Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask the distinguished Senator from Utah one other question about a field that I have had perhaps more experience than some, having been a district attorney for Philadelphia for 8 years. Would my colleague agree with me that on the general principle of law where you have a trust fund set up for a specific purpose, such as contributions and specific beneficiaries, that if someone takes money from that trust fund for a purpose other than specified it is in fact a fraudulent conversion?

Mr. SPECTER. That would be a fraudulent conversion. I find it is of great interest that my friend from Utah said except that Government does it every day, a multitime offender. It is not a 3- time loser or 33-time loser. It is a 33,000-time loser, maybe a 33 million-time loser, or 33 billion-time loser. That is the concern I have. I have a very deep concern that there is not truth in accounting when, instead of taking our revenues and expenditures to balance the budget, we add other funds which are set up as a trust fund. It seems to me that this is such a very basic principle of law, trust law, criminal law, that it is worth embodying in the Constitution. And then, of course, you have the concerns which the senior citizens of America talk about; whether they are being treated fairly and whether their trust funds are being segregated so that they will have funds when they seek to retire. That is an enormous concern with many, many of the elderly who worry about every political statement which is made and every 30-second campaign ad, let alone a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget which does not isolate and protect their funds. I thank my colleague from Utah for engaging in this discussion. I thank my other colleagues for interrupting the regular schedule. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. In order to fully protect the earnings of our senior citizens and the generations that follow, I believe we must keep the Social Security trust fund set apart as it was meant to be. I have consistently supported the interest of older Americans and future generations as a U.S. Senator. In March 1994, the Senate considered a substitute balanced budget amendment offered by Senator Reid which would have, among other things, exempted Social Security from budget calculations. After very care consideration, I decided to vote for that amendment. I believe the Social Security trust fund is a self-financed program that must be preserved and protected. It is supported entirely by employer and employee-paid payroll taxes, and more importantly, it is a contract between Americans and their government. In addition, by law the fund must be self-supporting because it has no claim on general tax revenues. My Senate voting record on the Social Security issue has been consistent. When the Senate considered a balanced budget amendment in 1982, I voted in favor of an amendment offered by Senator Moynihan to exempt Social Security. A few days later I voted for another amendment authored by Senators Cranston and Moynihan to exempt Social Security, and veterans' benefits, which our senior citizens depend upon. When the Senate considered a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in 1986, I voted against tabling a Metzenbaum amendment to exempt Social Security. As I mentioned, in March 1994, I voted for the substitute amendment offered by our colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid. And most recently, in January of this year, when the balanced budget amendment was being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, I voted against tabling an amendment to exempt Social Security authored by Senator Feinstein. to preserve the integrity of Social Security. In 1990, I voted in favor of an amendment by Senator Heinz to remove Social Security from inclusion in deficit calculations. In that same year, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Hollings to exclude Social Security trust funds from inclusion in budget deficit calculations. I believe there is a prevailing view that we ought to leave Social Security alone and not subject it to budget cuts. I appreciate the need to reduce the Federal deficit while keeping Social Security fiscally sound because confidence in the stability of the program is of great importance to current and future retirees. In conclusion Mr. President, we must protect Social Security or we run the risk of jeopardizing the futures of young and old Americans alike. I believe this amendment will enable us to balance the budget in a way that will protect the hard earned savings Americans have set aside for their twilight years. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for that answer. I appreciate the vote we had last week. I supported the amendment by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, to have that direction. But my followup question is: Is there any assurance that that direction will be carried out?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for that answer. When it comes to the unfunded mandates, I would suggest that is a significantly different category.

Mr. SPECTER. I so yield.

