Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. May I have 1 additional minute?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is very interesting but not a response to my question. And with 10 minutes I cannot engage in a dialog with the Senator from Texas. I submit to the body that under the standards articulated by the Senator from Texas in the Adarand case, his amendment must fail because where there is a preference based on action by the Government, or where there is a preference based where a previous court order has not been complied with, that is satisfied under Adarand. And Justice O'Connor goes on to point out that in the Paradise Case, United States versus Paradise, in 1987, every Justice of this Court-- that would include Justice Scalia--agreed that the Alabama Department of Public Safety's ``persuasive, systematic and obstinate discriminatory conduct'' justified the narrowly tailored race-based remedy. One of the difficulties, Mr. President, in considering a matter of this complexity within the confines of a 2-hour time limit is that it does not give nearly enough opportunity to go into depth on these very intricate issues. And I think it is worth noting that both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the majority leader of the U.S. Senate decided not to take up this complex question in this session until, as the Speaker put it, there could be other determinations made to help women and minority groups in America. The first notice I had of the amendment by the Senator from Texas was shortly before he presented it on the floor. It is a very, very complex matter, it is a very serious matter, and it is one really where the Senate cannot deal intelligently in the course of 2 hours of debate. My own view, Mr. President, is that it would be vastly preferable to deal with discrimination on an individualized basis, and that we really ought to have an EEOC which did not have a backlog of 100,000 cases. I am very much opposed to discrimination in any form, and that includes reverse discrimination, as the Supreme Court of the United States struck down reverse discrimination against white males in the Memphis firefighters case, when the layoff orders discriminatorily applied to white males. But there are situations where the unanimous Supreme Court has decided that where there has been a situation where the Court has ordered a remedy, and it has been disregarded, or when there is State action such as the activity of the Alabama State Police, that a remedy is required and a remedy is entirely in order. The comments by Justice O'Connor, it should be noted, were concurred in by Chief Justice Rehnquist and by Justice Anthony Kennedy. And it is a very important fact, as noted by the Court, that the persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of race discrimination against minority groups in this country constitute an unfortunate reality, and Government is not disqualified from acting in response to it. I must say, Mr. President, that on short order, the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington cannot really be considered appropriately, and at sufficient length either. But it is my hope that this body does not act summarily and hastily in an effort to deal with the very important point involved here. In the last few seconds that I have, let me ask the Senator from Texas one further question as to whether he would agree that a preference based on race would be justified in the case of United States versus Paradise, where, as noted, the Alabama Department of Public Safety had a pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory conduct by consistently refusing to hire any African American, which a unanimous Court, including Justice Scalia, said justified the narrow race-based remedy, whether the Senator from Texas would agree that that is proper, and that it is not within the confines of his amendment but in fact would be prohibited on the face of his amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. On my time, then, I ask the Senator from Texas this question. He makes the comment that his amendment is consistent with Adarand, and said further that it would have to be. I will call the attention of the Senator from Texas to the opinion of Justice O'Connor, saying, The unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality and Government is not disqualified from acting in response to it. Then, Justice O'Connor goes on to say, When race-based action is necessary to further a compelling interest, such action is within constitutional constraints if it satisfies the ``narrow tailoring'' test set out in this Court's previous cases. Well, the first question would be: Having stated that the Senator from Texas agrees with Adarand, then would the Senator from Texas not agree with what Justice O'Connor has said, that a race-based preference is appropriate when it is narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling State interest? Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may ask the Senator from Texas a question on my time?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the chair. I will not object.

Mr. SPECTER. As I understand it, there is 1 hour on each side.

