Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join in support of this important amendment for permanent extension of the Voting Rights Act. Voting is fundamental in our democracy. It has yielded enormous returns. We know of the historical discrimination against minorities, against African Americans. The essence of a democracy is a free electorate. Voting rights are very important. It ought to be on our books on a permanent basis. I think it is so fundamental that it doesn't take long to express the underlying reasons for its importance and the fundamental reason why it should be in existence of the law on a permanent basis. I support this amendment. In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. President, I support legislation which would address the serious problems faced today by doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals who provide obstetrical and gynecological services and at the same time provide balance to treat fairly people who are injured in the course of medical treatment. While most of the attention has been directed to OB/GYN malpractice verdicts, the issues are much broader, involving medical errors, insurance company investments and administrative practices. I support caps on noneconomic damages so long as they do not apply to situations such as the paperwork mix-up leading to the double mastectomy of a woman or the death of a 17-year-old woman on a North Carolina transplant case where there was a faulty blood type match or comparable cases in the OB/GYN services area. An appropriate standard for cases not covered could be analogous provisions in Pennsylvania law which limit actions against governmental entities or in the limited tort context which exclude death, serious impairment of bodily function, and permanent disfigurement or dismemberment. Beyond the issue of caps, I believe there could be savings on the cost of OB/GYN malpractice insurance by eliminating frivolous cases by requiring plaintiffs to file with the court a certification by a doctor in the field that it is an appropriate case to bring to court. This proposal, which is now part of Pennsylvania State procedure, would be expanded federally, thus reducing claims and saving costs. While most malpractice cases are won by defendants, the high cost of litigation drives up OB/GYN malpractice premiums. The proposed certification would reduce plaintiff's joinder of peripheral defendants and cut defense costs. Further savings could be accomplished through patient safety initiatives identified in the report of the Institute of Medicine. On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, issued a report entitled: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. The IOM report estimated that anywhere between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized Americans die each year due to avoidable medical mistakes. However, only a fraction of these deaths and injuries are due to negligence; most errors are caused by system failures. The IOM issued a comprehensive set of recommendations, including the establishment of a nationwide mandatory reporting system; incorporation of patient safety standards in regulatory and accreditation programs; and the development of a non-punitive culture of safety in health care organizations. The report called for a 50 percent reduction in medical errors over 5 years. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, held three hearings to discuss the IOM's findings and explore ways to implement the recommendations outlined in the IOM report. The fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS appropriations bill contained $50 million for a patient safety initiative and directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to develop guidelines on the collection of uniform error data; establish a competitive demonstration program to test best practices; and research ways to improve provider training. In fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, $55 million was included to continue these initiatives. We are awaiting a report, which has been delayed after being scheduled for issuance in September, 2003, by the Department of Health and Human Services, which will detail the results of the patient safety initiative. There is evidence that increases in OB/GYN insurance premiums have been caused, at least in part, by insurance company losses, the declining stock market of the past several years, and the general rate- setting practices of the industry. As a matter of insurance company calculations, premiums are collected and invested to build up an insurance reserve where there is considerable lag time between the payment of the premium and litigation which results in a verdict or settlement. When the stock market has gone down, for example, that has resulted in insufficient funding to pay claims and the attendant increase in OB/GYN insurance premiums. A similar result occurred in Texas on homeowners insurance where cost and availability of insurance became an issue because companies lost money in the market and could not cover the insured losses on hurricanes. In structuring legislation to put caps on jury verdicts in OB/GYN cases, due regard should be given to the history and development of trial by jury under the common law where reliance is placed on average men and women who comprise a jury to reach a just result reflecting the values and views of the community. Jury trials in modern tort cases descend from the common law jury in trespass, which was drawn from and intended to be representative of the average members of the community in which the alleged trespass occurred. This coincides with the incorporation of negligence standards of liability into trespass actions. This ``representative'' jury right in civil actions was protected by consensus among the state drafters of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. The explicit trial by jury safeguards in the seventh amendment to the Constitution were adaptations of these common law concepts harmonized with the sixth amendment's clause that local juries be used in criminal trials. Thus, from its inception at common law through its inclusion in the Bill of Rights and today, the jury in tort/negligence cases is meant to be representative of the judgment of average members of the community, not of elected representatives. The right to have a jury decide one's damages has been greatly circumscribed in recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. An example is the analysis that the court has recently applied to limit punitive damage awards. In recent cases, the Court has shifted its Seventh Amendment focus away from two centuries of precedent in deciding that federal appellate review of punitive damage awards will be decided on a de novo basis and that a jury's determination of punitive damages is not a finding of fact for purposes of the re-examination clause of the Seventh Amendment--``no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law''. Then, in 2003, the Court reasoned that any ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages greater than 9:1 will likely be considered unreasonable and disproportionate, and thus constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property in non-personal injury cases. Plaintiffs will inevitably face a vastly increased burden to justify a greater ratio, and appellate courts have far greater latitude to disallow or reduce such an award. These decisions may have already, in effect, placed caps on some jury verdicts in malpractice cases which may involve punitive damages. Consideration of the many complex issues on the Senate floor on the pending legislation will obviously be very difficult in the absence of a markup in committee or the submission of a committee report and a committee bill. The pending bill is the starting point for analysis, discussion, debate and amendment. I am prepared to proceed with the caveat that there is much work to be done before the Senate would be ready, in my opinion, for consideration of final passage. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, March 1 marks a very special occasion-- although it is with mixed feelings I report that Tom Ryan, the key Department of Labor Budget Analyst for employment and training programs is retiring following more than 32 years of a most distinguished career. As the members of the Appropriations Committee can attest, Mr. Ryan's work in this area has been extraordinary, in its breadth, its depth, and in its effectiveness. As needs arose and even when crisis has come to the lives of so many job seekers throughout our Nation, Mr. Ryan has been a pillar of strength in helping people as he worked tirelessly with us to ensure that funding for the right training opportunities were available when job seekers needed them. On behalf of the members of the Appropriations Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt thanks to Mr. Ryan for his vision which has so often guided us in formulating creative solutions to funding jobs training programs, in caring for the people we serve--many of those who are in critical need of assistance. The complexities of funding these programs during the challenging years of fiscal austerity have been met with a determination to find solutions, and the countless people receiving job training and employment assistance are well-served, due in no small measure, to Mr. Ryan's efforts and his devotion to these endeavors. For these efforts and so many more, we extend our congratulations to Mr. Ryan and wish him an enjoyable and well-deserved retirement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for his very cogent remarks about the highway bill and its effects on Pennsylvania. I associate myself with what my colleague from Pennsylvania has said. I think it is unfortunate we have a bill which appears to be heading for a Presidential veto. We have a bill which quite a number of States find unsatisfactory. I compliment the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member of the committee, as a whole, for their very strenuous efforts. But I do believe Pennsylvania is not being treated fairly. Senator Santorum has gone over the specifics about our State, which has very heavy traffic going through the State, the third heaviest truck traffic State in the Nation. Almost half of the trucks which go into Pennsylvania do not stop in Pennsylvania. There are very difficult problems of weather, potholes, and highway deterioration that require Pennsylvania be granted more of the funding. Pennsylvania has traditionally been a donee State, which means Pennsylvania receives more than the funds which Pennsylvania contributes to the trust fund. Now Pennsylvania, for the first time, was turned into a donor State, so Pennsylvania is contributing more to the trust fund than Pennsylvania is receiving. I think that just is not appropriate. I have also expressed my concern earlier in voting against cloture, on the first cloture vote earlier in the week, about the concerns I have for the size of the budget. There has been a clear-cut statement from the White House that the President is not going to agree with the figure present in the Senate bill. That is why I voted against cutting off debate, because I think to be fruitful in what we are doing here we are going to have to work with the President's figure. We all know about the ballooning deficit, in the range of $500 billion. We all know about the national