Mr. SPECTER. I agree with my colleague that it does not stop us from doing that, but the concern I have is that it does not tell us to do that.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Boxer, for agreeing to a brief comment by me and also a brief discussion with the manager of the bill, the senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch. I favor the balanced budget amendment and have on three votes since I have been in the U.S. Senate in the past 14 years. I think it is very important that the Government of the United States live within its means, just as every other government has to--the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and every county in my State, every city and every other State in the Union, just as we must all do so as individual citizens. But I have a considerable problem with the amendment which we just voted on where I voted in favor of excluding Social Security from the computation. Although I know my vote was on the losing side I wanted to express myself briefly on the subject and perhaps have a comment or two with Senator Hatch. I have consistently voted to exclude Social Security from a constitutional amendment, going back to a vote on July 29, 1982, August 4, 1982, March 12, 1986, and March 1, 1994. I have also voted to keep Social Security off budget, a subject which was explained by my late colleague, the distinguished Senator John Heinz. The concerns that I have are when we have a trust fund established for a specific purpose and specific contributions as a very basic principle of law, those funds ought to be used for no other purpose. And when the Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker, invaded the trust fund, I took the floor and said that, if this were a matter within the jurisdiction of the district attorney's office when I was district attorney of Philadelphia, this would be an appropriate matter for criminal prosecution because it is fraudulent conversion. You have a trust fund established for a specific purpose and when that purpose is violated by having the funds used for something else it is in fact a fraudulent conversion. When we have a balanced budget amendment, I think it is very important that we not spend more than we take in. It is not truth in accounting where you have other funds, a trust fund like Social Security, figured into the accounting process, or we have the accounting processes on other trust funds, such as the airport trust fund they ought not to be used in the computation of the balancing of our budget. Those are not funds for general revenue purposes. They ought not to be taken into consideration because they are set up for a specific purpose, like Social Security, the highway trust fund or the airport trust fund. I believe there is a very, very basic fundamental principle of law of such a nature that I would put it in the constitutional amendment recognizing the very high level of legal procedure which is embodied in a constitutional amendment. I thank my colleague from Utah for being willing to have a brief discussion. The essence of my question to Senator Hatch is, is it not true that under the law the Social Security trust fund is set up for a specific purpose, to receive revenues, contributions made by citizens, contributions made by employees and employers for the specific purpose of paying benefits to those employees when they have reached the eligibility status at age 62 or 65, or whenever?

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Utah agree with me that the truth in accounting to have a balanced budget would be that we ought to calculate the revenues, the taxes which the U.S. Government receives and deduct from that the expenses of the U.S. Government without including the artificial raising of the revenues which are Social Security revenues, or for that matter even the highway trust fund or the airport trust fund?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. This is an issue which we have raised repeatedly on the floor of the U.S. Senate, because it is a direct way to deal with campaign finance reform without having a further burden on the Treasury of the United States. We have debated campaign finance reform repeatedly in a variety of contexts. Most of them come down to a proposition to have Federal subsidies for candidates and then to call upon the candidates to relinquish their rights under Buckley versus Valeo in order to qualify for Federal funding. I have opposed such Federal funding because I think it is unwise to further burden the Treasury by having campaigns paid for by the U.S. Treasury. The necessity for this amendment was created by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1976 in Buckley versus Valeo. That particular decision had a very significant impact on this Senator, because at that time I was running for the U.S. Senate. Under the 1974 statute, there was a limited amount a candidate for the Senate could spend of his or her own money, based on population. When I entered the race in late 1975, for a seat which was then being vacated by a very distinguished U.S. Senator, Senator Hugh Scott, the Federal law said that, on a population basis, a candidate in a primary in Pennsylvania would be limited to $35,000. That was about the limit of the means which I had at that time, having been extensively in public service as district attorney of Philadelphia and for a relatively short period of time in the private practice of law. Halfway through that campaign, on January 29, 1976, the limitation on what an individual could spend of his or her own money was unconstitutional. At that time, I was running against a very distinguished Pennsylvanian, the late Senator John Heinz, with whom I served in this body for many, many years. Senator Heinz had substantially more financial capabilities and, as was appropriate under the law, utilized the invalidation of the spending limit at that time. It has always seemed to me that Congress ought to have the authority to establish a spending limit in Federal elections without regard to the first amendment limitation which was applied by the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo. In approaching this matter, Mr. President, I am very concerned about amending the first amendment to the United States Constitution--freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly. But