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object. I would like the stipulation added to give this Senator 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Perhaps I can inquire of the Senator from Washington if I might have 10 minutes on your side?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered so that the Senate will have an opportunity to articulate a forceful condemnation of the war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed by all sides in the conflict in the Balkans, particularly the Bosnian Serbs, so that the Senate will have an opportunity in the final analysis to condemn the policies and actions of the Bosnian Serb President, Radovan Karadzic, and the Bosnian Serb military commander, Ratko Mladic, and urge the special prosecutor in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to expedite the review of evidence for their indictment for such crimes. I had spoken on this subject generally on Tuesday evening following the introduction of the resolution by our distinguished majority leader calling for lifting the arms embargo so that the Bosnian Moslems may have an opportunity to defend themselves. I support the action of the majority leader in urging the adoption of that resolution. It seems to me that the mission of the U.N. forces in Bosnia has been a mission impossible when they are charged to keep the peace when there is no peace to keep. U.N. forces ought to be withdrawn so that they can no longer be held hostage and so that then the Bosnian Moslems may have an opportunity to defend themselves under article 51 of the U.N. Charter, and that there may be appropriate help from the United Nations, NATO, and the United States by way of massive airstrikes. But there has not been a condemnation of the action of the Bosnian Serbs by this body, and I think that is very important. The conduct of the Bosnian Serbs has been on a level of brutality and inhumanity which has been virtually unparalleled at least since World War II, and the nations of the world have stood by and have watched these atrocities and ethnic cleansing go on without a denunciation of this kind of conduct. Hopefully, the International Criminal Tribunal will ultimately bring to justice all of those involved up to and including the highest levels. While the Western democracies articulate values of decency and humanity, we have sat back and have watched this atrocious conduct unfold. There is little left of dignity and honor or basic human dignity in what has gone on in Bosnia, and at the very minimum this conduct ought to be condemned in the most forceful possible terms, which is what this resolution calls for. I have introduced it for that purpose and to speak briefly on some of the underlying factors. I have told the managers of the bill that I would not insist on a rollcall. There is no reason to take an additional 20 minutes of the Senate's time to have what would most probably be a unanimous vote. However, these are matters which ought to be called to the attention of the American people and the people of the world as forcefully as possible. It is my hope that the President of the United States will speak out on this subject, and that the President of the United States will use the forcefulness of the bully pulpit of the White House to acquaint the American people with what is occurring. We have seen confirmed reports of the Bosnian Serbs rounding up young men, 11 and 12 years of age, and slitting their throats and placing them in heaps. We have seen the photographs in the public press of young Moslem women from Bosnia going into the fields and hanging themselves because that kind of suicide is preferable to the kind of brutality which is being inflicted by the Bosnian Serbs. We have seen the active reports from the safe havens of the United Nations which have been invaded by the Bosnian Serbs, taking away elderly women, taking away elderly men, committing the most atrocious kind of conduct. I am not going to take a great deal of time here today, with the pendency of the other legislation. But I would cite just a couple of examples which are illustrative: The Bosnian Serbs going to a Moslem victim and cutting off two fingers of each victim's hand so as to make the sign of the cross; and then they cut the prisoner's nose and ears off; and finally cut their throats, causing death. Another example, a woman hiding in a barn with her husband and two young daughters, ages 13 and 7. Five Chetniks, Serbian paramilitaries, find them, beckon the father over, and in the sight of his two young daughters and wife, brutally murder him with a gun without his having uttered a word. In the presence of an elderly woman, the husband is accosted by Bosnian Serbs, as they were fleeing, slicing his throat right in front of her, causing death. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that examples be admitted into the Record, without going through them in detail at this moment which chronicles and specifies the kinds of blatant atrocities which are being perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs.

