Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a brief discussion with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the sponsor of this legislation. The city of Harrisburg owns and operates a municipally financed resource recovery facility that was originally constructed in 1972. Harrisburg has issued $40 million in outstanding revenue bonds and has had a flow control ordinance in place for several years. The facility is required, however, to undergo a substantial retrofit pursuant to the Clean Air Act, which will necessitate the issuance of an additional $150 million in bonds and a previously flow controlled to the Harrisburg facility. It would appear to me that the existence of outstanding bonds and the unfunded mandate on Harrisburg under the Clean Air Act would justify the extension of flow control authority to the counties that would want to send waste to the Harrisburg facility in the future. Would the distinguished chairman be willing to look closely at this issue as this legislation goes forward?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has turned to this critical environmental issue and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995. Congress came very close to enacting similar legislation in 1994, and I am hopeful that we will achieve closure on the interstate waste and flow control issues shortly. I commend my colleagues John Chafee, Bob Smith, and Dan Coats for their dedicated effort in bringing this bill to the floor at this early date. It is high time that the largest trash exporting States bite the bullet and take substantial steps towards self-sufficiency for waste disposal. This legislation would provide much-needed relief to Pennsylvania, which is by far the largest importer of out-of-State waste in the Nation. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 3.9 million tons of out-of-State municipal solid waste entered Pennsylvania in 1993, and 4.3 million tons of out- of-state municipal solid waste entered Pennsylvania during 1994. Most of this trash came from other States in the Northeast; in 1994, New York and New Jersey were responsible for 3.8 million of the 4.3 million tons imported into Pennsylvania, representing 88 percent of the total. New York alone sent 2.3 million tons of municipal solid waste into Pennsylvania last year. This legislation would go a long way toward resolving the landfill problems facing Pennsylvania, Indiana, and similar waste importing States. I am personally familiar with the anxiety that the landfill crisis provokes in local communities. On several occasions, I have met with county officials, environmental groups, and residents of northeastern Pennsylvania to discuss the solid waste issue. I came away from those meetings impressed by the deep concerns expressed by the area's residents. Recognizing the recurrent problem of landfill capacity in Pennsylvania's 67 counties, since 1989 I have pushed to resolve the interstate waste crisis. In 1989 and 1991, I joined my late colleague, Senator John Heinz, to introduce the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments Act, which would have provided incentives for States to devise realistic long-term plans for handling solid waste disposal. I also supported the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Waste Act of 1992, which passed the Senate by an 89-2 vote in July, 1992. That bill would have allowed a Governor, at the request of a local government, to prohibit the disposal of out-of-State municipal waste in any landfill or incinerator within its jurisdiction. The House failed to take action on that bill, leaving it to this Congress to act on this issue. At the beginning of the 103d Congress, I joined Senator Coats in trying to build on our near success the previous year and joined 16 of our colleagues to introduce bipartisan interstate waste legislation (S. 439). That bill, which was introduced on February 25, 1993, was modeled on the waste legislation which had passed the Senate in July 1992 by an overwhelming margin. I was pleased that many of the concepts contained in the Coats-Specter bill were relied upon in S. 2345, the bill unanimously reported out by the Environment and Public Works Committee last August and again in the bill being considered by the Senate today. Last year's bill provided legal authority to every State to restrict out-of-State municipal solid waste and was approved in the Senate by voice vote on September 30, 1994. A modified version of that bill, which included both interstate and flow control provisions, was received by the Senate on the last day of the 103d Congress, but was not considered on the floor. On March 22, 1995, I joined Senator Coats and other colleagues in introducing S. 589, which parallels the Coats-Specter bill from the 103d Congress (S. 439). The legislation we are considering today builds upon the legislation that passed the Senate by voice vote in 1994 and the bills I have worked on with Senator Coats in 1993 and 1995. I am confident that S. 534 will empower States to deal with their solid waste more effectively because it would provide every State with significant new authority to restrict imports of out- of-State municipal solid waste. Some may wonder why there is a need for Federal legislation to empower States to restrict cross-border flows of garbage. Simply put, Pennsylvania and other States that were in the forefront of solid waste management have ended up as the dumping ground for States that have been unwilling to enact and enforce realistic long-term waste management plans. Although I am advised that these States are making some progress, some continue to ship