the amendment that we are talking about really does not go to any of these core first amendment values. This is not a matter affecting religion. It is not a matter really affecting speech. I think it was a very far stretch when the split Court of the U.S. Supreme Court said that a campaign expenditure for an individual was a matter of freedom of speech. At that time, the Supreme Court did not affect the limitation on spending where an individual could contribute only $1,000 in the primary and $1,000 in the general, except for contributions by PAC's, political action committees. At that time, in 1976, my brother had considerably more financial means than I did and would have been very much interested in helping his younger brother, but the limitation on my brother in that primary was for $1,000. It seemed to me then and it seems to me now that if a candidate has the right to spend as much of his or her money as he or she chooses, then why should not any other citizen have the same right under the first amendment to express himself or herself by the political contributions. So the decision by the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo, I submit, was a unusual one and I think not well founded. And within our framework of Government we can change that by having this amendment at this time. I discussed this matter earlier today with my distinguished colleague from South Carolina. We talked about the procedural aspect of offering legislation to come up through the Judiciary Committee and at this time, on this resolution, it is an appropriate field to deal with this matter. And as we are dealing with the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, we can deal with the constitutional issue raised in Buckley versus Valeo. This year, Mr. President, I am undertaking another venture at the present time, exploratory travel looking toward the Republican nomination for President of the United States. And I am impressed again with how important fundraising is and how disproportionate it is to the undertaking for a political candidacy. My idea about running for elective office, Mr. President, is a matter of issues, a matter of tenacity, a matter of integrity, and how you conduct a campaign. But money has become the dominant issue in the Presidential campaign. And the media focus on it to the virtual exclusion of the many issues of substantive matters which are really involved in a campaign for the candidacy for the Presidency. So I think that the amendment which is now pending will leave it up to the Congress of the United States to decide what campaign finance limitations should be, authority which we have under the Constitution. Under a constitutional provision, the Congress does have the authority to deal with this issue. Article 1, section 4, of the Constitution specifically vests the authority in Congress to regulate national elections. Absent the decision in Buckley versus Valeo, we would have that authority. Similarly, State legislatures would also have the authority to regulate their own campaigns if Buckley versus Valeo were not the law of the land. In essence, Mr. President, I think that Buckley was wrongly decided. I think that it has limited the Congress in regulating the expenditure of funds. Money is too important in elections for the House of Representatives, for the U.S. Senate, as well as for the Presidency of the United States. So I hope we will have an affirmative vote. The last time this matter came up in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, it was passed. And if we could pass it here today, I think it would be a very, very important step forward for reform to eliminate money as a dominant factor in so many elections. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, I am pleased to join with the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, the ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, Senator Kohl, the chairman of the Banking Committee, who has a long history of involvement on counter-terrorism activities, Senator D'Amato, and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Kerrey, in introducing the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995. I note that this bipartisan measure was drafted by the Justice and State Departments, and I appreciate their input and actions in support of this bill. I have been actively involved in the fight against international terrorism for many years. In 1986, I introduced the law that made it a crime to commit an act of terrorism against a U.S. citizen in a foreign country. I also introduced a bill to provide the death penalty for terrorism murderers of U.S. citizens. A terrorist death penalty was finally enacted in 1994 as part of the crime bill. This bill provides a next, but overdue step. It would, for the first time, make an act of international terrorism committed in this country a violation of Federal law and provide severe punishment, including the death penalty in the case of terrorist murders, against those who would commit acts of violence against people in the United States for political purposes. The legislation will also strengthen the hand of U.S. authorities to attack international terrorists by making illegal conspiracies to plan overseas terrorist acts in this country. A second vital component of the legislation will make it easier to deport suspected terrorists from the United States. The current procedures of the Immigration and Nationality Act are cumbersome. The procedures outlined in this bill will expedite such deportations. Although I believe we need to study this issue, I am concerned about the due process implications of some of the special procedures that permit secret proceedings. I think the subcommittee will need to hold hearings on this issue and review it very carefully in order to ensure we strike the right balance between our national security needs and the requirements of the Constitution. The third component of this comprehensive bill will be a restriction on fundraising for international terrorist groups in the United States. While international organizations will still be able to raise funds in the United States for charitable purposes, any fundraising in this country for an organization determined by the President to be engaged in conducting or supporting international terrorism will be barred. Again, we will need to take a very close look at this provision to ensure that it comports with the requirements of the first amendment. Another important element of this bill is the implementation of the Montreal convention on the marking of plastic explosives to improve detectability. This important international agreement will make it easier to detect plastic explosives to avert tragedies like the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. This legislation will provide additional weapons in our Nation's battle against international terrorism and on behalf of democracy throughout the world. I again wish to thank the administration for its work on the bill and the cosponsors. I urge all Members of the Senate to join with us in supporting this bill and to see to it that this bill is enacted promptly.