Arlen Specter Speech and Press Conference at Pease International 
Tradeport, Portsmouth, NH  on July 17, 1995

Specter: Transcription from audiotape of brief speech and a press 
conference of Sen. Specter on July 17, 1995, at Pease International 
Tradeport.  The topics addressed below include: a debate challenge to Pat 
Buchanan; the benefits of a free trade policy for NH and the nation; 
Bosnia; tax reform; immigration policy; his conservative ideology vis a 
vis Buchanan; healthcare; abortion and the Republican platform; being 
Jewish and being President (particularly with regards to Bosnia); and the 
Superfund law.

**********************************************************************
Transcribed from audiotape by Mark Kuhn.

Opening Comments and Press Conference

Sen: Specter:
Okay, When Pat Buchanan and I debated yesterday on national
television, we did not have time in the course of the thirty
minutes allotted to reach all of the important issues. And one of
the items which I had commented on in my closing statement was
the issue of trade, and the strong differences of opinion which
Arlen Specter and Pat Buchanan have on America's role in the
world, on the issue of free trade and the importance of free
trade.  And uh I am challenging Pat Buchanan to debate here in
New Hampshire on the subject of trade and international relations
and the very striking difference in views between Arlen Specter
and Pat Buchanan with Mr. Buchanan being restrictive on trade, uh
being in essence an isolationist and pressing very very hard to
have a fortress America built, isolating America.  

I think the statistics are really fascinating.  If you take a
look at the New Hampshire exports.  A total in 1994, last year of
four billion six hundred and ten million dollars which projects
to approximately a hundred and five thousand jobs.  If you have
the free trade estimates, that we have the benefit of NAFTA and
GATT,  by the year two thousand, New Hampshire will have a total
of seven billion six hundred and fifty million dollars in total
exports, projecting to a hundred and seventy four thousand jobs a
net increase in some sixty nine thousand jobs which are very very
high paying jobs.  Those are according to estimates by the
Wharton Econometric Group, WEFA, and the projections by the
Department of Commerce.  And if you take a look at the
statistics, nationally, for the entire country, in 1994, last
year, there was total trade of three hundred and sixty three
billion six hundred million dollars projecting to a little over
eight million jobs, eight point three million jobs.  And by the
year two thousand, projecting with the free trade estimates we
will have six hundred and ten billion dollars in total exports
which projects to something of thirteen million nine hundred
thousand jobs.  And those jobs are very very important and those
jobs are items where I think we ought to have an exchange of
views and exchange of ideas.  

Mr. Buchanan is articulating in general the isolationist
ideology.  And I believe it is important for the United States to
have a very strong presence in the world.  

As we speak, atrocities are being conducted in Bosnia which are
virtually unprecedented.  The morning news accounts have
corroboration on the Bosnian Serbs moving into safe haven areas
and taking large numbers of young men, eleven, twelve, in their
teens, and ruthlessly murdering them by slitting their throats.
The attacks on the young women are so ruthless that there are
repeated reports about the young women hanging themselves instead
of being subjected to the atrocity of the Bosnian Serbs.

My own view is that the United States has a failed policy there. 
That we should long ago have lifted the arms embargo to allow the
Bosnian Muslims to defend themselves, which they have every right
to do under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.  And I
think that beyond this point the United States is in a position,
in collaboration with NATO and other UN forces to inflict
tremendous punishment by air on the Bosnian Serbs.  Uhh, I am
opposed to ground troops being provided by the United States. 
And I am opposed to personnel being provided by the United
States, except as it relates to the overflights and to air power.
But the atrocities of the Bosnian Serbs have now reached a new
level and their floughting of the international community and
their floughting of the decency and value on human life and their
barbaric conduct, I think makes it imperative for the United
States to take the world leadership in having the United Nations
peacekeepers withdraw, where they currently have a mission
impossible.  The peacekeepers have a mission impossible because
there is no peace to keep there.  

But I think still the United States has a strong role in world
affairs.  That's the internationalism of Ronald Reagan.  That's
the internationalism of Richard Nixon.  That's the
internationalism of Dwight Eisenhower.  Uhh and the
internationalism of George Bush on his leadership for victory in
the Gulf War.  Uhh military interventionism which Mr. Pat
Buchanan opposed.  So I think it's high time we stopped having
our separate news conferences and that uh we have the debates in
the earliest primary state, and that is the state of New
Hampshire.  Uhh, I told Mr. Buchanan after the debate yesterday
that I was going to be here today. And I was going to be issuing
this challenge and he said that uh that he " would would consider
it."  