debt. We have very heavy expenditures in many areas. We have a budget that has been submitted which grants a very small allocation for discretionary spending. In the context of where we are with the deficit, it seems to me the President is correct, that this bill ought to be pared, at least to some extent. The bill is ultimately going to have to be signed by the President, although it is a matter of speculation as to whether there are enough votes to override a Presidential veto. But I am not prepared to override a Presidential veto and I am not prepared to support a bill with this funding flow, where there has not been some accommodation with the White House, some accommodation with the President. There are many steps before the matter comes to a final determination. There will be final action taken by the Senate, which appears to be passage. We will have to see whether there are more than 67 votes in favor of the bill. There will be a conference. Senator Santorum and I are continuing to talk with the chairman of the committee and the ranking member and others on the committee to try to get a more equitable share for Pennsylvania. But on this state of the record, I cannot support this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise to honor one of our most dedicated and patriotic colleagues--and a fellow Pennsylvanian--Congressman John Murtha, on the 30th anniversary of his service in the United States House of Representatives. Jack Murtha, during five decades of service to our Nation, has been an exemplar of dedication, drive, sacrifice and patriotism. He left Washington and Jefferson College after only one year of study to join the Marine Corps during the Korean War. Returning home, he ran a small business in Johnstown while starting a family with his wife, Joyce, and attending the University of Pittsburgh on the GI Bill. But his country called again and Jack Murtha volunteered in Vietnam in 1966-67, already in his mid-30s. In 1974, he became the first combat Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, representing the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Jack Murtha has worked tirelessly to attract and keep jobs in and around his District and to develop essential sewer, water and transportation infrastructure. As a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, he has established himself as a national leader on defense, health-care and social issues. He founded the House Steel Caucus and regularly defends our steel industry from unfair imports, and has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress for children, seniors and veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Jack Murtha for his lifelong commitment to the ideals of our Nation; for his exceptional dedication to his constituents, to the State of Pennsylvania and to our country; and for 30 years of superior service in the United States Congress.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. When you comment about Pennsylvania being a donee State, that is for the existing bill, not the entirety of the one we are voting on now. We are a donor State in the last year, which is the reason for my exchange. I think the exchange has been useful. I see Senators waiting. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. In conclusion, I compliment the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe. I know how hard he has worked on this bill. I know how many people have come to him with concerns. That is one of the vicissitudes of being a chairman. I get the same treatment when I post my bill on the subcommittee for Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education and I post my bills on Veterans' Affairs. I compliment Senator Inhofe and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, for what they have done here. It is a major matter, bringing a highway bill to the floor. It is my hope that, working together as Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Santorum, and I have always done, we will be able to at least reconcile some of these concerns. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the pending highway bill, and also to offer legislation on the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program Extension Reform Act of 2004. The highway bill is pending, and tomorrow Secretary of the Interior Norton will be in Harrisburg to announce the President's program. The administration has made available this statute for introduction which should be done on a timely basis this afternoon since there will not be morning business tomorrow because of the Joint Meeting of Congress. First, my comments are directed toward the highway bill. Yesterday, I voted against cloture--that is, voted against cutting off debate-- because of my view that there ought to be more consideration to the bill before we proceed to take up the bill itself. I am concerned about the total cost of the bill in light of the position of President Bush's administration where there have been concerns raised about the total cost because we are facing such a large deficit this year. I do believe that infrastructure--highway construction, mass transit, and bridge repairs--is indispensable for economic growth and economic development, but in the very complex Federal budget all of these matters have to be prioritized. We are looking at a budget next year of $2.4 trillion, where there is a projected increase of close to 10 percent--9.7 percent--for homeland defense, 7 percent for the Department of Defense, and less than 1 percent for discretionary spending. I am concerned about where we are heading on all of those lines, with very heavy emphasis of concern about a deficit which is projected in excess of $500 billion. We faced these