Mr. SPECTER. A summary, Mr. President, was contained in the final report of the Commission of Experts to Investigate War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia. That report specifies the existence of some 150 mass graves containing between 5,000 and 3,000 bodies each, and 700 detention facilities where up to 300,000 persons were imprisoned, murdered, tortured, and raped; with tortures estimated at some 50,000, and rapes estimated at some 20,000. And I will further call attention, Mr. President, to the fact that in the proceedings in the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, that Bosnian Serb commanders are being held responsible for atrocities. In the case of two of the commanders, they were held responsible for the acts of their subordinates, which gives rise to an expectation that officials at the highest level may be held responsible in the International Criminal Tribunal. Mr. President, it is a difficult matter as to how far the United States and NATO can go in assisting the Bosnian Moslems. I have said on this floor that I am opposed to the use of ground forces in that arena. It is an open question as to whether other support can be given, such as heavy bombing, which could perhaps bring about a balance of power between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Moslems, giving the Bosnian Moslems an opportunity to defend themselves. But there are a wide range of options. I believe that if the people of this country understood the intensity of the barbarism which is going on, when you have acts like cutting off ears and cutting off noses, slicing the throats of young boys, and have the brutal conduct leading young women to hang themselves rather than be subjected to the atrocities from the Bosnian Serbs, there might well be a different public reaction. And there might well be a different leadership reaction if the President would speak out to the Nation as a whole, using the force of his bully pulpit. Some people watch C-SPAN 2 and some people hear and see what we are doing. But it is too hard for people to follow the atrocities that are occurring, too hard for people to follow the fine print in all the newspapers to see exactly what is going on. But if the people of America were aware of what is going on, I think there would be widespread public outrage, just as outrage has been expressed by this Senator and others on this Senate floor. So it is minimal, but I think the least that we can do, to express our outrage and to have the voice of the Senate speak out in condemning the action of the Bosnian Serbs, condemning the action of the Serbian President Radovan Karadzic and the Serbian military leader Slobodan Milosevic, and asking the special prosecutor of the tribunal to review the issue of indictment, that if we will not act directly in a military sense, that at least we will put those people on notice that what they are doing will not be ignored, and will be subject for criminal prosecution at a later date, by analogy to the Nuremberg war trials. The day of reckoning may come, and those leaders and all those that can be identified will face the death penalty in a court of law for their acts of brutality in Bosnia today. I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask that it be modified to be put in the form of an amendment to the pending bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when we see a photograph of a young woman who has hanged herself in a forest in Bosnia, because she prefers death to the kind of violations which the Bosnian Serbs are inflicting on young women like herself who are Bosnian Moslems; and where we see confirmed reports where the Bosnian Serbs walk into safe havens and root out 11-year-old children who are males, and slit their throats and pile them in heaps; and when we see documents filed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia where the indictments read--horrifying prose--about torture and sexual mutilation, in which a prisoner is forced to ``bite off the prisoner's testicle,'' resulting in his death; as horrible as these events are to recite, they are minuscule compared to the horror of what is going on in Bosnia today, and the acts of savagery, brutality, and atrocities being committed by the Bosnian Serbs on the Bosnian Moslems. The words ``ethnic cleansing'' hardly begin to describe what is going on in that atrocious situation. Meanwhile, the democracies of the world, the West, have permitted this atrocious situation to continue. I believe that the time has long passed when there has to be a change in United States policy on how we deal with Bosnia. The time has long passed when there has to be a change in NATO policy on how we deal with Bosnia. And the time has long passed when there has to be a change in U.N. policy, on how we deal with Bosnia. I believe that the resolution offered tonight is a minimal step forward to try to implement a new policy which is urgently required. It is a minimal step to lift the arms embargo, to let the Bosnian Moslems defend themselves, as they have every right to do under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Action by the Senate, by the Congress, by the Government of the United States--depending upon what happens here in the House, the President's reaction, the veto, a possible override or perhaps the impetus of a strong statement by the U.S. Senate--will cause a marked change in U.S. policy and what has to be U.S. leadership. There has been a vacuum in U.S. leadership and I think that is conceded on