I think it is important that we broaden the debate beyond the
issue of taking the anti-abortion plank out of the platform,
which uhh I definitely uh uh favor.  When uh we reached uh the
crescendo of our debate yesterday.  When uh Mr. Buchanan proposed
a constitutional amendment to deny citizenship to children born
in the United States.  A subject that I have have very strong
feelings about since both of my parents were immigrants.  And at
one point I asked Mr. Buchanan, "What was next? Were they going
to challenge the legal status of my parents, the citizenship of
Arlen Specter?"  And I said, "That the differences were every
clear.  Pat Buchanan wants a constitutional amendment on many of
the items of life in America. A constitutional amendment to
change a women's constitutional right of choice; a constitutional
amendment dealing with uh school prayer; a constitutional
amendment dealing with uh uh citizenship for children born in
this country."  he wants to make it a different world. 

Uhh sometime ago, Bill Safire of the New York Times had made a
recommendation that uh Arlen Specter Pat Buchanan debates might
be lively, and uh the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt recently
wrote that only Arlen Specter and Pat Buchanan are speaking from
the heart saying what they really believe, with the other
candidates are saying what the voters want to hear.  So uh my
challenge today is to Pat Buchanan meet me in Manchester or in
Dover or in Concord or in North Conway or in Pease Air Base.  

Question:  Why are you running so hard against Pat Buchanan? 
Your, if one were to compare your stance on issues you are more
similar in philosophy to uh to uh the California governor to uh
Mr. Wilson.

Sen. Specter:  I couldn't think of his name either.

Question cont': probably for different reasons.  On a a whole
slew of issues.  How much of your desire to run against Buchanan
so heavily in New Hampshire, elsewhere perhaps, is related to the
fact that he draws media?  In New Hampshire he got 37 percent of
the vote in the last pri in the Republican primary which probably
which probably led to the downfall of George Bush.

Sen. Specter: Yes sir. That's the part of your statement I agree
with.

Question: Why are you running so hard against him instead of
Governor Wilson.

Sen. Specter: I think if uh Pat were here today and so all of
this media I brought he'd be rushing to join me here to share in
the TV cameras and in the notepads.  I'm challenging Pat Buchanan
to a debate because Pat Buchanan and Arlen Specter uh are uh are
at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Uh I'm a fiscal economic
conservative and a social libertarian and I'm right of center,
but everybody else uh is uh farther to the extreme.  And uh the
reason that I'm challenging Buchanan to the debate is uh the
reason uh that Tim Russert of Meet the Press decided to have uh
the two of us on the debate as uh the uh liveliest  uh clash of
ideas in the campaign.  And it's an idea, as I have said, that
Bill Safire  of the New York Times suggested some time ago.  And
uh that Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal said that only uh
Buchanan and Arlen Specter are speaking from the heart.  

Question:   Is any of this an effort on your part to boost your
numbers which are pretty anemic in New Hampshire?  I don't know
if they are elsewhere.  But in this state your numbers are fairly
small.  Why against Buchanan?  You get seen against Buchanan,
with Buchanan.  Isn't that to your advantage politically.

Sen. Specter:  Well let me take up your questions one at a time.
Well first on the numbers.  Uhh, they're a lot higher now than
they used to be.  Uh uh, I've been running for a couple of
months,  uh, uh Mr. Buchanan's been running for several years. 
Already spent several million dollars on television on New
Hampshire.  Uh, am I running because I think it will help my
candidacy?  Uh yes.  Uh, do I think it would help Pat Buchanan's
candidacy? Uh, yes.  I think there's a third point of benefit,
and that is to the people who are watching the political
campaign.  But uh I'm very candid in saying that I think it would
be a boost to uh to my candidacy and uh uh Pat Buchanan said to
me after the debate was over yesterday he said, "Arlen," he said,
"I think it would helpful if both of us would be helped with our
constituencies."

Uh uh I think there's something more to a campaign than having
solo press conferences solo news conferences.

