Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time until I hear the arguments in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would do justice to the US Airways pilots who have been very unfairly treated by what has happened to the pension with US Airways. The airline has had great problems, as have all the airlines, following 9/11. They have been in bankruptcy and have been restructuring their operation. There have been tremendous concessions made by employees of US Airways and the pilots pension was abrogated. On January 9, 2003, Senator Santorum and I introduced S. 119, which would have allowed the US Airways pension plan to have up to 30 years to meet its obligations instead of the 5-year period. The requirement of the 5-year period made it impossible for the pension plan to be continued. My Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education held a hearing on January 14, 2003, and explored the options. The PBGC declined to honor the request of the US Airways pilots. We have now offered an amendment, which is now pending, which would grant up to 30 years for the pension plan to be funded. We call for a reinstatement of the earlier plan. In the interim, US Airways has offered an additional benefit and we would agree to an offset of that against the amendment which we are now offering. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SPECTER. I understand the reasons of the Senator from Nevada. As I said, I am going to be on my way to the Finance Committee to see if I can get a change of decision by the Finance Committee so we can offer this amendment.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about an amendment which I have offered on behalf of U.S. Airways. It is an amendment which provides that the pension plan would be reinstated. It had been required to fund it within a 5-year period. The amendment would allow up to 30 years. It would actually save the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation money. The complexity had arisen as to whether this amendment was relevant. As the Congressional Record will show, I spoke about the amendment on Monday explaining what the amendment sought to do and detailing the history as to what had happened with a bill offered by Senator Santorum and myself last January 9, and in the hearing of the subcommittee which I chair on January 14. I had a series of conversations with the Parliamentarian as to whether the amendment was relevant. I sought unanimous consent on Monday to set aside the pending second-degree amendment and an objection was raised. Then a little after 4 yesterday afternoon, I consulted with the Parliamentarian, who had not yet reached a decision, and suggested that my staffer confer with the Deputy Parliamentarian, which was done yesterday afternoon. I was surprised to find a unanimous consent agreement entered into which precluded the amendment. I have a call in to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. If possible, I ask if he would come to the floor so we can discuss this matter. The issue was also presented to Senator Kennedy. If possible, I ask that he come to the floor. We are operating under a very tight time constraint with the agreement now calling for a vote on the pending amendment by about 11:40, and then votes sequencing to final passage. As a matter of basic fairness, I think we are entitled to have a vote. I am not unaware of the fact that there will be a later pension bill, but this matter is of great importance to my constituents. The U.S. Airways pilots, under the revised plan, sought to have their pensions reduced to about 25 percent when it was not possible to reinstate the earlier plan with an extension of up to 30 years. I think they are entitled to a vote, and we will be back on this matter if we are not able to get a vote today. When the Parliamentarian is under active consideration and the Senator from Pennsylvania, myself, is pursuing the matter, it seems to me as a matter of basic fairness we ought not to be foreclosed. So I intend to go to the Finance Committee now to talk to Senator Grassley to see if we can get a resolution by the Finance Committee, but that is the essence of the situation. To repeat, I think we are entitled to a vote. For the record, I know Senator Reid is prepared to object, but I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to offer this amendment with a 10-minute time agreement which will not delay the final passage of the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand the situation as stated by the Senator from Nevada. I understand there are other Senators who represent States which have other airlines, and it is a tough competitive line out there. So having made the explanation, I shall await the judgment of the Parliamentarian. When the current second- degree amendment is disposed of, I will then be in a position to offer this second-degree amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss amendment No. 2260, which has been filed. At a later point in my presentation, I will ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside. But I first want to talk about the amendment and about the plight of US Airways, a very important constituent for a Pennsylvania Senator, and a very important airline for the United States on domestic and foreign travel. There is a long history of the problems which US Airways has faced, arising really out of the problems of 9/11, when the airline industry generally has been subjected to great problems because of the reduction of airline passengers. US Airways has been in the throes of reorganization, in bankruptcy proceedings. They have had difficulties obtaining a loan going back to December of 2002, when there was a critical point. At the request of US Airlines, requests were made by me to Labor Secretary Chao, then-Treasury Secretary O'Neill, and Commerce Secretary Evans to strongly encourage the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to accept US Airways' pilot pension plan proposal. Ultimately, the PBGC declined to do so. Then on January 9, 2003, Senator Santorum and I introduced S. 119 on behalf of the Air Line Pilots Association with the aim to protect their pension by allowing US Airways to terminate and then restore their pension plans. The resolution of the pension liability situation is to the completion of US Airway's plan of reorganization by the Air Transportation Safety Board. Then on January 14, I chaired a hearing of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee on the pension plans regarding US Airways because it dealt with the labor issue. What we have sought to do here is to have a longer period of time than the 5 years which US Airways had to fund the program. We have asked for