increasing amounts of waste to Pennsylvania landfills. This legislation will lead to significant reductions in the amounts of out-of-State waste imported into Pennsylvania and other States. Let me explain how this will be accomplished. First, the legislation allows a Governor to unilaterally freeze out-of-State waste at 1993 levels at landfills and incinerators that received waste in 1993. In addition, an import State ratchet provides that a Governor may restrict waste imported from any one State in excess of 1.4 million tons in 1996, down to 550,000 tons in 2002 and thereafter. I was pleased that this provision has been carried over from last year's bill and is even more restrictive on out-of-State trash. This provision provides a concrete incentive for the largest exporting States to get a handle on their solid waste management immediately. It is important to note that title I of this legislation explicitly protects State contract law and protects host community agreements. It also authorizes restrictions on waste imported from Canada if doing so is found by the Mr. President, I am also pleased to support S. 534 because it contains provisions addressing the issue of waste flow control authority, an issue of vital importance to Pennsylvania's counties. During the 103d Congress, we encountered a new issue with respect to municipal solid waste--the issue of waste flow control authority. As a result, today we are also considering legislation which would restore local authority to control the flow of municipal solid waste. On May 16, 1994, the Supreme Court held--6-3--in Carbone versus Clarkstown that a flow control ordinance, which requires all solid waste to be processed at a designated waste management facility, violates the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. In striking down the Clarkstown ordinance, the Court stated that the ordinance discriminated against interstate commerce by allowing only the favored operator to process waste that is within the town's limits. As a result of the Court's decision, flow control ordinances in Pennsylvania and other States are considered unconsitiutional. Therefore, it is necessary for Congress to enact legislation providing clear authorization for local governments to utilize waste flow control. I have met with county commissioners who have made clear that this issue is vitally important to the local governments in Pennsylvania. As further evidence of the need for congressional action, I would note the numerous phone calls and letters my office has received from individual Pennsylvania counties and municipal solid waste authorities that support waste flow control legislation. The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania has pointed out that since 1988, flow control has been the primary tool used by 65 of the 67 Pennsylvania counties to enforce solid waste plans and meet waste reduction/ recycling goals or mandates. Many Pennsylvania jurisdictions have spent a considerable amount of public funds on disposal facilities, including upgraded sanitary landfills, state-of-the-art resources recovery facilities, and co-composting facilities. In the absence of flow control authority, many of these worthwhile projects could be jeopardized. There is also a very real concern that as a result of the Carbone decision, prompt congressional action is necessary to ensure that local communities may meet their debt service obligations related to the issuance of revenue bonds for the construction of their solid waste management facilities. I believe that this bill will protect the ability of municipalities to plan effectively for the management of their municipal solid waste while also guaranteeing that market forces will still provide opportunities for enterprising companies in the waste management industry. In conclusion, this legislation makes sense because in the absence of Federal legislation to empower States to restrict cross-border flows of waste, Pennsylvania and other States inevitably become dumping grounds for States that haven't shown the fortitude to enact realistic long- term waste management plans. Further, by restoring flow control authority, this legislation protects Pennsylvania and its component local jurisdictions, which have promulgated comprehensive solid waste management plans and established state-of-the-art facilities to handle waste generated within the Commonwealth. I yield the floor. amendment no. 869

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a vote has been scheduled at 6 o'clock by the managers on an amendment which has been offered by Senator Craig, Senator Grassley, Senator Brown, Senator Kempthorne, and myself which would establish a sense of the Senate that hearings should be held on Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX, on or before June 30. The purpose of the amendment is to set a date where there may be an inquiry by the full Judiciary Committee on those events because of the widespread reports of public unrest as to what occurred there. I have attempted to get a hearing on the Waco incident since mid- 1993. The incident there happened on April 19, 1993. It has always seemed to me that it is not sufficient to have the executive branch investigate itself when there is so much concern as to the propriety of the action which was taken there, with the assaults and with the rush and with the gases which were used. There have been numerous reports and there is very substantial evidence of public unrest on what has happened there. It is speculative to an extent, or it may not be speculative, as to a connection between the Oklahoma City the events at Waco, TX. The