all sides. It is not a political matter. Republicans were critical of President Bush for the arms embargo. The Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, has been critical of the President, of his own party. Senator Kerrey, of Nebraska, who is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee which I chair, has been critical of his own President and is quoted, ``The President's leadership has been awful. He campaigned criticizing President George Bush for not doing enough and [[Page S 10238]] implied that we were going to take the side of the Bosnian Moslems.'' I ask unanimous consent that this newsclip be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. So we are not talking about a matter that is political. The reality is that our President is inexperienced and inattentive and indecisive and ineffective. It is time that leadership came from the United States Senate, as this body had to start the leadership to get the United States forces out of Somalia when we passed a resolution cutting off the funds, as we have the authority to do under our appropriations power. I submit that leadership by the U.S. Senate may well have the effect of profoundly changing, not only U.S. policy but NATO policy and U.N. policy as well. U.N. peacekeepers have had a ``Mission Impossible'' in Bosnia, because there is no peace to keep. I submit the U.N. peacekeepers ought to be withdrawn. That is indispensable before the arms embargo is lifted, so that the UN peacekeepers are out of harm's way. That would then put us in a position to have an option of massive bombing. There are arguments both ways, as to whether the bombing would be sufficient. There is a substantial basis for saying if the bombing were sufficiently intense and if the Bosnian Moslems were armed, that a balance of power could be restored there. We subjected Baghdad to relentless bombing during the gulf war, for months in advance of the invasion. A question is raised as to whether there ought to be consideration to retaliating against the cities of the Bosnian Serbs. I am not prepared to answer that question. That issue has been raised, as to whether the doctrine of proportionality makes any sense when the only reaction to the attacks of the Bosnian Serbs is a proportional counterattack. That leaves them to call the shots at every turn, because, under the doctrine of proportionality, which has been adopted by the United Nations, the Bosnian Serbs are not at risk. And there is a real question as to whether that policy ought to be abandoned. Then you have the dual key issue, where every decision has to be approved by the United Nations and NATO. There is very strong reason to believe that the decisions ought not to be made by the United Nations from their record up to the present time. You have the courageous leadership of the French President, Chirac, who says he is prepared to act and he is prepared to take some forceful steps. He asks for support from the United States, with helicopters, for some air cover. I am not sure whether that is a wise course, but that is a request which ought to be considered. I am opposed to United States participation in a ground war in Bosnia. I do not think we should lend U.S. troops to any such effort. But in terms of air strikes, which are not entirely without risk as we know--one pilot, Captain O'Grady, was downed there--helicopters may or may not be committed. There are also risks involved. But it is something which ought to be considered. I believe, Mr. President, if we have forceful leadership coming from the United States--and when I say ``Mr. President,'' those who may be watching on C-SPAN2 should know that is our formal way of addressing the Presiding Officer of this body, not the President of the United States--but, if the Senate takes a forceful stand, that could have an impact on leading President Clinton to change his position and it may well be with leadership which comes out of the U.S. Senate that we will change the policy of President Clinton and together we can change the policy of NATO. We can change the policy of the United Nations. We can change the policy of France and Britain, if we undertake what French President Chirac has wanted to accomplish. Mr. President, when we see the genocide and the atrocities that are going on in Bosnia, we really wonder about America's response in another era. I recall vividly my father recounting his experiences as an American doughboy in the American Expeditionary Force in France in World War I. My father came to this country from Russia to escape the czar's heel. He was not willing to go to Siberia to fight for the czar. But he was ready, willing, able, and really anxious to go to France to fight for America, as he put it, as I remember hearing him talk about it growing up, ``to make the world safe for democracy.'' I know my brother and brother-in-law served in World War II against the scourge of the Nazis and the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor. And I served stateside during the Korean war. We have a different attitude today, Mr. President, in the United States, as to the extent we are willing to stand up for honor and for values and to stop the kind of atrocities which are going on in Bosnia. But I do believe that the entire policy