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to withhold judgment on Dr. Henry Foster, Jr., the nominee for Surgeon General, until we know all the facts. I do not believe that performing a legal medical procedure should be a litmus test for confirmation for Surgeon General of the United States. According to news reports, Dr. Foster flatly denies what purports to be a transcript of his statement that he performed ``a lot of amniocentesis and therapeutic abortions, probably near 700.'' I am very much concerned about allegations that Dr. Foster misrepresented his record. If the issue is veracity and character, that may be a basis for disqualification. If the facts support Dr. Foster's statement that he has ``performed fewer than a dozen pregnancy terminations, all in hospitals, and were primarily to save the lives of women or because the women had been the victims of rape or incest,'' then his status looks much stronger, although the White House still has to answer for its representation that he had performed only one abortion. If some wish to deny Dr. Foster confirmation because he has performed any abortions, then I believe the Senate should debate and carefully consider whether a nominee should be disqualified where he has performed a Constitution. I do not believe that there ought to be a litmus test which would disqualify a person from being Surgeon General if he/she has performed a medical procedure which is legal under the U.S. Constitution. It is already difficult to persuade qualified people to accept governmental appointments because so often the character of an individual is irreparably damaged by charges before the facts are known. What is printed in the newspaper, uttered on television, or heard on the radio simply cannot be erased. The facts cannot catch up with that. I hope that the President and the Senate will give Dr. Foster an opportunity to state his case before we rush to judgment. I thank the Chair, and again I thank my colleague from Minnesota for permitting the interruption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding for a few moments. I am about to join colleagues in going to St. Louis for an event in honor of Senator Danforth. I appreciate this time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note that there is no other Senator seeking recognition at the moment. I would like to comment briefly about the President's State of the Union speech last night. I thought that the President received the most applause of the evening when he talked about reducing the size of Government. And I think if there is one message which has come out of last November's election it is that the people of the United States want to reduce the size of the Federal Government. That is right in line with the pending legislation which refers to eliminating unfunded mandates so that if the Federal Government has legislation which the Congress wants to pass and that it represents a worthy Federal objective, let the Federal Government pay for it. Let us not keep putting one after another requirements on the States for the States to pay for what we decide what we want them to do. That, of course, is in accordance with the basic principle of federalism that we should have a central Government of limited powers. When the President read that line in his speech last night about smaller Government there seemed to be the greatest unanimity in the Chamber than there was on any other point. thought hard to achieve. I believe it will be very difficult when he talks about a tax cut which is obviously, very, very popular, to do so in the context of still cutting the deficit and in the context of increasing other governmental expenditures, as, for example, the defense budget. I believe that the defense budget is now too lean. I would like to see a tax cut. But I am not prepared to enter into the competitive bidding on a tax cut if it will mean adding to the deficit. The way we are looking at this budget, realistically when we talk about a middle-income tax cut and we figure how much it is on a per person basis, that it is more important to avoid increasing the deficit in the United States today. I was a little more than surprised when the President talked about the North Korean agreement and talked about continuous inspections. That is not the agreement that I have read. The agreement that I have read puts a 5-year moratorium on inspections on spent fuel rods, which is the best way for determining whether there is the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. I have grave reservations about that agreement as to its substance, and that line particularly, and also the way it has been adopted. As I read that agreement it has all the indications of a treaty, and under the Constitution the treaty has to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. There have been a number of concerns raised in a number of quarters but so far it is an executive agreement and it has very, very profound implications for the United States. Now only $4 billion is involved and the United States is the guarantor of that, but the moratorium on inspections, I think, poses very, very substantial risks. When we had hearings in the Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee which I Chair, I was very concerned when the intelligence officials could not give any assurances or any real ideas as to how long it might be before North Korea would have sufficient ballistic capability to reach the continent of the United States. In the course of that