subcommittee has held a series of hearings and had planned to have an inquiry scheduled for April 18, and the full committee did convene on the first date which was set back on April 26. And I think it is entirely appropriate for the full committee to handle the matter as opposed to the terrorism subcommittee. But after having a series of hearings--we had our third hearing today--I am more convinced than ever that there is real public tension as to the events in Waco, TX, and Ruby Ridge, ID. I think it is just inappropriate for the Senate to wait an indefinite period of time. Senator Hatch has proposed that there be hearings in the near future, as he categorizes it, and has further articulated the near future to mean sometime in the current session, which would be at the end of the year. If there is unrest, and if there is a causal connection, or if there is any connection, however slight or however tenuous, between the incident at Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, I suggest it is our duty to proceed to clear the air to the maximum extent possible and to demonstrate that ranking public officials at whatever level will be held accountable. It seems to me this is something which is very important to do. In establishing the date of June 30, I would be prepared to be flexible until the August recess, to extend the time for another period until August 4, which would be acceptable from my point of view. There has been an issue raised as to the completion of the FBI investigation, and that certainly could be done by August 4. Mr. President, I think I will relax the language and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified so that the date August 4 would be inserted in place of the date June 30.

Mr. SPECTER. I do that, Mr. President, so that there may be a little more lead time as to the completion of the investigation by the FBI. I make that modification because of my discussion with the FBI Director that, as he put it, 8 to 10 weeks would give ample latitude for that to be completed. So I am prepared to move at that time. I think that it is important that a specific date be set so that there is an acknowledgement by the Senate that we do plan to move forward on a date and the date has been established. I understand we are to vote at 6 o'clock, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had, frankly, hoped to avoid the necessity of a rollcall vote to spare my colleagues a vote on the matter. But I felt, and continue to feel very, very strongly, that it is incumbent upon the U.S. Senate and the Congress to have oversight hearings in order to show the American people--a lot of people think there has been a coverup on Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX--and to show those people we are willing to air all of the matters, let the chips fall where they may, and demonstrate that people at the highest ranks of Government will be held accountable. No one is second to Arlen Specter in concern that the FBI have a full opportunity to complete its investigation. I talked to Director Freeh, who said if he had 8 to 10 weeks more there would be ample time and the FBI would be in a position to cooperate. And this is more than the 8 to 10 weeks that Director Freeh asked for when the amendment was modified beyond the June 30 date, to provide for a date of August 4. I believe that the potential for violence is enormous. We have had a number of wake-up calls. And it is no coincidence that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 2 years to the day after the incident at Waco, TX. If anything happens in the interim, if we have not had the ventilation, the safety valve, then there is a real issue as to whether the U.S. Senate is doing its job. We have a lot of hearings in the Judiciary Committee. We have a lot of hearings in other committees. And there is not a single hearing being held which is more important than to air the public concern about Waco and about Ruby Ridge. I have been conducting hearings in the Subcommittee on Terrorism; I finished the third one today. It is an overwhelming problem. The first hearing which was scheduled became a full committee hearing, which I thought was entirely appropriate, to allow more Senators to participate. But what I intend to do is to continue my own inquiry and my own speaking out on the facts as to what happened. I talked at length with Director Louis Freeh, and I have talked at length with Mr. Spencer, who is the attorney for the Weavers, and I intend to talk to the Weavers and I intend to review all the facts and to make periodic reports to the American people about what I find. Because I think it is totally inadequate to have an inquiry--a hearing sometime in the near future. I felt strongly enough about it to bring the matter to the floor and I respect the conclusion of my fellow colleagues. But I intend to carry on this inquiry myself and to make these periodic reports. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just a word or two. The letter which Senator Hatch has just read is entirely consistent with the representation I made earlier that I had talked to Director Louis Freeh this afternoon, who told me, as I said earlier, that if he had 8 to 10 weeks that would be ample time. And that is why, as I had said earlier, I modified the amendment from the date of June 30 to August 4, which would give more than the 8 to 10 weeks. So, when Senator Hatch cites a letter about the immediate future, the 8 to 10 weeks was accorded to the Director and the hearings could have been held within the timeframe of the resolution as framed. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered.

