[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S791-S793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition, and as the 
final speaker before we adjourn for a recess, I am going to comment 
about the situation in Iraq.
  It had been my hope that the Congress might have addressed this 
issue. But it is obvious now that we will not. I think that the 
Congress--at least the Senate--is not addressing the issue because 
there is not clear-cut agreement in this body as to how to proceed.
  My own view is that an air attack and a missile attack, if one is to 
be carried out, constitutes an act of war. And under the Constitution 
that requires Congressional authorization. The President is authorized 
as the Commander in Chief--and there is only one Commander in Chief, 
and it is obvious that where the 535 Members of the Congress cannot 
agree upon a program that we are not committed to be the executive. 
That is why we have an executive. But still the Constitution requires 
that war would be declared only by an act of Congress. And I think the 
international law interpretations make it plain that military action, 
like air attack or missile attack, does constitute an act of war.
  I believe that we have not yet seen a clear definition of U.S. 
objectives as to what we are seeking to accomplish. My sense is that 
the American people are not prepared for what may occur.
  I make it a practice, as I know the Chair does, of having open house 
town meetings. And I had three this week--

[[Page S792]]

on Monday in Cumberland County, Lebanon County, and Lancaster County, 
PA. There is great concern among my constituents--those whom I have 
talked to there and other places--of not having an idea as to precisely 
what we are going to accomplish.
  It is my hope, if action is to be taken, that before any action is 
taken the President of the United States will address the American 
people and will identify the goals as he sees them and evaluate our 
likelihood of attaining those goals so that the people of the United 
States will be prepared and understand what is going to happen. But I 
do not see at this date how there can be public support for an attack 
in the absence of informing the American people, preparing them and 
having a public dialog on the subject. The Congress is speaking loudly 
by not speaking at all on a resolution to authorize the use of force 
against Iraq.
  In 1991, on January 10, this body authorized the use of force. I was 
at the forefront arguing that force should be used at that time. We had 
an extended debate. The Congress--the Senate specifically--was 
complimented for having a classic debate on what our vital national 
interests were and how we should respond. I do believe that we have a 
vital national interest in what is going on in Iraq at the present 
time. I do believe that there are great dangers posed by Saddam Hussein 
and by his weapons of mass destruction.
  I had an opportunity back in January of 1990--just 8 years ago on a 
trip with Senator Richard Shelby--to talk to Saddam Hussein. It is not 
an easy matter to deal with Saddam Hussein, as we have seen. There is 
some talk that Saddam Hussein ought to be toppled. But the air attacks, 
the missiles, and the planes will not accomplish that. It is plain at 
this juncture that there is no positioning of the kind of ground forces 
necessary to topple Saddam Hussein. Even as to the air attacks, it is 
plain that we will not destroy all of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The question is: How will Saddam Hussein come out of whatever 
military force we use? I am very much concerned that he may come out a 
martyr. Certainly the lack of support for the United States raises 
major questions as to how the rest of the world views this issue.
  On my travels--and I have traveled extensively, Mr. President, in my 
capacity as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the 104th 
Congress, and my work on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee--I have 
found that there is great admiration for the United States around the 
world. People all over the globe admire our economic achievements. They 
admire our values. They admire our freedom, and the success of our free 
enterprise system. But there is also a touch of concern about abuse of 
power or excessive use of power, perhaps arrogance. And, we have to 
evaluate that very carefully in what we do as to Iraq.

  I made a trip to the Mideast from late December to mid-January, and 
wherever I went I heard concerns about the projection of American power 
and concerns about the Iraqi civilian population, not Saddam Hussein, 
but concern about the Iraqi civilian population. It is an odd quirk of 
history that after the great success of the United States, the 
coalition put together by President Bush, which was a masterful job, 
President Bush is in Houston and Saddam is still in Baghdad running 
Iraq.
  I have spoken with some frequency on the question of greater personal 
Presidential involvement in international dispute resolution, a subject 
that I have discussed personally with the President. It is my view that 
President Clinton can leave the Department of Agriculture to Secretary 
Glickman and the Department of the Interior to Secretary Babbitt, and 
so forth, but only the President of the United States can wield the 
enormous power that comes from the Presidency.
  In 1995, Senator Brown and I spoke to Prime Minister Gowda of India, 
who said to us that he hoped the subcontinent could become nuclear 
free. The next day we passed that information on to Prime Minister 
Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, who asked us if we had it in writing. We 
told her, of course, we did not. But we asked her when she had last 
talked to the Prime Minister of India. She said, ``We don't talk.''
  That night Senator Brown and I cabled President Clinton with those 
views fresh in our mind, urging the President to call those Prime 
Ministers to the Oval Office; nobody turns down an invitation to the 
Oval Office. And later talking to the President, he said, well, I 
intend to do that after I am re-elected. I have talked to him since, 
and it has not yet happened.
  I think the President did an outstanding job, and I compliment him on 
the negotiations in the Mideast in the 1995 timeframe where the 
President and the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, almost 
brokered an agreement between Syria and Israel. When I met with the 
President in mid-December before my trip to the Mideast, I urged him to 
become active again on that track of the peace process because I think 
the parties are very close.
  I had a chance to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu and President 
Assad in August-November of 1996, and they were pretty far apart. Prime 
Minister Netanyahu said that he wanted to resume peace negotiations but 
he had a new mandate, he wanted to start fresh. President Assad of 
Syria said that he would want to start negotiations but would want to 
pick up where he, or Syria, and Prime Minister Rabin left off before 
Prime Minister Rabin's assassination in November of 1995. In talking to 
them last month the words were about the same but the music was 
different.
  I think that Presidential involvement there might find success, 
especially with the explicit condition that any agreement would be 
subject to ratification by the Israeli electorate on the Golan Heights, 
something about which only Israel could make a decision for themselves 
considering all the security factors, and the issue with the 
Palestinians much more difficult, the Israel-Palestine crack. But here 
I think personal Presidential involvement might be very successful. I 
think there has been the absence of that, where we find ourselves with 
only Great Britain at our side now as we look to action against Iraq. I 
have heard what the Secretary of Defense has had to say, and I have 
total respect and confidence in Secretary Cohen based on the 16 years 
that I worked with him in the Senate. But he alone cannot carry the 
Executive burden in this matter.
  On the information at hand, we do not have the cooperation of others 
in a military attack. I think that has to be weighed very carefully. I 
do think that there are alternatives. I do think that the issue of a 
blockade is something that might bring Saddam Hussein, if not to his 
knees, to a greater economic impasse. It would be my hope that before 
action is taken which constitutes an act of war, the issue would be 
debated by the Senate and by the House of Representatives and an 
appropriate resolution would be put before us to have the appropriate 
constitutional authorization.