Question:  But wouldn't wouldn't this be more of risk to you than
to him just uh to have this in New Hampshire.   Since apparently
he has views that tend to reflect more the traditional New
Hampshire views.

Sen. Specter: Well I think I think you put your fingers on a good
point. I think there is a substantial risk in undertaking uh
political debates.  Uhh and I think that Mr. Buchanan uh uh has
campaigned more in New Hampshire than I do.   As pointed out he
got 37% of the vote against former President Bush uh may well
have cost him the election by his challenge in the primary.  Uh
but I I am prepared to take that risk.  I I I am prepared to take
that risk in the interest of confronting the issues.   But I'm
willing to take that risk because I think that when the voters
compare my views of what the constitution means for America
compared with Pat Buchanan's, that they'll side with Arlen
Specter.  I think that when the uh voters of New Hampshire of
America take my views on trade.  They'll side with my position. 
I've given you some hard facts here today.  Let's see what Mr.
Buchanan has to say.

Question:  Would you want expand this free trade you're talking
about including to uh Vietnam in light of last week's?

Sen Specter:  Uh sure I'd be glad to uh expand it.  Uh I've spoke
publicly uh in opposition to the uh diplomatic recognition of
Vietnam.  I think it is too soon to do that.  Uh  I was part of a
Congressional delegation that visited Vietnam about a year and a
half ago, visited with the American military there, visited with
the Vietnamese leaders, and there're still uh more than sixteen
hundred Americans missing in action.  And I know that there is
economic gain and commercial benefit with full recognition of
Vietnam.  But I think that as long as there are that many that
are still missing in action that out of deference to feelings of
the families that we ought not to extend full diplomatic
recognition to Vietnam.  It's too soon.

Question: But still trade?

Sen. Specter: Well uh I'm not in the position to turn back the
clock at least until I'm elected.  What the President did last
week was extend full diplomatic recognition.  When asked about
that I said "I disagreed with that."  I would include that in the
debate with Mr. Buchanan.

Question:  Would you undo what Bill Clinton is proposing to do?


Sen. Specter: Well I think uh today with less than a week having
passed we could rescind it.  By January of 1997, January 20,
Inauguration Day, we'll have to take a look at the situation
then.  I won't be the President at least until then.  

Question:  If I follow you correctly, you would support lifting
the arms embargo.  But now do you feel er in Bosnia.  Do you feel
that there are times when trade sanctions should be used?  Um
like in the case of the human rights activist uh that's being
held in China.  Do you think that there times when trade
sanctions should be used in that way?  Based on things that are
going on in other countries.

Sen. Specter: Yes I do.  I think there are times when trade
sanctions are very important.  I think the sanctions which have
been imposed upon Iraq are entirely appropriate.  I think the
effort to isolate Iran with trade sanctions is entirely
appropriate.  Trade sanctions on uh Libya.  I think trade
sanctions have a very important place.

Question:  What about China?  What about doing away with most
favored nation status?  

Sen. Specter:  Well I uh I opposed most favored nation status
with China before it was granted.  Uh I think that uh uh we have
a number of very very serious issues arising as to China.  Uh
with their detention of Mr. Harry Wu uh they've gone to a new
level in holding in detention a man who is simply uh a freedom
fighter, trying to promote human rights with a very important
cause.  The issue arose in our debate yesterday uh on uh Meet the
Press as to uh whether the United States should participate in a
major conference coming up in China where uh the First Lady, Mrs.
Clinton is expected to attend.  And I said that, "I thought that
we should not and that she should not."  And I think that in a
context where the government of China is being so flagrant in its
violation of human rights that uh we ought not to accord them the
uh honor and dignity of attending of attending a conference in
China.  

Question:  I saw your debate yesterday with Mr. Buchanan on Meet
the Press.  There were three people in the room besides myself. 
Two of those people uh I would classify as fairly staunch
Democrats.  And their response to you was, "Why doesn't he come
and join us?"  

Sen. Specter: How far away were you from Washington?

Question cont': New Hampshire.  Hampton, New Hampshire.  Their
response was, you're you you're fairly consistent with with what
they believed. Now these are people I know fairly well.  There
was there was a guy which I would call a Republican, in the room. 
And he disagreed with virtually everything you had to say. 
Especially the area of immigration.  When Buchanan was calling
for this period of time to help assimilate people.  I think he
said five years.  Stop all immigration for five years.  UH
virtually all three people in the room agreed with that.  Are you
too liberal for this state, on immigration, on these other
issues?