problems in the past. I am in my 24th year in the Senate, and it is not unusual for us to be facing very difficult problems. Two years ago, we did not even have a budget resolution, a matter of some considerable concern on the political scales where the Democrats were in control and we did not have a budget. Last year, we had major problems in the appropriations process. As it is well known, we did not pass the omnibus bill until last month. So we are not unaccustomed to having major problems as we look forward to the budget. I am comforted by the famous words of Winston Churchill that somehow we always muddle through and that democracy--paraphrasing Churchill again--is a terrible system except compared to all others. I believe we will be able to work through the budget problems we have. Notwithstanding the economic problems, we now see an upturn, and I think we are heading for better days on the economy. I think that will have a very profound effect on the deficit in the long run. It is difficult to realize, or surprising, perhaps I should say, that less than 3 years ago we were projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus in 10 years and we were talking about paying off the national debt. Then an economic downturn, facing two wars--one against al-Qaida and one in Iraq--we have had very substantial problems. But we have a very productive country, we have a great work ethic, and I think we will have an economic rebound. I think that will have a very profound effect on easing the difficulties of the deficit. Notwithstanding those factors, we are looking at a tough deficit, and I think more consideration needs to be given on this bill as to how we are going to face the overall problems and establish priorities. With respect to the allocations in this bill, I believe that my State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is not being dealt with appropriately, not being dealt with fairly. My colleague, Senator Santorum, and I wrote to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works on January 28 listing the concerns we have. I realize there has not been sufficient time for the chairman to respond to this letter, but that is part of the concern. Senator Santorum and I wrote this letter as soon as we could after we knew what was in the highway bill and knew how Pennsylvania was going to be treated. Again, I am not unaware that it is a very difficult matter to make allocations among 50 States and it is not possible to satisfy everyone. I have heard quite a number of my colleagues express concerns that their States were not being appropriately treated. But I believe that when the facts are analyzed, Pennsylvania ought to have more of a share of this highway bill, or even more of a share of a reduced highway bill, if the bill were to be pared down to come within the confines of what the President has in mind for the highway bill. The allocation that Pennsylvania has is the fourth lowest increase, an increase of 19.54 percent over the 6 years. With that limited increase, Pennsylvania will not even be able to keep up with inflation. Pennsylvania has a very extensive highway system. It is the fourth largest highway system among the 50 States. It has some 40,500 miles of State highway, totaling more highway miles than New York and New England combined. It has some 25,000 bridges, and the highway system in Pennsylvania--a frost belt State, an older State by contrast with the expansion of the South and the West--has found the highways very heavily used and subject to very difficult weather conditions. Eighty-eight percent of the nearly $300 billion worth of goods delivered from inside Pennsylvania each year arrive on the State's highways. Pennsylvania's highways are the prime routes for delivering goods imported from ports across the mid-Atlantic region. We have many interstate highways. When calculating the appropriate share of highway funding, due consideration ought to be given to the usage of the highways. If you take some States and areas--Florida, for example, or Maine, or the State of Washington, or southern California-- those areas are not as heavily transited. But Pennsylvania has major interstates both east-west and north-south: Routes 80 and 90, Route 480, Routes 95, 81, 79, 83, in addition to a vast complex of highways across the State. It is my view that Pennsylvania ought to have a higher allocation and ought not to be limited to an allocation which will be less than the inflation rate over 6 years. There has been some justification offered on the basis of the contention that Pennsylvania had a very large share in the past when Congressman Bud Shuster was the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is certainly true that the ways of the House and the ways of the Senate accord some special consideration for people who are chairmen, who can establish the mark, but I do not think that Chairman Shuster's departure from the House of Representatives ought to be used as the basis for saying Pennsylvania ought to be reduced in its share. When one takes a look at the allocation for Pennsylvania, the rate of increase is the fourth lowest among the 50 States. Nobody can deny that Pennsylvania ranks very high among the States which service the country. Traffic coming from the west coast goes through Pennsylvania; some of it on the Pennsylvania Turnpike but a great deal of it on Interstate 80, some on Interstate 90. There is tremendous traffic north to south on Interstate 81, and I-95 is a major highway transiting the east coast. It is my hope that before this bill is finished we can have an adjustment. I know other Senators are equally concerned as am I. The vote I cast against cloture to cut off debate yesterday was