hearing, it was disclosed that North Korea could now reach Alaska. It was disclosed further that North Korea and Iran are working jointly on testing ballistic missiles. I was very much concerned, Mr. President, about the very limited attention given in the President's very long speech, very limited attention given to foreign policy. He spoke for 1 hour and 21 minutes, which some may have considered a little long. A little easier when you are watching C-SPAN 2 or watching the national networks. You have greater control over the length of speakers. You have the ``off'' button. Perhaps many people are using it now on C-SPAN 2 as I make these few comments. The paucity, the scarcity of comments about foreign policy I thought was revealing and rather indicative of the lack of experience, lack of capability, and, perhaps, lack of interest that is coming out of the administration on this very important issue. I think in toto, Mr. President, the most telling aspect of the speech last night was the partisanship in the Chamber. That was the 15th State of the Union speech that I ever heard. I have not seen so much partisanship with one side clapping virtually at every sentence and the other side in stony silence on so many of the ideas which were advanced. When I sense that kind of partisanship, it looks to me like we are going to be in for a very tough year. I am hopeful that we will be able to put aside partisanship and really move toward centralism with both parties in addressing the really tremendous problems which confront the people of this country: crime control, nuclear proliferation, health care reform, just some of the problems which we have to address in the national interest. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a few moments ago the Senate unanimously passed a resolution by a vote of 96 to nothing, condemning the terrorist attacks 2 days ago which killed 19 Israeli soldiers and wounded dozens more. There was not time prior to that vote to speak about that subject, which I would like to do briefly at this moment. I believe that it is very important the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and its chairman, Yasser Arafat, act, and act promptly, to fulfill the obligations of the PLO under the Declaration of Principles, to see to it that the perpetrators of those terrorist acts are brought to justice and to immediately condemn those terrorist acts. It is obviously not easy to find terrorists and to punish them. But in no uncertain terms, Yasser Arafat and the PLO ought to condemn those atrocious acts of terrorism, promptly and in the strongest terms. This resolution says in paragraph 3: Chairman Arafat should, consistent with the obligations of the Declaration of Principles, publicly and forcefully condemn acts of terror against Israelis. There is absolutely no excuse for that not to happen. Senator Shelby and I introduced an amendment last year which became law, which requires the PLO to change its charter which up to the present time calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, and to take all steps to stop acts of terrorism as a condition for United States aid. The United States has agreed to support the efforts of the PLO to govern certain territories, pursuant to the Declaration of Principles, and that was an historic meeting, back on September 13 of 1993, when President Clinton, in the Rose Garden, put his left arm around Arafat's shoulder and his right arm around Prime Minister Rabin's shoulder to bring those two men to shake hands. I found it a difficult moment, to see an international terrorist like Chairman Arafat honored at the White House, considering the fact he was personally implicated in the murder of the charge, the second of command in the United States Embassy in the Sudan in 1974, and considering his involvement in the murder of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro. But in those Declarations of Principles, and in the aid which the United States is giving to the PLO, there is that obligation for that firm condemnation. And Yasser Arafat and the PLO have an obligation to do that and they have not done it. There is no excuse for that. The second clause of paragraph 3 calls for taking ``immediate steps to bring to justice those responsible'' for those acts. That is more difficult. But that ought to be done as well. Then the third clause is to ``implement steps to prevent future acts of terrorism in all territory under * * *'' the control of Chairman Arafat and the PLO. Mr. President, there is obviously a pattern of terrorism at work. On December 25th, not a month ago, a Hamas terrorist attack in Jerusalem wounded 13 civilians, including an American citizen. On the October 19th of last year a Hamas terrorist attack in Tel Aviv killed 22 Israelis and wounded 10 more. Mr. President, 110 Israeli citizens have been killed and hundreds more wounded in the last few months. It is just indispensable that Arafat and PLO live up to their obligations. The resolution additionally calls for President Assad to immediately end all support for terrorist groups, including safe haven and material and financial support in all territory under his control. As there have been efforts to try to improve relationships between the United States and Syria, that is an obligation which, or action which the Syrian government and its President, Hafez Assad, ought to undertake. But at an absolute minimum, at an absolute minimum, Arafat and the PLO have an absolute obligation to condemn this act of terrorism 2 days ago in the killing of 19 Israeli soldiers, 18 of whom were barely old enough to vote. The U.S. Senate has spoken unanimously in this resolution, and the PLO and Chairman Arafat ought to be on notice that when the foreign aid bill comes up this year--and this Senator sits on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee--that there will be a move to cancel U.S. aid unless the PLO lives up to its obligations and the mandates of U.S. law: To change their charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, and their obligation to seek out the terrorists and at a minimum to make a forceful condemnation of this atrocious conduct. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition this afternoon to speak briefly about the pending appointment of a new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and how we ought to structure a new term to really strengthen that position and, in effect, professionalize the position of Director of Central Intelligence. I have talked to a number of my colleagues about the idea of legislation which would create a 10-year term for the Director of Central Intelligence, just as the Director of the FBI has a 10-year term. That legislation for the FBI was enacted relatively recently to strengthen the hand of the Director and to give independence and strength to that position. It is my view, based on the experience that I have had on the Intelligence Committee--and I now serve as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee--that there is a real need for additional strength in the position of the Director, as we have seen what has happened to the CIA with the Aldrich Ames case, and as we take a look at the role of the Central Intelligence Agency and the national security interests of the United States into the foreseeable future. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, I believe, has to come to that position in the Central Intelligence Agency, in that unique culture there, and say to the establishment: Look, I am going to be here longer than anybody else who was here, and it is my responsibility to do what is necessary to correct the problems of the agency and to do what is necessary to reorder the priorities and set the agency on a course which will protect the security interests of the United States. We had the threat assessment hearings the week before last where the Director, James Woolsey, testified about the threats to the United States and responded, to some extent, about the Aldrich Ames case. There is no doubt that the unique culture of the CIA--I prefer to call it their ``unique culture,'' rather than the slang expression the ``old boy's network''--was at work in allowing Aldrich Ames to stay in a position where he could abuse the trust of the CIA and really do great damage to the United States' national security interest, even though there were many signs which should have led to his ouster. He failed a lie detector test, he was living beyond his means, he was drunk on duty, he had classified documents, he visited foreign agencies and foreign embassies without any justifiable reason. Many of the CIA contacts were killed as a result of what he had done. Many were placed in jeopardy. And that should have been corrected long before it finally came to light. I believe that if we had a Director who had tenure, 10 years, in effect, being able to say, ``I am going to be here longer than the people I am confronting with,'' that kind of strength would do a great deal to enhance our national security. We are facing some very perilous times. People ask, is there a real role for the Central Intelligence Agency? Based on the experience I have had on the Intelligence Oversight Committee, and now as chairman of that committee, I say, absolutely ``yes.'' We are looking at some very critical intelligence operations in assessing, for example, what is happening with North Korea with their development of nuclear weapons. I, frankly, have grave reservations about the agreement which exempts the North Koreans from inspection on the fuel rods for some 5 years, which is the best way to tell what they are doing with nuclear weapons. And as the hearing the week before last with Director Woolsey showed, the North Koreans now have the capacity to hit Alaska. The North Koreans are working with Iran on ballistic missile tests. When asked what is the potential for reaching the continental United States, nobody could give assurances that that is not an imminent problem. When you take a look at the dismantling of nuclear weapons in the old Soviet Union, there are real problems to see to it that organized crime in Russia does not take over and place those weapons at the disposal of rogue nations. When you take a look at the role of CIA in terrorism or drugs or economy issue, where many intelligence agencies of government help the trade deficit, there is a vital role in the intelligence agency. There has to be reform, first, of not having a repeat of the Aldrich Ames case and doing the job of the future. I intended to introduce this legislation and to comment on it this afternoon and not to unduly interrupt the flow of this legislation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and I ask unanimous consent my following remarks be captioned: ``Silvi Morton Specter.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support Senate bill 1 to eliminate unfunded mandates to States and local government. There is no doubt about the onerous imposition of very expensive projects on State and local government which have been decreed out of Washington, DC, and the Federal Government. I think as a matter of fundamental fairness, if we decide something ought to be done as a matter of national policy, then we ought to be paying for it. Many have spoken about the principle of federalism, which is the concept that the United States was founded on. It is to leave to the States all that was not specifically delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution on the very obvious point of having the governmental unit closest to the people making the decision. Also, as a matter of federalism and the concept of federalism, the idea is to leave to local government as much as possible so the people closest to the problem may decide what they want to spend their money on. We have within the bill presently on the floor the principle of the States leaving to local government the maximum amount possible without telling local government what ought to be done. So I think this is a sound bill. I look forward to its early passage as a signal to the American people that the mandate from the last election is being complied with. We have already enacted important legislation which imposes on every Member of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives the same obligations that any other American citizen bears. That is sound as a matter of basic fairness but also sound as part of the regulatory system so we may not overly burden American business and the American people when we have to comply with the same rules. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that I may make two brief statements as in morning business. There is no one else on the floor to speak to the bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, last night I spoke briefly on the one- year anniversary of the birth of the next generation of the Specter family, on the birth date of my granddaughter, the first grandchild in our family, the daughter of my son Shanin Specter, and his wife, Tracey Pearl Specter. But I could not speak at any length because we were in the midst of working out the unanimous-consent agreement on the disposition of this bill. And as the hour grew late, when we had consecutive back-to-back votes as part of the efforts to reach an accommodation on the bill, I did secure the floor for a few minutes, at 11:25, but spoke only briefly because the managers of the bill were about to present the unanimous-consent agreement and there were many Senators on the floor at the time. I now speak to an empty Chamber with the exception of the Presiding Officer. But this is a matter, I think, of importance beyond the birth date of one young woman in America because I speak about all of the children of America and Silvi Specter's generation. We have a heavy burden, the Congress of the United States, and in the U.S. Senate, to see to it that adequate care and protection will be given to her generation. I focus on the balanced budget amendment which has now been reported out of the Judiciary Committee, which will seek to eliminate the deficit Federal spending which now approximates $200 billion a year and a national debt which is climbing toward $5 trillion. We had debated the deficit and the national debt more in the 14 years-plus that I have been in the U.S. Senate than any other subject. So frequently there has been agreement that the Federal Government ought to live within its means just as every other unit of government has to. The State governments, the city governments, the county governments, and for that matter any individual has to live within his or her means or they face bankruptcy. But at the same time we have continued to spend. The promise of the balanced budget amendment is to put the same discipline on Congress which every other governmental unit in the past has had and every private citizen has. I think that is very important for Silvi Specter's generation. Certainly, I would not think of borrowing on her account or using her credit card. But that is exactly what we are doing when we run up these deficits. I think, too, about the primary duty of Government to protect its citizens and the strides which are yet to be made on crime control domestically and national defense on the international scene. basic issue of crime control. It is something that we have to address for the present generation and succeeding generations. I had the opportunity to serve as district attorney of Philadelphia for some 8 years after having been an assistant district attorney for 4 years where I tried many robbery cases, many rape cases, many burglary cases, and then as the district attorney ran an office which prosecuted 30,000 criminal cases a year including 500 homicide cases. I believe that we have to tackle the problem of violent crime on many levels. I think to start with, this is a major problem in our criminal justice system in our failure to utilize capital punishment as an effective deterrent against violent crime. It is obvious that the critical aspect of a deterrent is its certainty and its swiftness. But that is not the case with the death penalty. At the present time there are more than 2,800 inmates on death row and in the last year only 38 cases where the judgment of sentence was carried out. The reason for that is the Federal appeals processes which allow the cases to go on virtually interminably forever; some as long as 20 years, on the average 8 years. We have the power to correct that. My legislation was passed by the Senate in 1990 and has a good chance to be passed this year by the House and the Senate and signed into law if we would make a few basic changes. First, provide that the requirement ``upon exhaustion of State remedies'' is eliminated because that means the case has to be litigated in the State courts until every possible issue has been resolved before going to the Federal courts. And then there is a ping-pong effect where it goes back and forth. My legislation provides that there would be Federal jurisdiction attaching as soon as the State supreme court had upheld the judgment of sentence of the death penalty. Then there would be one hearing in the Federal courts taking up all the issues without getting involved in what is a full and fair hearing in the State courts, which leads to interminable litigation, again with the State court taking it up and then coming to the Federal court as to whether there had been a full and fair hearing, which is an aspect of exhaustion of State remedies. The Federal court ought to hear it once and once alone. If something then arises at a later time which warrants exceptional circumstances and unique Federal review again, that should happen only if the court of appeals approves it; that is, submission to Federal judges. There also ought to be a time limit of 120 days in the Federal district court, unless the judge is able to put on the record factors which require a longer period of time, and that should be within the discretion of the trial judge. But I have handled these cases in the Federal court on habeas corpus, and 120 days is long enough, providing the judge puts it at the top of the list. That would not be an undue burden where only one of these cases would come before a judge every 18 months. There should be time limits in the court of appeals so that this appellate proceeding could be concluded within 2 years instead of 20 years. Then, Mr. President, I think it is necessary to look at realistic rehabilitation. It is no surprise when someone leaves jail without a trade or a skill, as a functional illiterate, to go out into society, they are back to a life of crime and a revolving door. What I think we need to do is to have early intervention, especially with juveniles, for literacy and job training to give them a chance. But if they become career criminals--that is, three major offenses--then I think it is fair for society to impose a life sentence and to carry it out with adequate prison space. Just the day before yesterday in the