Sen. Specter:  Uhh, I don't think I'm a liberal at all.  Uh, I
think that my conservative credentials are really very, very well
established, conservative credentials which were established by
longstanding support for the balanced budget amendment, by my
longstanding advocacy of the line item veto, by my consistent
votes for the Reagan tax cuts, for my leadership in trying to
bring a flat tax to uh the United States, with this as a tax
return, the postcard uh tax return.  With my national leadership
for the death penalty, with the recent leadership on the anti-
terrorism bill, uh the author of the Specter-Hatch Bill, to
decrease the time which is spent on appeals in federal courts on
the death penalty. Uh and when it comes to the question of uh uh
immigration I'll take second place to no one.  I think I have
some substantial knowledge uh on that question, having been
raised by a father who was an immigrant and uh a mother who was
an immigrant.  And I think as a first generation American I have
some special appreciation for for what that means.  And I think
that immigrants uh uh including uh the Specter family have
contributed greatly to this country and have uh made it great.  

Uh and I feel very comfortable uh in the Republican party and
very comfortable in my disagreements with with President Clinton. 
Uh last year when he advocated the uh uh Clinton healthcare plan
uh it was uh my leadership uh and uh this chart which was a key
factor in uh defeating the Clinton healthcare plan.  This chart
depicted at one glance the fallacy of the Clinton healthcare
plan; with every box in red they add a new agency, board, or
commission, a hundred and five of them.  And every box in green,
an existing bureau giving forty-seven of those being given new
bureaucratic responsibilities.  And uh Bob Woodward of the
Washington Post said that, "This chart was the critical,
psychological break point to defeat the Clinton healthcare plan,"
which was a big democratic uh tax and spend uh uh proposition. 
And uh uh my own healthcare plan which relies on the free
enterprise entrepreneurial system, as it provides the best health
care in the world to American people, builds on free enterprise,
but targets the specific problem.  

And uh my philosophy of uh of Barry Goldwater, keep the
government off our backs with less regulation, out of pocketbooks
with less taxes and out of our bedrooms, supporting a women's
right to choose, is the traditional conservative philosophy.  If
you take a look at the essence of the conservative definition, is
the least government is the best government.  And it is Pat
Buchanan who wants the government to regulate the affairs of the
bedroom, to affairs of uh uh of our everyday lives.  So that my
position is the real conservative position.  And not only do I
feel comfortable as a Republican, but I think we have to broaden
the tent a la Lee Atwater to include more on a broader base,
appealing to minorities, to women, and uh that's the way to
victory.  Not uh as uh Pat Buchanan articulates looking for a
religious war.  Which is his way of closing down the party.  The
calling for a Christian nation.  Uh we are a nation which prides
itself on tolerance and diversity.  And I think the proper
approach is to bring America together.  And uh that's why I'm in
this campaign.  And uh lets put our cases to the people of
America starting with the New Hampshire primary and I'm ready to
stand up and uh articulate my position and defend my position.

Campaign aid: Senator I know you came late but if you're gonna
get back for a vote in Washington we gotta get you out of here.

Sen. Specter:  That's alright I'll just take a few more minutes I
don't want to [inaudible] any questions.

Question: Senator you say you want to take the abortion issue out
of politics. How realistic is that goal and just how do you plan
to do that?

Sen. Specter:  Well, uh I think it is realistic.  Uh I believe we
ought to take abortion out of politics so that we can concentrate
on core Republican values.  I don't believe there ought to be a
litmus test if you want to be a Republican nominee.  And I put my
money where my mouth was last year when I gave such strong
support to my colleague Senator Rick Santorum.  Rick couldn't get
to a fundraiser in Pittsburg, Iowa. I helped in mid-August when
he needed a new campaign manager I gave him my executive director
out of Philadelphia.  And when Ralph Reed Junior and Pat Buchanan
and Pat Robertson say that if you're pro-choice, Arlen Specter's
not fit to be the Republican nominee. I think that's wrong. I'm
not looking for a pro choice plank; I'm looking for a plank and a
platform that says we respect the dignity of human life but we
also respect diversity of opinion.  And I think that uh uh
factually you have 71 percent of Republicans supporting the
women's constitutional right to choose.  And philosophically uh
the least government is the best government, out of the bedrooms. 
And pragmatically if we get sidetracked on these divisive social
issues like abortion we will not be able to carry out the mandate
which we have the contract with America.  Newt Gingrich's
contract with American doesn't have a word about it word in it
about abortion.  And that's why I want to take abortion out of
politics lets concentrate on our core Republican values;  smaller
government, less spending, lower taxes.