in the nature of a protest vote. I had no illusions in casting the vote. I did so late in the proceeding when the requisite 60 votes had already been achieved for cloture, so there was no doubt that my vote was not going to be determinative or influential. The cloture was going to be imposed. I have heard many complaints from my constituents who are very dissatisfied with the allocation both as to highways, which affects bridges as well, and transit. I cast that protest vote. I still think we ought to be considering both of those factors. One factor is what is the appropriate priority taking into account the views of President Bush on the increase in expenditures on this bill over what had been allocated or what has been considered appropriate by the President and factoring in the priorities we have on the budget which we are now considering. I hope yet to be able to support this bill, but I am not going to support a bill which does not treat my State fairly. My vote and the votes of others who have similar views may not be dispositive because there is great public interest in this bill as a jobs bill, very important on the infrastructure to facilitate transit both on the rail lines and on the highways. But fair is fair and I think there have to be some significant modifications to the total amount of this bill, the priorities established, and how Pennsylvania is treated. Mr. President, I believe I have already asked unanimous consent that the text of the letter from Senator Santorum, Senator Inhofe, and myself, dated January 28, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of the comments I made on the highway bill.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Oklahoma makes up for donee status with its football team.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just a comment or two. I did compliment the Senator from Oklahoma, the distinguished chairman, for being so well prepared. Perhaps he should have charts on all the States. I don't know. Perhaps he would have charts on the States where you anticipate difficulty or others on a comparative basis. But this Senator is not likely to be satisfied, as a general matter, with what satisfies the Senator from California. I think if we check the voting records of Senator Inhofe and Senator Specter and the junior Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, we will find Senator Inhofe and Senator Specter on one side and Senator Boxer is on the other side a lot more times than not. So, I will take a look at the charts and I will take a look at the statistics. I do agree with the chairman that it is a complex matter. The first opportunity I have to review it is once I see the bill and I will make the analysis with California, and with Oklahoma. I have some substantial familiarity with Oklahoma because I have traveled the highways of Oklahoma a great deal. As the Senator from Oklahoma knows, I am a native of Kansas and went to the University of Oklahoma and drove that highway from Wichita to Norman on many occasions. To my recollection, it was a pretty good highway, but that has been a while ago. But I again complement the Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman, on his diligence, having the charts. We will take a very close look at it. The Senator from Oklahoma and I have worked together on many matters in the years we have worked in the Senate together. We approach this in the interests of our States, as we should, but also understanding the needs of other States. We will try to come to at least some sort of accommodation as we work through the bill. I thank the chairman.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might ask the chairman, you say Pennsylvania is a donee State? We are a donor State here in the final year of your bill.

Mr. SPECTER. We have been a donee State. If I hadn't been a donee State--for those who do not follow the terms, a donor is one who gives more than the State receives. Senator Kyl is bowing. Arizona is in that status. A donee State is one which receives more than it contributes. Had we really been a donee State throughout the six years of the bill--and I understand it was a slip of the tongue, or at least for 1 year, not the whole projection. But had I been able to hold the chairman to donee status, I would have withdrawn all my remarks and stricken them from the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I will introduce legislation which is entitled the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program Extension and Reform Act of 2004. As I have explained briefly before, I do so because this program is going to be unveiled tomorrow at a ceremony in the Pennsylvania State Capitol attended by Secretary of the Interior Norton in addition to Governor Rendell and a number of other officials. While I would like to be present in Pennsylvania for the event, the Senate will be in session and there is important business to be conducted here. So in my absence there, I thought it appropriate to introduce this bill. I had planned to do so tomorrow, but there is a joint session of Congress in the morning and I am advised there may not be morning business. So I am taking just a few moments of floor time to introduce the bill now. The Bush administration has already announced the outline of the bill so I am not in any way preempting the administration by the introduction of this legislation. As I noted earlier, the administration had made this legislation available to me for introduction in conjunction with others in the Pennsylvania delegation, and I am pleased to do so because it will address a very serious problem for my State. By far, Pennsylvania has the most extensive problem of any of the States in the Union, where