of the Clinton administration needs reevaluation from top to bottom, and the resolution which is pending right now, to lift the arms embargo, is a step in the right direction. I hope that this will start a debate in the United States Senate so that we can consider the very serious questions which are in issue here, and we can consider the values of the United States, which we so proudly proclaim, and consider acting upon those values and supporting them when we see the kind of atrocities which are going on in Bosnia. And we know the values articulated by the NATO alliance, and we know the values articulated by the United Nations. And it is time we put some action behind those words. The first step on the action is a step to unilaterally lift the arms embargo. If we move ahead with consultation--and it will take some time--and there is a real question as to whether there would be sufficient votes to pass the resolution and a greater question as to whether there would be sufficient votes to override a Presidential veto, perhaps we will find that we can change the policy of the United Nations and that we will end up acting in concert with France, Great Britain, and the other NATO powers. But there is a very important issue, Mr. President, which we cannot duck any longer. I am glad to see the resolution offered because I think it is time we took a look at what is going on in Bosnia and look in the mirror to see how we feel about the kinds of values we articulate and the kinds of actions we are prepared to back up. It is a matter which cries out for leadership. But it is a very difficult matter because of the obvious reluctance and reticence of anyone to see ground troops deployed in Bosnia or to see any casualties inflicted on American fighting men and women. But these are issues which need to be considered. And the American people need to know what is going on there so there can be a public reaction to the kinds of atrocities which are going on--where young women are hanging themselves rather than to be subjected to the atrocities of the Bosnian Serbs and lads taken out in great numbers and having their throats slit apparently so that they will not grow into another generation to pose some theoretical problem for the Serbs; to have the ethnic cleansing, and to have an entire genocide of an entire people. So I support the pending resolution. Exhibit 1 Kerrey Criticizes the President (By David C. Beeder) Washington.--Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., accused President Clinton Tuesday of a lack of leadership in Bosnia's civil war. ``The president's leadership has been awful,'' Kerrey said in an interview. ``He campaigned criticizing (President George) Bush for not doing enough and implied we were going to take the side of the Bosnian Muslims.'' Since then, Kerrey said, Clinton has been ``sending a message that's pretty strong that the cavalry is coming up over the hill.'' In a press conference later, Kerrey said Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., ``is closer to being right'' with his plan to disregard a U.N. arms embargo that has handicapped the Bosnian government. Kerrey said he could support such a plan if it required other countries' approval and if it first called for withdrawal of all U.N. peacekeepers. At the same time, Kerrey said, the United States must be ``careful not to respond emotionally to scenes of violence and atrocities'' against one side or the other in the civil war, saying the conflict did not consist of ``a single issue where the Muslims are right and the Serbs are wrong.'' Kerrey's fellow Nebraska senator, Democrat J.J. Exon, urged caution in responding to events in Bosnia. [[Page S 10239]] ``With all the atrocities that are taking place over there, there is a tendency to come unglued,'' he said. Exon said he was concerned about a request that the United States send helicopters into combat zones to deliver U.N. reinforcement troops. ``The more people they put in there the more difficult it will be to extricate them,'' Exon said, noting that Clinton has pledged to send U.S. ground troops to help if the U.N. decides it must withdraw from Bosnia. Exon said he has always opposed sending U.S. ground troops.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as the last Republican Senator on the floor, I have been asked to proceed with the closing of the body. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9 a.m. on tomorrow, Wednesday, July 19; that, following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 9:30, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each; and, further, that the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 21, the Bosnia legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate--and I note the absence of any other Senator on the floor--I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the Bosnia legislation and the pending Dole substitute amendment. All Members should, therefore, be aware that rollcall votes may occur throughout Wednesday's session of the Senate. Also, under the provisions of the prior consent agreement, the majority leader may return to the consideration of the regulatory reform bill by a call for the regular order. Therefore, rollcall votes may occur on that legislation as well, including