flexibility of up to 30 years--not necessarily 30 years but up to 30 years. Had the 2-year relief or deficit reduction been in effect when US Airways faced the issues relating to its pension plan, there was the distinct possibility, perhaps likelihood, that US Airways would not have been in the throes which it is in today. US Airways has since added to the pilots' defined contribution plan, and the pilots would be very pleased to see the funding there offset the obligation which US Airways would have if amendment No. 2260 were to be adopted. That is a brief statement as to the status of the matter. There was a unanimous consent agreement entered into on December 9 of last year which limits the first-degree amendments which are available. It was only last week that the US Airways pilots came to my office, to me, to ask that we introduce this amendment. Procedurally, the only way at this stage that it can be done is as a second-degree amendment. I have inquired of the Parliamentarian as to whether 2260 would be germane as a second-degree amendment, and I have been advised that that is under consideration now and no final decision has been made. I thought it useful this afternoon to take the floor and go through the explanation, which I have. I thank the assistant majority leader for the Democrats, the Senator from Nevada, for coming to the floor so that he would be present to hear what I have had to say. I now ask unanimous consent that the pending second-degree amendment be set aside so that this second-degree amendment may be considered.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it had been my hope we would have eliminated the overtime pay provision, because I believe it is not a good idea, with the economy just beginning to recover--obviously fragile--to be denying many American working men and women overtime pay. This issue came before my subcommittee, Labor, Health, Human Services and Education. By a vote of 54-46, the Harkin amendment was passed, which prohibited any funding to implement the new regulation on overtime pay. There is no doubt it would be useful to revise the regulation with the view to limiting and reducing litigation. We had an extensive hearing yesterday. The Secretary of Labor testified. We analyzed the current regulations, we analyzed the new regulations, and it was apparent the new regulations will not do anything to reduce the litigation. There are still the same ambiguities regarding the various categories of personnel, making it evident from the course of the very extensive hearing we had yesterday that the objective of reducing litigation will not be accomplished by the new regulations. In approaching the cloture vote, we are not between a rock and a hard place. We have an impossible situation because, either way we go, we are going to have this regulation, unless there can be a negotiated change with the administration. After making that effort repeatedly for months, I do not think that is a realistic possibility. We are faced with this regulation whether we pass the Omnibus Appropriation bill or not. If we do not pass the Omnibus appropriation bill, then we will have a continuing resolution, and the continuing resolution will leave in effect the current funding for the Department of Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, and all of the other departments that are affected by the Omnibus bill. With a continuing resolution, there will not be any provision to prohibit the implementation of the regulation. If the alternative is followed, the result will be the same. If you have the Omnibus appropriation bill in its present form, which does not have the prohibition against implementing this overtime regulation, then the regulation goes into effect. So either way you go, you have the regulation. So that we are not between a rock and a hard place; we are faced with this regulation on either alternative. If we do not pass this Omnibus appropriation bill, there will be very many important projects that will not be funded. If you take the Department of Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education, and the subcommittee which I chair, there is an addition of $3.7 billion this year, with substantial additional funding for the National Institutes of Health, with substantial additional funding for education, and substantial additional funding for Head Start. We really do not have a choice. Last November, when the omnibus was taken up, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Young, the chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman Regula, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and I met and tried diligently to work out an accommodation to delay implementation of this regulation until the end of the fiscal year. We were not asking for very much. Now it is January 21, and the Secretary of Labor says the regulation will be ready for being promulgated on March 31. I doubt very much that will happen. Yesterday, in the course of the hearing, I asked the Secretary a detailed set of questions to see how many comments she had. Reportedly, it was some 80,000. After the regulation is promulgated by the Department of Labor, it has to go through the OMB, and that takes a long time. At March 31, we already will have half of the fiscal year gone. It will not be much of a concession by the administration to allow this regulation to not be put into effect until the end of this fiscal year and to take up the alternative legislation, which I have introduced, that would provide for a commission. But we face a situation where we have been unsuccessful in months of negotiations to try to effect a change on this issue. This is part of the political process. It would have been my hope that the Secretary, who comes to our subcommittee with frequent requests that we have accommodated to the maximum extent possible, in the spirit of reciprocity would have accommodated us for a few short months. But in view of the fact that this regulation will take effect whether we pass the omnibus or not, the continuing resolution will leave the regulation in effect. The Omnibus appropriations bill will leave the regulation in effect. It is obviously preferable to have the omnibus pass, where we have the additional funding, $3.7 billion, for the subcommittee for very important items. That is why I feel constrained, notwithstanding my very strong objections to this regulation on overtime pay. I think it is not appropriate, not really fair to the American working men and women that a few extra months were not commissioned to try to bring some clarity. I agree with the proposition that we ought to take every step we can to clarify the regulations to eliminate litigation. But on this state of the