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

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

Mr. SPECTER. I ask for his best recollection but not necessarily a record, Mr. President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Will the Parliamentarian represent that the yeas and nays have not been ordered in any case he has seen where fewer than 11 Members of the Senate have asked for the yeas and nays?

Mr. SPECTER. All Senators on the floor are voting in favor of the yeas and nays. Come on now, Mr. President, I have seen the yeas and nays ordered with one Senator on the floor asking for the yeas and nays constituting a sufficient second.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent it be considered as a freestanding resolution.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered as a freestanding resolution which, as I understand from the Parliamentarian, is permissible.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when the Senator from Utah talks about patience, it seems to me that the American people have been patient long enough, since April 19, 1993. There has been ample time to hold these hearings, long ago. As I said, I had asked for hearings shortly after the event itself. Had they been held in January or February or March or up to mid-April of this year, we would not be looking awaiting further action on Oklahoma City. It may be that we would not have looked at anything at Oklahoma City at all had the hearings been held earlier. I do not know that that is so, but I think that when there is a request for patience, I think that there has already been an undue amount of patience on the matter. I do not think that it is impatient to say, ``Do it by June 30.'' That is 41 days from May 10, as we stand here at the present time. I discussed these hearings with the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, who was willing to proceed at this time and has no objection. The Attorney General of the United States has publicly stated that she is prepared for hearings. When the Senator from Utah offers a resolution that ``hearings should be held in the near future,'' my judgment is that is totally, totally, insufficient. When he talks about time, and he says we should wait until we ``catch and punish those responsible for Oklahoma City''--punishing them may take a matter of years. Some murder cases languish in the courts for up to 20 years. I do not think he necessarily means that, but if he is talking about waiting for punishment, even a trial would take months or more than a year. When he talks about awaiting hearings in the House, ``We will wait for the hearings in the House, if necessary to see if we proceed,'' the Senator from Utah is not even talking in a definite way about hearings after the House hearings. We will see after the House hearings, if necessary. I firmly believe that the Senate has an independent responsibility. We do not have to get involved in being a bicameral legislature. We have an independent responsibility to undertake these hearings. When paragraph 12 of the resolution calls to hearings by the U.S. Senate to dispel public rumors that the ``Oklahoma City bombing was planned and carried out by Federal law enforcement officials,'' that is a statement of the Director of the FBI himself. When Director Freeh was at lunch yesterday in the Republican Caucus he talked about rumors that the Federal Government itself had caused the bombing in Oklahoma City, and that he welcomed the hearings to dispel those rumors. On two occasions the Senator from Utah has said that it is ``My prerogative''--``My prerogative to decide when the hearings would be held.'' I think that that is customarily the situation. When we schedule subcommittee hearings, however, it is the prerogative of the chairman of the subcommittee to schedule the hearings. Or, as I said, it would be conceivable to have hearings in the Intelligence Committee which has jurisdiction over terrorism matters. And a good bit of what we are considering now in the Judiciary Committee relates to the deportation or aliens, which is clearly a matter within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee. As chairman, I could schedule them there, if we want to talk about prerogatives, but I have not done so because I think this is really a matter for terrorism as it is defined in the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. As I say, I would be glad to see the hearings held in the full committee, as was the hearing on April 27 after the notice had been given by the subcommittee for that hearing. When we talk about the prerogatives of Senators, I think that is a little excessive, even if the Senators are chairmen, when we have a matter of public interest. I am a little surprised by the statement by the Senator from Utah, again I wrote this down, that even if the resolution passes, ``I am going to determine when to hold these hearings, unless the Senate orders me.'' I do not know of any procedure for having an order or a mandamus, or direction of that sort under our Senate procedures, but the way we determine the will of the Senate is to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which is what I have offered. It gives a lot of latitude as to when the hearings will be held. So it is a little surprising to hear that the Senator from Utah is going to determine when to hold the hearings, Senate issues some kind of an order. I know of no such procedure for such an order. Mr. President, I am very much concerned about the officers, the Federal officials, who were murdered in Oklahoma City. I think every