we have some 250,000 acres which are in need of reclamation. Some 2,400 miles of streams are affected on our water supply because Pennsylvania has been so heavily mined. Shortly after I came to the Senate in the early 1980s, a little town in Pennsylvania named Centralia received national and international attention when a young man fell into a deep pit and a fire was burning there. It was a fire which resulted from an abandoned mine. For those, if any, who may be watching on C-SPAN, these fires rage underground burning unmined coal. This fire was raging. A large hole enveloped and the young man fell many feet below the surface of the terrain. Fortunately, he was rescued. It was necessary to move the entire town at a very substantial cost borne in significant measure by the Federal Government, not entirely because homeowners could not fully recoup the losses of their houses. This bill will provide some $3 billion to take care of health and safety. It will be a reauthorization to the year 2018 on an authorization bill which is set to expire in September of this year. There will be a phase-out of payments ramped down until the year 2018 when it is projected that the problem will be solved. This bill will improve the flexibility for the States where they can make a choice of their projects and make a decision based on where they need to go on water quality. It is obviously a very important matter for the environment, and environmental protection is a high priority in our country. I am pleased to see President Bush and his administration move ahead on this important item. It takes care of all of the smaller States with a minimum allocation of some $2 million. There is some assistance for the Combined Benefit Fund, which has been established for the benefit of the retired mine workers, where the health and benefit plans had been abrogated. We had legislation introduced and enacted several years ago, led by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, in conjunction with Senator Byrd, which I cosponsored, and we tried to provide for the retirement health benefits for the mine workers. This bill will make an allocation which will be helpful in that regard. It will not entirely satisfy the matter. As I noted, this is President Bush's top priority in the Interior section of his budget. Secretary of the Interior Norton will tour some mines in Pennsylvania. Again, I express my regrets not being able to be with her and the Governor when the event will be held in the rotunda of the State Capitol at 11 o'clock tomorrow. Burt we intend to have a news conference here in Washington simultaneously with her announcement there.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I will introduce legislation which is entitled the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program Extension and Reform Act of 2004. As I have explained briefly before, I do so because this program is going to be unveiled tomorrow at a ceremony in the Pennsylvania State Capitol attended by Secretary of the Interior Norton in addition to Governor Rendell and a number of other officials. While I would like to be present in Pennsylvania for the event, the Senate will be in session and there is important business to be conducted here. So in my absence there, I thought it appropriate to introduce this bill. I had planned to do so tomorrow, but there is a joint session of Congress in the morning and I am advised there may not be morning business. So I am taking just a few moments of floor time to introduce the bill now. The Bush administration has already announced the outline of the bill so I am not in any way preempting the administration by the introduction of this legislation. As I noted earlier, the administration had made this legislation available to me for introduction in conjunction with others in the Pennsylvania delegation, and I am pleased to do so because it will address a very serious problem for my State. By far, Pennsylvania has the most extensive problem of any of the States in the Union, where we have some 250,000 acres which are in need of reclamation. Some 2,400 miles of streams are affected on our water supply because Pennsylvania has been so heavily mined. Shortly after I came to the Senate in the early 1980s, a little town in Pennsylvania named Centralia received national and international attention when a young man fell into a deep pit and a fire was burning there. It was a fire which resulted from an abandoned mine. For those, if any, who may be watching on C-SPAN, these fires rage underground burning unmined coal. This fire was raging. A large hole enveloped and the young man fell many feet below the surface of the terrain. Fortunately, he was rescued. It was necessary to move the entire town at a very substantial cost borne in significant measure by the Federal Government, not entirely because homeowners could not fully recoup the losses of their houses. This bill will provide some $3 billion to take care of health and safety. It will be a reauthorization to the year 2018 on an authorization bill which is set to expire in September of this year. There will be a phase-out of payments ramped down until the year 2018 when it is projected that the problem will be solved. This bill will improve the flexibility for the States where they can make a choice of their projects and make a decision based on where they need to go on water quality. It is obviously a very important matter for the environment, and environmental protection is a high priority in our country. I am pleased to see President Bush and his administration move ahead on this important item. It takes care of all of the smaller States with a minimum allocation of some $2 million. There is some assistance