Question cont': But you tout the fact that you are pro-choice.

Sen. Specter:  Why of course.

Question cont':  So that bringing it into the political arena
then.

Sen. Specter:  Well it is it is looking for equality for a pro
choice position.  It is not asking for dominance of a pro-choice
position.  And it's necessary to say that I'm pro choice as a way
of saying that I think the anti-abortion plank ought to be out of
the platform.  But I'm not looking for any special favoritism for
a pro choice position.  I just want uh neutrality.

Question:  What would you do I mean uh if you are elected you
would be the first Jewish president this country has ever had. 
What would you do if the uh if the uh Bosnians or actually the
people in what was Yugoslavia don't get the message this kind of
aggression can't be tolerated.  Do you see that do you see these
people as having the same initial effect effect as Hitler had on
the thirties.  And if you were President what would you do as a
Jew.

Sen. Specter:  Well uh uh

Question cont':  I mean is this Nazism?

Sen. Specter:  As an American president I would act in the
interest of America.

Question cont': I understand that.

Sen. Specter:  Well I'm glad you understand that.  I don't
understand your question.   What does being Jewish have to do
with the foreign policies to Bosnia.  I don't want to bother you
by asking a question.

Question cont':  That's fine.  There's an element of Nazism many
people contend do you see this as someone who's had your
experiences,  whose parents are Jewish, I'm not trying to be flip
here, whose parents are Jewish.  Uh do you see this kind of
aggression as a new Nazism?  And would you act more decisively
that obviously you say this administration has acted?

Sen. Specter:  Uh I would act as an American.  And I think that
an American President ought to act with revulsion against the
barbaric conduct of the Bosnian Serbs and an American President
ought to act that way if the American President were Jewish or
Catholic or Episcopalian or a Muslim.  It would make no
difference what the religion was of the American President.  When
you have human values being denigrated with the kind of conduct
being exhibited by the Bosnian Serbs there ought to be a very
forceful reaction by the American President whoever his parents
were or where ever he goes to synagogue or to church.  Uh it is
not necessary to analogize the conduct of the Bosnian Serbs with
the subhuman barbaric conduct of any predecessor subhuman
barbarian people.  Religion, my background

Question cont':  I was not trying to drag religion into it.  I
attempted to indicate would you be more sensitive to it than Bill
Clinton's been. I assume your parents came here for a reason.

Sen. Specter:  My parents came to this country in the early
1900's for religious freedom just like the pilgrims came to this
country in the early 1600's for religious freedom.  Uh when you
ask about my sensitivity compared to President Clinton's
sensitivity, I'm afraid the complete answer to that would keep us
here past dinnertime.

Question:  What if the extended this into Kosovo or extended
this beyond Kosovo or current territories would you use American
troops?

Sen. Specter:  I'm not prepared to use American troops.  And I
think there needs a resolution to prohibit that.  But I think we
have sufficient firepower and American airpower to make them rue
the day they have undertaken this course of barbarism and
disrespect for human rights, human values, and uh the
international community.

Question:   Would your administration embrace Senator Bob Smith's
bill trying to push now that would repeal most of the liability
laws most of the liability laws under Superfund? Everything prior
to 1980.

Sen.Specter:  That issue has not yet come to the floor and I have
not yet studied it in-depth. But I think that there is a sound
basis for revising the Superfund Law, so that it does not depend
upon fault.  We have gotten into such complex litigation, on
trying to find out who among many predecessors title holders to a
piece of land was at fault.  So that I think it is desirable at
this point to look for alternative ways to pay for the cleanup 
and that it may well be preferable to have an assessment as to a
large group of land holders as opposed to trying to assess fault.

[The press conference continued for a question or two longer and
then ends.  Unfortunately my tape ends at this point]
_________________________________________________________________