American is. I know the area very well. I went to the University of Oklahoma, which is in Norman, 20 miles away, and have a lot of friends in Oklahoma City. It is a catastrophe of the first order. I think that we can best serve the public interest and best pay our respect to the victims in Oklahoma City and best pay our respect to victims of terrorism everywhere if we act and if we do what we can to clear the air on any notion which may be current in the country that there has been a coverup by the Federal Government, or a failure to act or a failure to look into what happened in Waco and Ruby Ridge. I think this resolution is a very reasonable approach to the issue, deferring from the date of May 18, which the subcommittee has set, and deferring to the full committee. It is not a matter of who conducts the hearings. Let the full committee do it. But let us do it with reasonable promptness. I think it is important that we not talk about personal Senatorial prerogatives or about being ordered to do something, not talk about conduct them ``if necessary,'' after the House holds it hearings, or not talk about the vagaries of the near future. We need to set a time when at least we will let all Americans know we are going to move ahead, we are not stonewalling, and although we are not having the hearing on May 18, we will at least set a date that will give public assurance--that we will give the public assurance that we will let the chips fall where they may and there will be accountability in America regardless of how high the officials may be.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kempthorne be added as an original cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the thrust of this amendment is clear on its face; that is to proceed as promptly as possible, but in a reasonable way, to have as comprehensive hearings as possible in the U.S. Senate on ways to combat terrorism. Pursuant to that general objective, this Senator scheduled hearings in the Subcommittee on Terrorism, a series of four hearings, with a fifth one planned. The first hearing was scheduled for April 27 on legislation which had been pending dealing with terrorism, with its focus on transnational terrorism but also with some focus on domestic terrorism as it related to FBI counterterrorism strategies. A second hearing was scheduled for May 4, with the subject being technical aspects of the legislation and also to provide an opportunity to the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish Congress, the Irish National Caucus, and the National Association of Arab-Americans to be heard on the civil liberties issues raised by the legislation. The third hearing is scheduled for May 11, which is tomorrow, on the subject of the so-called mayhem manuals on how to make bombs being transmitted over the Internet. A fourth hearing is scheduled for May 18, dealing with Ruby Ridge, ID, and Waco, TX. There is a fifth hearing planned, which we may be able to schedule for May 25, which would deal with the growth of the militia movement around the United States. The hearing scheduled for April 27 became a full committee hearing and proceeded on that basis. Then Senator Hatch, who is on the floor at the moment--I had notified him that I would be presenting this sense- of-the-Senate resolution at about 6:20, as we are doing at this time-- wrote to me saying that he believed the May 18 hearing should not be held as scheduled but ought to be held at some time in the future with a date not specified. It is my view, Mr. President, that it is a matter of urgent public interest that the hearing be held as promptly as reasonably possible, but in any event that a date certain should be set so as to when a hearing might be held in the future. This is a matter which I have been concerned about since the incident in Waco, going back to April 1993. I had requested, shortly after the incident in Waco, that the Judiciary Committee hold hearings on the subject. The response which was given at that time was that hearings ought to be deferred until internal agency investigations were concluded. Once that had happened, other matters overtook the Judiciary Committee, and the hearings have never been held. I pursued the matter last year, however, by inquiring of the Justice and Treasury Departments about some of the conclusions they reached in their internal reports. There is a great deal of public unrest as to what happened at Waco. There has been a report filed pursuant to an investigation initiated by the Department of the Treasury which was highly critical of the actions of law enforcement officials there. An internal investigation by the Department of Justice found little fault, to characterize it, although the report speaks for itself. The incident at Ruby Ridge drew a tremendous amount of controversy. A deputy Federal marshal was killed; others were killed. There was a Federal prosecution, and the defendant, Mr. Randy Weaver, was acquitted of the most serious charges in that matter. As specified in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, there is substantial public concern that the handling of the Waco incident may well have been a triggering factor in the Oklahoma City bombing, with the Oklahoma City bombing coming on April 19, 1995, exactly 2 years after the date of the Waco incident. Mr. President, it is hard to emphasize it any more strongly than was said in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, that regardless of what happened at Waco and regardless of what happened at Ruby Ridge, there was absolutely no possible, no conceivable justification for the