a third cloture vote on the Dole- Johnston substitute amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have just received a release from the Federal Bureau of Investigation advising that the FBI Director is transferring Mr. Larry A. Potts from the position of Deputy Director to a position within the FBI's training division. I have just had an opportunity to discuss this briefly with FBI Director Louis Freeh. I think that this is a very wise move in light of all of the developments on the Ruby Ridge incident, especially the most recent disclosure of this week that documents were destroyed by one of the FBI agents who was involved in the Ruby Ridge incident. There is a very substantial question, Mr. President, about what was done at Ruby Ridge with respect to the use of deadly force and also with respect to the rules of engagement with Special Agent Glenn, the special agent in charge at the present time of the Salt Lake City office having been at the scene, saying that there had been changes in the rules of engagement, and Mr. Potts having said that there was no change in the rules of engagement and no change on the use of deadly force. That is a matter of considerable importance. Also, disclosed in the Washington Post yesterday was the task force report of the Department of Justice, indicating that there was excessive force used within the definition of constitutional parameters, and also with the task force exposure as printed in the Washington Post yesterday about the recommendation for consideration of prosecutions, which was rejected by the Department of Justice. I have raised the issue of the promotion of Mr. Potts with Attorney General Janet Reno when she testified recently at general oversight hearings before the Judiciary Committee, and had raised the issue as to why Mr. Potts was promoted in light of the outstanding questions about Ruby Ridge. The Attorney General was further questioned about the possibility of a criminal prosecution by the prosecuting attorney of Boundary County, ID, of an official whom I talked to had made comments on the Senate floor some time ago. Attorney General Reno said she would not speculate about what local law enforcement would do and was not going to get involved in any way in hindering local law enforcement which was hardly responsive to my question as to why there was a promotion, in light of these issues which were very much in the public domain. Mr. President, it is my hope that there will yet be oversight hearings by the Senate. I made an extensive statement about this yesterday, calling for those hearings and, in fact, had pressed the issue in a resolution calling for a Senate vote in May, understanding full well that it was highly unlikely to be accepted, considering the prerogatives of chairmen under our Senate procedures. I think it continues to be a matter of the utmost importance. We have had an enormous growth of the militia, as I commented on more extensively yesterday. I can understand and sympathize with people in the United States who are unhappy with what is going on in Government because of the need to hold people accountable at the highest levels. I think with the reassignment of Mr. Potts today, it has extra emphasis on the need for hearings. Mr. Potts, for one, is entitled to his day in court or his time to have a hearing to see precisely what it was that he did. There is a cloud hanging over Mr. Potts at this time. There is a cloud hanging over the FBI and a cloud hanging over the Department of Justice, as long as these questions remain unanswered. It is the responsibility of the Congress of the United States to have oversight hearings. We are the proper institution to undertake those hearings, and I renew my request that these hearings be held at the earliest possible time. I note that the Presiding Officer, the senior Senator from Idaho nodding. I will not make any interpretation from his nods of the head, but I do think this is a matter of great importance. And the reassignment of Mr. Potts today underscores the necessity for prompt hearings on this important matter. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would now like to take the few minutes remaining before morning business expires, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor, to comment on the passing of a great American, Francis J. Bagnell, commonly known as ``Reg'' Bagnell, who, as we speak, is having memorial funeral services conducted in the Philadelphia suburbs. Reg Bagnell has been an outstanding figure in the Philadelphia area in Pennsylvania and in America as a contributor to important causes. He achieved legendary fame as a young football player at the University of Pennsylvania in the fall of 1946. Reg Bagnell and I were classmates at the University of Pennsylvania in 1951. And I was one of those who sat in the stands and admired his prowess. He weighed about 160 pounds and played tailback. On the old single wing on one glorious autumn day in 1946, he threw 14 consecutive passes against Dartmouth. And he followed his all-American status by being an all-American contributor to the American scene. And I thought it appropriate to take just a few moments to recognize Reg Bagnell's great contribution, not only as an athlete but as a community activist