for the Combined Benefit Fund, which has been established for the benefit of the retired mine workers, where the health and benefit plans had been abrogated. We had legislation introduced and enacted several years ago, led by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, in conjunction with Senator Byrd, which I cosponsored, and we tried to provide for the retirement health benefits for the mine workers. This bill will make an allocation which will be helpful in that regard. It will not entirely satisfy the matter. As I noted, this is President Bush's top priority in the Interior section of his budget. Secretary of the Interior Norton will tour some mines in Pennsylvania. Again, I express my regrets not being able to be with her and the Governor when the event will be held in the rotunda of the State Capitol at 11 o'clock tomorrow. Burt we intend to have a news conference here in Washington simultaneously with her announcement there.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation, along with Senator Santorum, to honor former President Ronald Reagan by naming the Federal Building and Courthouse in Harrisburg, PA, in his name. President Ronald Reagan was a watershed force in 20th Century history. He was a master diplomat and statesman, largely responsible for winning the Cold War. His summits with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were tours de force of negotiation and stagecraft. He was called ``the great communicator'' for good reason. He conveyed his message with power and precision, often convincing even his staunchest opponents to see things his way. His talents and his touch helped rally a Democrat-controlled Congress to support much of his legislative agenda, including bold fiscal reforms--defying conventional wisdom that predicted more partisan stalemate. He ran for President on the slogan ``Morning in America''--and delivered. President Reagan also took bold steps on the social front. By transferring power from Washington to the States and cities, he showed that local governments can be laboratories for a wide range of public- policy experiments--with greater flexibility and sensitivity. The approach was in line with his general push from big government toward individual liberty. To some, Ronald Reagan's greatest legacy was strengthening our national defense. The Berlin Wall toppled, it seemed, directly from his call, ``Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!'' The invasion of Grenada rescued American students and resulted in the overthrow of a Marxist government. His vision for a national missile defense system is leading to greater security for all of us. President Reagan showed courage and charisma, even in crisis. As he was about to undergo surgery to remove a bullet that lay an inch from his heart, he told his wife, ``Honey, I forgot to duck.'' The next morning, the President met with aides in his hospital room and signed a bill into law. For these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues to join us in bestowing this honor upon this great American.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation, along with Senator Santorum, to honor former President Ronald Reagan by naming the Federal Building and Courthouse in Harrisburg, PA, in his name. President Ronald Reagan was a watershed force in 20th Century history. He was a master diplomat and statesman, largely responsible for winning the Cold War. His summits with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev were tours de force of negotiation and stagecraft. He was called ``the great communicator'' for good reason. He conveyed his message with power and precision, often convincing even his staunchest opponents to see things his way. His talents and his touch helped rally a Democrat-controlled Congress to support much of his legislative agenda, including bold fiscal reforms--defying conventional wisdom that predicted more partisan stalemate. He ran for President on the slogan ``Morning in America''--and delivered. President Reagan also took bold steps on the social front. By transferring power from Washington to the States and cities, he showed that local governments can be laboratories for a wide range of public- policy experiments--with greater flexibility and sensitivity. The approach was in line with his general push from big government toward individual liberty. To some, Ronald Reagan's greatest legacy was strengthening our national defense. The Berlin Wall toppled, it seemed, directly from his call, ``Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!'' The invasion of Grenada rescued American students and resulted in the overthrow of a Marxist government. His vision for a national missile defense system is leading to greater security for all of us. President Reagan showed courage and charisma, even in crisis. As he was about to undergo surgery to remove a bullet that lay an inch from his heart, he told his wife, ``Honey, I forgot to duck.'' The next morning, the President met with aides in his hospital room and signed a bill into law. For these reasons and many more, I urge my colleagues to join us in bestowing this honor upon this great American.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there have been a series of discussions, and we have worked out an accommodation to permit me to introduce the amendment on behalf of US Airways pilots. We will handle the vote on a division vote so that there is at least a semblance of what has occurred. At this point, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to call up amendment No. 2263 and that there be a division vote and I be permitted to speak under this unanimous consent request for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.