bombing in Oklahoma City. But there are those who say that the triggering factor at the Oklahoma City bombing was the failure to have appropriate action taken as to what happened at Waco. The media are full of reports of militias being concerned about what is happening in the Federal Government and fears expressed by many people that the Federal Government will infringe on or abolish the constitutional rights of citizens, including their rights under the second amendment. I believe that it is incumbent upon the Senate to have hearings on this matter so that there may be assurances of full disclosure--let the chips fall where they may--so that there may be public assurance that the Congress of the United States will exercise its oversight responsibilities and that, if we do not act at least to set a hearing date, that this issue will fester and who knows what the consequences may be. I certainly do not want to make any predictions or have any self- fulfilling prophecies. But I believe as a U.S. Senator, as chairman of the Terrorism Subcommittee, as a member of the full Judiciary Committee, and also as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee--which could conceivably have jurisdiction over these matters, but I think it is more properly a matter for the Judiciary Committee--that action be taken so that the Congress of the United States, the Senate of the United States, in pursuance of its oversight responsibilities, will do everything that it can to investigate and understand the problem of terrorism and to take all action which it can to respond. If we sit by idly without taking as much action as we can to allay the public concerns which have been expressed, that there has not been appropriate action by the Federal Government to hold accountable the Federal officials who were involved in Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge, ID, that certainly we would be responsible if anything happens in the interim which might be attributable, fairly or unfairly, to our inaction. There had been reports that the Senate was not acting on Ruby Ridge, ID, because of concerns that there might be some interference with the investigation which is being undertaken by the prosecuting attorney of Boundary County, ID. The prosecuting attorney there, Randall Day, is conducting an inquiry to make a determination as to whether there ought to be a State prosecution of Federal officials. Having had some experience in that particular line and not wanting to interfere with whatever the prosecuting attorney of Boundary County, ID, might want to do, I called Mr. Day and had an extensive conversation with him. There is no objection on Mr. Day's part for Congress to undertake whatever kind of an inquiry we choose to undertake. Mr. Day advised me that there is a report by the Department of Justice which he has seen, which is not public, and he has a concern that if that report comes into the hands of potential witnesses that there may be some problem with those witnesses. But that would be unrelated to whatever kind of a hearing the U.S. Senate might want to undertake. Mr. President, the essence of this resolution is that we move ahead with a hearing on Waco and Idaho, as they are, at least in the minds of many, related to the problems of terrorism in the United States. I personally believe it is totally insufficient to deal with this matter by talking about hearings, as Senator Hatch has said, ``in the near future'' or ``after the House completes its hearings.'' That is a framework which is not sufficiently definable or definite, I think, to address this problem as it should be addressed. My preference is to proceed with a hearing on May 18. I would be delighted to see that hearing in the full committee, as the hearing was held on April 27, after the original notification and purpose was sent out for a Terrorism Subcommittee hearing. So let there be no mistake, a full committee hearing would accomplish all of the purposes which I have in mind. But I feel very strongly that we should not stand idly by without having the hearing or at least setting a date for the hearing. That is why the resolution is specifically calling for a hearing on or before June 30, which will at least let everyone out there know that there will be oversight and that the Senate will take action to put all the facts on the table and let the chips fall where they may, so that we will be doing everything in our power to understand terrorism and to curtail it to the maximum extent that we can. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 11, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 534, the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, 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 Solid Waste Disposal Act tomorrow. Further amendments are expected to the bill, therefore Senators should anticipate rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session of the Senate, and a late night session could occur with votes into the evening. A cloture motion was filed on the substitute this evening. It is the hope of the leader, Senator Dole, that the Friday vote could be vitiated if an agreement can be reached to conclude the bill by Friday. Otherwise, a cloture vote will occur Friday morning.