and as a great American. I see it is now 10:45, Mr. President, the time to adjourn morning business, so I conclude and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought this special order for recognition this morning to renew my urging that the Senate conduct oversight hearings into the incident at Ruby Ridge, a subject that I have spoken on at length on the Senate floor--on May 9, 10, 11, 18 and 26--and on those occasions urged that hearings be conducted before the August recess because of what I view to be the urgency of the situation. I renew that request in light of the release by the Federal Bureau of Investigation yesterday, and the extensive publicity in the news media today, reporting on the suspension of a ranking FBI agent involved in the Ruby Ridge incident, the suspension occurring ``after authorities allege that he destroyed a document that could have altered the official account of what happened at the standoff on August 22, 1992.'' Mr. President, it has been my judgment for some considerable period of time that the Congress has been derelict in failing to have oversight hearings on very serious matters involving Federal law enforcement operations in the United States, and that it is up to the Congress as a matter of congressional oversight to make sure that there is accountability at all levels of the Federal Government. I have considered very carefully the very heavy responsibility of law enforcement officials, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and others, agencies that I have worked with extensively over my whole career of public service--since I was district attorney of Philadelphia--and have a full appreciation of the very high risks that law enforcement officers at all levels undertake. But there is great concern in America today about excessive Federal authority, and about the incidents which have occurred not only at Waco but also at Ruby Ridge. This is in line with the concern in this country, which is as old as the Declaration of Independence itself, in challenging the legitimacy of government. That brought the revolution and the founding of the United States of America. Our history is full of challenges to be sure that the Bill of Rights is respected. It is no coincidence that the United States has had the longest record in world history for stable government, no coincidence that record is the result of having a Bill of Rights which has been meticulously enforced, and one of the agencies of enforcement is the constitutional prerogative and responsibility of the Congress of the United States to conduct oversight. Mr. President, it is a matter of the utmost gravity when there are allegations that there has been the destruction of a document which could shed light on what happened at Ruby Ridge, and this is only another step along the way on matters which already were in the public record suggesting substantial impropriety. In my statement on the Senate floor on May 26, I referred to a letter from FBI Special Agent Eugene Glenn, who was on the scene at Ruby Ridge, and who was disciplined, and Mr. Glenn had this to say on page 6 of an extensive letter which he wrote to Mr. Michael Shaheen of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility: On August 22, 1992, then Assistant Director Potts advised during a telephonic conversation with the special agent in charge that he had approved the rules of engagement and that he articulated his reasons for his adjustments to the Bureau standard shooting policy. At that time, I called the attention of my colleagues to the fact that in my personal conversation with Mr. Potts on May 17, he said to me categorically, ``There was never a change in the rules of engagement.'' And Mr. Potts advised me further that there was ``no authorization to change the deadly force policy.'' Mr. President, as I have said previously in this Chamber, I have talked extensively to people who have participated, been involved in the incident at Ruby Ridge. I talked to Mr. Randy Weaver at some length back on May 13, 1995, and got his account of what was truly a tragic incident which resulted in the killing of a deputy U.S. marshal, the killing of Mr. Weaver's young son, Sam, who was shot in the back, and the killing of Mr. Weaver's wife, who was holding their infant daughter. The entire incident involving Mr. Weaver occurred, according to Mr. Weaver, when he was approached by agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms asking if he could sell them sawed-off shotguns, which apparently he later did in a context where a court found it to be entrapment. I questioned Mr. John Magaw, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and he conceded to me that there was what he called borderline entrapment in the Weaver case. So that you have a sequence of events of Mr. Weaver living in Boundary County, ID, right next to the Canadian border, really wanting to be left alone, an incident with this issue of entrapment, and later the marshals coming to the premises of the Weaver household. And then you have an incident, tragic, the killing of a deputy U.S. marshal, two members of the Weaver family, and then a dispute as to whether the FBI acted properly under the rules of engagement; and then yesterday the disclosure that in fact there