  I know that many of our colleagues have spoken on this matter in the 
course of the last several days, and as the last speaker in the Senate 
before we go to adjournment, I did want to make these comments for 
whatever consideration the President and the Executive may choose to 
make of them.


                  NOMINATION OF JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I did not have an opportunity yesterday 
after the Majority Leader announced the resolution of the proceedings 
as to the pending nomination of Judge Massiah-Jackson for the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I 
sought recognition to speak with unanimous consent for up to 1 minute, 
and there was an objection levied so I was not able to talk at that 
time.
  I cannot limit my remarks to a single minute today because there are 
other things to be commented upon, but I believe that the referral of 
this matter to the Judiciary Committee is the appropriate course of 
conduct. Notwithstanding my continuing efforts to set forth the facts, 
my own personal activities have been grossly inaccurately reported.
  First, it is President Clinton who has recommended Judge Massiah-
Jackson for the Federal court. That is the President's nomination. It 
is not my nomination or the nomination of Senator Santorum. It is true 
that Massiah-Jackson was cleared by a nonpartisan panel appointed by 
Senator Santorum and me, but that approval

[[Page S793]]

does not involve any personal activity or action by either of the 
Senators.
  Second, in my capacity as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
and since Judge Massiah-Jackson is a constituent, I have vigorously 
sought to see that she received fair treatment, just as I did when the 
Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of Justice Clarence 
Thomas.
  Third, I have made a public commitment to review all the matters 
submitted by her opponents before casting my vote on the Senate floor.
  Fourth, I have been proactive in seeking all the facts against her 
confirmation as well as all of the facts of those who support her.
  The charge has been made that I made a ``deal'' with the White House 
to appoint Judge Massiah-Jackson in exchange for the appointment of 
Judge Bruce Kauffman, who was sworn into the United States District 
Court on January 20. The facts are that I am party to an arrangement 
for Republicans to receive one nomination for the district courts for 
every three Democrats who are nominated, an arrangement identical with 
that now applicable to the State of New York. But I am not under any 
obligation to support any specific nominee, nor anybody submitted by 
the White House from the Democratic ranks. I am not under any 
obligation to support anyone, including Judge Massiah-Jackson, if I 
conclude the person is not qualified.
  When Judge Massiah-Jackson's nomination was announced by the 
President on July 31, 1997, there were rumors of opposition, and in 
order to try to find out what the facts were in opposition, Senator 
Santorum, Senator Biden and I held a hearing in Philadelphia on October 
3. All of the witnesses who testified favored Judge Massiah-Jackson, 
including five of her colleagues from the Common Pleas bench.
  Mayor Rendell, who had been district attorney for 3 of her 7 years on 
the criminal bench, was enthusiastically in support of her nomination. 
Then the Judiciary Committee held its formal hearing on October 29, and 
again no witnesses opposed her. Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions and I 
questioned her closely on her record, and on November 6 she was 
reported out of the Committee by a vote of 12 to 6.
  Thereafter, when district attorneys from Pennsylvania raised 
objections, Senator Santorum and I took a proactive position to meet 
those district attorneys, and we heard them out on January 23. I then 
arranged to get all of their opposing cases by January 30, with an 
opportunity for Judge Massiah-Jackson to respond, and that is what we 
await at the present time. As a matter of fundamental fairness, she is 
entitled to that hearing.
  So, I think the Senate has taken the appropriate stand to have the 
hearing, and those who object will hear what Judge Massiah-Jackson has 
to say and then I, as a juror, along with my colleagues, will take a 
look at all of the facts and make a decision as to whether she is to be 
confirmed or whether she should be rejected. I thank the Chair for the 
courtesy and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________