[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1524-S1525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

  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.
   [[Page S1525]] A number of things that the President had to say I 
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.

                          ____________________