city of Philadelphia there was an atrocious murder a block and a half from the Philadelphia police station where a car was stopped. Apparently the individual was being followed on a robbery attempt, and a cold-blooded murder at 5:23 in the afternoon a block and a half from the police station at 7th and Vine in Philadelphia. A man was shot down in cold blood. This happens again and again with drive-by shootings, with people being at risk. Violent crime could be curtailed if we really took the steps necessary to do that. That is something we ought to be looking at for this generation, the next generation, and those which follow. There is also a major problem in international issues with national security. From the position that I have just taken on as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, there is a real need to do more in the area of nuclear nonproliferation. There is grave concern about the agreement which the administration has just made with North Korea where we will not be inspecting the spent fuel rods for some 5 years; whether this is the best way to protect against whether North Korea is in fact proceeding to build nuclear weapons. It has been disclosed recently that North Korea and Iran are working jointly on ballistic missiles and that North Korea currently has the capacity to send a missile as far as Alaska. When we asked the director of the Central Intelligence Agency in hearings a week ago Tuesday what the prognosis was for reaching the continental United States, there can be no assurance. A great deal more has to be done in that respect. The issue of nutrition is of enormous importance. I was shocked more than a decade ago on my first occasion to see a 1-pound baby, a human being about as big as the size of my hand weighing 1 pound. That is a human tragedy because those children carry scars for a lifetime, and frequently the lifetime is not too long because of the intensity of the injuries carried. And it is a financial disaster with more than $150,000 in cost for each child and multibillion dollars in costs. It is a matter which can be corrected with prenatal visits as outlined by Dr. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General, in part of a health care package which I have proposed in Senate bill 18. As I think about the tragedy of low-birthweight babies or the tragedy of teenage pregnancies, as I think of my granddaughter, Silvi Morton Specter, who lives surrounded by love with her mother, Tracey Pearl Specter--a professional woman in her own right, but her daughter comes first--as I see them playing together--in effect, I say that Tracey is Silvi's best playmate--it is a sight to behold and really a tragedy that all children do not have the affection that Silvi has from her doting mother and doting father, my son Shanin Specter, and her grandparents, Carol and Alvin Pearl and Joan and myself. So I take a few moments on this Friday afternoon to talk about Silvi Morton Specter's generation and the obligations we have here on personal safety from violent crime at home, the problem of nuclear attack abroad, and the issue of not spending to burden Silvi's generation on the problems which children face everywhere. It is a real burden that we face and a real obligation that we have to do a better job as Senators and Members of Congress as we look forward to the 21st century. It is my own personal view that America has not seen its best and brightest days. I think of my father, who came to this country as an immigrant from Russia at the age of 18 in 1911 without any formal education, and my mother, who came with her parents from Poland in 1905 at the age of 5, and how much better it has been for my brother, my two sisters and me, and how much better it has been for my two sons, Shanin and Steve, and how much better it can be for Tracey and for Silvi Specter's generation if we do our jobs in the U.S. Congress. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 3 minutes in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had intended to wait until the conclusion of all of the Senate's business before speaking very briefly on the new generation of the Specter family, celebrating her first birthday today. But as the hour is 11:25 p.m., I fear that if I do not take advantage of this break in the action, it is unlikely that I will have a chance to speak before January 20, which will be after her first birthday. So I just consulted with our distinguished majority leader, who thought that I might take a moment or two now. As I say, 1 year ago today was the first arrival of the new generation of our family, Silvi Morton Specter. And it is an occasion, on her first birthday, to comment about children, a child, the future of our country, the future of her generation and the generations beyond. I think that we are making some progress in the United States Senate on protecting her generation and the generations that follow with the progress which we are making on the balanced budget amendment. I certainly would not think of charging any of my expenses to her credit card, and I think as a nation, as we move to the balanced budget amendment, we really are looking after her generation and the future generation. Similarly, I think we have a great deal to do on national security. As I have taken on a role on the Senate Intelligence Committee on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation, I think recently of her and her generation, just as I do on the issue of personal security, on the crime on the street, thinking about the fundamental duty of Government to protect its citizens. Silvi Morton Specter, my son's daughter, has a unique opportunity. She has extraordinary parents, Tracey Pearl Specter, a devoted and loving mother. I characterize them when I see them playing together as her mother being her daughter's favorite playmate, and her father, Shanin, is extraordinarily attentive, as are her maternal grandparents, Carol and Alvin Pearl, and her grandmother, my wife, Joan, and I are. As I reflect on the child, I just wish that all of America's children and all of the world's children had her great advantages. So I thank my colleagues for indulging me for a few moments. I think we still have ample time before midnight to perhaps take up another subject or two. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Idaho.