had been some indication of further wrongdoing. This is a matter, Mr. President, in which it seems to me it is imperative that the Congress of the United States exercise its oversight responsibilities. We have had on the record for some time glaring conflicts which need to be investigated, inquired into by the Congress--the disparity between Special Agent Glenn, who is in charge of the FBI office in Salt Lake City, and the account of Mr. Potts, who has since been promoted to the position of Deputy Director of the FBI. As noted in this morning's Washington Post: Last year, a Justice Department task force sharply criticized the FBI action during the incident. Referring to Ruby Ridge. The task force concluded that the Bureau's conduct ``contravened the Constitution'' and that criminal charges should be considered against the responsible agents. The task force report was forwarded for comment to the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and the Civil Rights Division. Those offices in their evaluations held that no criminal conduct took place. Now, Mr. President, I submit that in the context of a task force report saying the Constitution has been violated and suggesting criminal prosecution, and a disagreement within the Department of Justice itself, that we have is the quintessential circumstance where the Congress of the United States has oversight responsibilities. And yet we sit by idly and do nothing. I have said on the Senate floor that in my judgment Congress has been derelict in its duties. I think it is a matter of nonfeasance, the failure to perform a positive obligation and a positive duty. And for the Congress, the Senate, the Judiciary Committee to continue to turn its back would amount to more than nonfeasance, perhaps misfeasance, perhaps malfeasance. There is great unrest in America today, Mr. President, as we all know, with the development of extensive militia around the country and a vivid, active distrust for what goes on in Washington. I can understand that distrust in the face of what I see personally as a Member of the Senate and as a Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I not only understand that distrust and skepticism, but I share it in the absence of any oversight having been undertaken by the Congress, the Senate, and the Judiciary Committee on these important matters. I made an effort to hold these hearings with the Subcommittee on Terrorism, the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over these matters, and I was thwarted in that attempt to do so. And I took the highly unusual step of bringing the matter to the floor of the Senate in a resolution calling for hearings on Ruby Ridge, among other things, in advance of the August 4 recess. I had no doubt, Mr. President, no naivete that that resolution was not going to be adopted in the face of our standards as to prerogatives of chairmen, but it seemed to me sufficiently serious to bring it to the floor of the Senate and to bring it to a head. In my capacity as chairman of the Terrorism Subcommittee, I have had a [[Page S 9834]] series of hearings, four hearings on the subject, one of which involved the militia where law enforcement officials from the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the State police chief from Missouri, and prosecuting attorneys from Phoenix, AZ, and Musselshell County, MT, came forward and testified about the dangers of the militia and at the same time, same hearing, a second panel testified about the reasons why the militia are growing in the United States, members of the militia talking about the distrust of what goes on in Washington, accusing the committee, accusing the Senate, accusing this Senator of corruption, and a very heated exchange followed in which I did not take that accusation lightly. And I do not. But I must say, Mr. President, that I worry about our country when this kind of information is open and notorious and there is no response from this body, from the Judiciary Committee, to have these oversight hearings. I think that when you now have, beyond the issues which I have raised, where you now have the lead story in this morning's Washington Post, under the banner headline, ``Probe of FBI's Idaho Siege Reopened,'' detailing the destruction of documents on top of the contradictions and problems in this investigation, that this is highly likely to produce the kind of public pressure which it appears is the only way to get any results on a matter of this sort. Mr. President, I think it is a matter of the utmost gravity and the utmost seriousness, and we sit really on a powder keg with a lot of distrust and anxiety and anger welling up across the country as to excessive action by the Federal Government. Accountability at the highest levels is absolutely mandated, and it is the responsibility of the Congress and the Senate and the Judiciary Committee to conduct these oversight hearings and, in addition to having discussed these matters privately with the appropriate authorities within our own body, I think it absolutely necessary to make the statement as forcefully as I can to urge that these hearings be conducted, conducted promptly and, in any event, before we adjourn for the August recess.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.