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, many may believe that health care reform is not an issue in the 104th Congress. But I have been advocating reform in one form or another throughout my now 15 years in the Senate, and I continue to do so. I have come to the floor on 14 occasions over just the last 3 years to urge the Senate to address health care reform. On the first day the Congress was in session in 1993 and again on the first day in 1995, I introduced comprehensive health care legislation. The Health Care Assurance Act of 1995, S. 18, which I introduced on January 4 of this year, is comprised of reform initiatives that our health care system needs and can adopt immediately. They are reforms which can both improve access and affordability of coverage and health care delivery and implement systemic changes to bring down the escalating cost of care. Today, I again address my colleagues on the issue of health care access. I want to bring to the Senate's attention a particular component of our health care delivery system which is uniquely poised to provide innovative services which respond to the particular needs of individual communities, but which is in jeopardy-- nonprofit hospitals. In my view it is indispensable that there be comprehensive affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. I believe the essential question is whether we have sufficient resources, that is medical personnel and hospital, laboratory, diagnostic and pharmaceutical facilities to deliver services. I think we do; and nonprofit hospitals are an important resource of innovative, community- based care. Well over 80 percent of the hospitals in this country have been and are nonprofit institutions. Most nonprofits were founded decades ago and arose from religiously or ethnically identified groups and so were dedicated to serving a particular community. Most have adhered to this dedication to community and all of them serve without restriction or preference. There are approximately 80,000 voluntary trustees, leaders in their respective communities giving freely of their time, their energies, and their money to raise the level of health care in those communities. However, I am concerned that recent trends in the health care market, including the growth of large for- profit hospital systems, and the emphasis on costs and profits of many managed care organizations as they become economically dominant, threaten the community health focus of nonprofit hospitals. We stand at the threshold of dramatic breakthroughs in understanding, preventing, and treating a variety of diseases. Clinical application of the breakthroughs in research will yield wondrous results which will alleviate savings in medical costs in the United States. Nonprofit hospitals are essential to the application of these breakthroughs for the prevention and treatment of disease. The community outreach programs typical of nonprofit hospitals demonstrate their dedication to the needs of their particular communities. They are uniquely attuned to the most fiscally and personally debilitating diseases of a community and therefore provide the services for treatment and prevention most demanded in the community. Prevention is the most successful method of containing the costs associated with disease as it is the first step toward controlling disease. But the health care system today appears to be making it more difficult for the nonprofit community hospital to be dedicated to prevention and accessible treatment for the survival of patients. While the demand to be competitive is increasing, hospitals' resources are dwindling. Changes in the health care system have reduced hospital occupancy, and have therefore reduced revenue. The Washington Post reported on March 14, 1995, that hospitals have quadrupled the number of out-patient surgical procedures and same-day procedures now exceed the number requiring overnight stays. Health care experts cite technological advances as well as cost-cutting efforts by insurance companies as two key factors which have encouraged the growth in outpatient services. For-profit hospitals tend to exclude those from coverage and service who cannot afford to pay and minimize nonrevenue generating outreach programs. On the other hand, nonprofits are committed to their missions to provide high-quality service, thus increasing expense, but not necessarily increasing revenue. The limited revenues which once could be used for outreach and prevention are being reallocated to meet today's specialized care needs, and at the same time hospitals are being forced to compete with one another to maintain their existence. As we continue to discuss the reform of our health care system, we must reconcile the two forces which drive provision of hospital care today, that is profitability and quality. Hospitals should be able to continue to operate as a community resource, to provide preventive medicine, not only curative medicine. As I have said, prevention is the most economical cure for what ails our health care system, that is escalating costs for short- and long-term treatment. Prevention and early detection are the most successful methods of controlling costs associated with disease as they are the first steps toward preventing the inevitable need for costly treatment incurred by disease. In S. 18 I have taken such steps through streamlining the statutory provisions related to the right to decline treatment, increasing Federal support for clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health, and increasing public health programs at the State and local levels. I look forward to working and reconciling the competing forces in our health care system today to ensure the continuation of community-based and -focused prevention and treatment services, such as those historically provided by nonprofit hospitals.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send a motion to invoke cloture on the pending matter to the desk.