President, I am not satisfied with what Chairman Arafat has done in either regard. There has been the explanation, really an excuse, that they could not amend the charter because there was not a convening Palestinian authority at that time. Also, Chairman Arafat has said that he has taken certain action to declare those provisions null and void, but I think realistically much more could have been done. Similarly, on the critical issue of stopping terrorism, I think a great deal more could have been done by Chairman Arafat on that important aspect. Senator Brown and I had an opportunity to meet with Chairman Arafat, and we asked him those questions very directly. We asked him why he did not do more to control Hamas, why he did not turn over individuals in the Palestinian group who were suspected of murder. [[Page S 14434]] When we went over a detailed list, for each one there was an explanation, really an excuse. Some of the acts of terrorism or murder occurred before the agreement was signed; in other cases, the appropriate Israeli officials had not filed the cases; in other cases, the papers were not precise. We challenged Chairman Arafat on why he made speeches condemning terrorism in English and not in Arabic, and although it is plain he has made the speeches in English and not in Arabic, he said his English was not good and made the contention that he had, in fact, made the speeches in Arabic. He continues to make speeches which poison the atmosphere in which both parties seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict. When pressed as to why he did not do more to control Hamas, he made an explanation that he himself was under threat of assassination from the Hamas who are in part directed from Syria. Later in the conversation we discussed the Syrian Government and President Assad of Syria. Chairman Arafat said President Assad was a good friend of his, which led to the inevitable question: How could threats of terror and assassination come from the Hamas in Syria, when President Assad was a good friend? And Chairman Arafat, in an effort to smile, said, ``Well, that's his style,'' confirming the great difficulties which are present in the Mideast. Mr. President, I would like to make some additional comments about the historic meeting which is scheduled in less than an hour at the White House where a very significant agreement will be signed between the State of Israel and the Palestinians, the PLO. I had commented earlier about a trip which Senator Brown and I had made recently, including a stop in the Mideast. I have been a student of the issues there for many years, having made my first trip there in 1964, and in the last almost 15 years I have been a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations and have done considerable work there and am cautiously optimistic about the prospects for peace in the Mideast. It is a matter of grave concern, however, to note the continuous, horrible terrorist attacks on Israel which have been maintained, notwithstanding efforts of the Israeli Government to stop them and the pressure which the United States Government has tried to apply to Chairman Yasser Arafat and the PLO to contain those terrorist attacks. Last year, Senator Shelby and I offered an amendment, which was adopted, which conditioned United States aid to the Palestinians on the PLO making every conceivable effort to stop the terrorist attacks and also for the PLO to take out the language from the PLO charter calling for the destruction of Israel. I considered renewing that kind of an issue in the legislation which was recently passed in the foreign aid bill and decided not to press the matter at this time when the negotiations were so sensitive and so near agreement. But it is with considerable reservation that I see U.S. aid going forward. There are conditions that exist in law which call upon Chairman Arafat and the PLO to do their utmost to stop terrorist attacks. Nobody can ask them to be a guarantor or with absolute certainty to stop those terrorist attacks, but it is an issue as to whether they are making their maximum effort. Frankly, I have doubts about this. To reiterate my earlier remarks, when Senator Brown and I were in Israel, we visited with Chairman Arafat in the Gaza and asked him a number of very direct, pointed questions. First, on the subject as to why he spoke in English and not in Arabic when he was denouncing terrorism. Chairman Arafat denied that he always spoke in English and said that his English was not good and said that he had spoken in Arabic. We then challenged him on a number of alleged murderers who were being protected by the PLO, as to why they were not turned over to Israel. Chairman Arafat then deferred to one of his subordinates who raised one explanation, really, one excuse after another saying that some of the incidents had occurred prior to the time the agreement was signed and some the Israeli Government had not made the proper demands, the proper papers were not filed. But it seems to me, Mr. President, that Chairman Arafat could do a great deal more than he is doing at the present time to restrain terrorism. I believe that the U.S. Congress, certainly the executive branch but also the Congress, must be alert on this very, very important issue. On the issue about pressing Chairman Arafat about stopping terrorism for the Hamas, Chairman Arafat responded the Hamas had even threatened his life coming out of Syria or coming out of Iran. He later said that President Assad was a good friend, which led to the obvious question about how a good friend would be tolerating the Hamas which made threats on Arafat's life. Arafat said, well, that is President Assad, hardly an understandable explanation. Also as part of our trip, Senator Brown and I visited other countries, and wherever we went, we were struck with the greatest respect and admiration that the United States has held all around the world. There is enormous prestige, there is enormous power, there is enormous good will for the United States to be an intermediary and a broker for peace. When Senator Brown and I were in India, for example, we talked to Prime Minister Rao, who said that he would like to see the subcontinent nuclear free in the next 10 to 15 years. The next day, I talked to President Benazir Bhutto and told her of the Indian Prime Minister's statement. She said, ``Do you have it in writing?'' She was very surprised. We then wrote to the President telling him of our conversations and suggesting that he take the initiative to try to broker a peace between those two nations, where there is such enormous hostility. I compliment President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher for their leadership, which has been instrumental in bringing about the agreement which is scheduled to be signed within the hour at the White House and for their efforts and success in the agreement which was signed back on September 13, 1993. And I do believe that an activist President, who really exerted leadership on a worldwide basis, could do a great deal around the world, as, for example, in bringing the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan together. I see that my distinguished colleague, Senator Nickles, has come to the floor. I shall conclude, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a text of my report on the foreign travels, some of which I have commented about this morning, be printed in full in the Congressional Record.