record, the least undesirable alternative is to have cloture imposed and to try to pass this bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am now introducing legislation identified as the National Farm Animal Identification Records Act on behalf of Senator Leahy and myself. Less than a month ago, on December 25, a case of mad cow disease was diagnosed in a single nonambulatory dairy cow that was slaughtered in Washington State. This cow belonged to a herd of some 82 dairy cows which were cleared for clearance in the United States in 2002. This case of mad cow disease has caused quite an alarm, with enormous impact on the industry for providing meats in the United States. It has caused a lot of concern throughout the country. This legislation is directed to having an identification system, an electronic nationwide livestock identification system which will enable the Federal Government, the Department of Agriculture, to identify animals. There is a chip in the animal's ear and it will be possible to identify the animals and where they came from so that in the event there is any diagnosis of mad cow disease, there will be a way to deal with it and to prevent its spread and provide public confidence that the meat is not infected with mad cow disease. This disease has had a very major impact on the livestock industry, touching Pennsylvania, my State, as well as many other States in the country. This is a salutary, preventive legislation. I ask unanimous consent a full copy of the text be printed in the Congressional Record following my statement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for his inquiry and would respond that his understanding is correct. Further, I thank my distinguished colleague for his support of this important project for the Port of Philadelphia and indeed for the development of enhanced sealift capability that will provide the necessary support for our service personnel who serve our country overseas.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee regarding the designation and use of funds from the National Defense Sealift Fund for the construction of a marine cargo terminal in the Port of Philadelphia. These funds were previously made available through prior appropriations bills. Specifically, these funds are to be used to complement funds being made available by State and local authorities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey for the construction of a new, dedicated, state-of-the-art marine cargo terminal for use by FastShip, Inc., in Philadelphia. These funds were originally designed to provide for vessel loan guarantees for the construction of high-speed vessels capable of providing additional sealift capacity consistent with the existing vessel Title XI loan guarantee program of the Maritime Administration. As part of this program, certain equipment and infrastructure items can also be included in the scope of the loan guarantee that would enhance and facilitate the use of the vessels to be constructed. Some of the funds were to be used for equipment needed to load and unload the vessels and for state-of-the-art information technology and container and terminal security at FastShip's marine cargo terminal. Specifically, these funds were intended to be used to support guarantees for the construction in a U.S. shipyard of vessels for FastShip to establish a high-speed cargo service operating out of a new, state-of-the-art terminal in the Port of Philadelphia. These vessels will now be constructed without the benefit of this loan guarantee program, leaving a funding shortfall for infrastructure improvements. Since the amounts to be made available through the vessel loan guarantee program for infrastructure improvements needed to complement state and local funding for the terminal are now not forthcoming, the reallocation of these previously appropriated funds specifically for infrastructure at the FastShip marine cargo terminal is consistent with, and is a replacement for, the source of funding that is no longer available. The Department of Defense should direct these funds through the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority to ensure that these funds are made available for this purpose.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have already talked to the Senator from Delaware. The junior Senator expects to speak 5 minutes, and I would like to be recognized to speak very briefly about Senator Roth and then introduce a bill. May I put that in the form of a unanimous consent request?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Roth. I had the privilege of working with Bill Roth in the Senate for some 20 years. On the route from Washington to Philadelphia I frequently road with Bill Roth as far as Wilmington. Frequently when I would catch the train in Philadelphia, I would see him board in Wilmington. During the course of 20 years, we had very many long and fascinating discussions. Bill Roth was an outstanding Senator. He served in the House of Representatives in advance of coming to the Senate and was a native of the State of Montana. He was Harvard Law School educated. He was chairman of the Finance Committee. He had very deep insight into finances and taxes. He was a coauthor of the famous Roth-Kemp bill or Kemp-Roth bill--it depends on whether you accentuate the House or the Senate--with very substantial tax cuts in the early days of the Reagan administration. He later served as chairman of the Finance Committee, known for the Roth IRAs, so people could set aside funds and make a real contribution to the Nation. My wife and I had the occasion to attend the memorial service for Senator Roth in Wilmington recently. As noted, his wife Jane is a very distinguished judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the circuit which covers Pennsylvania as well as Delaware and also New Jersey. When Senator Roth finished his term at about his 80th birthday, it marked a very outstanding contribution to the Senate.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2008 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent the next remarks be in morning business under the introduction of legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am now introducing legislation identified as the National Farm Animal Identification Records Act on behalf of Senator Leahy and myself. Less than a month ago, on December 25, a case of mad cow disease was diagnosed in a single nonambulatory dairy cow that was slaughtered in Washington State. This cow belonged to a herd of some 82 dairy cows which were cleared for clearance in the United States in 2002. This case of mad cow disease has caused quite an alarm, with enormous impact on the industry for providing meats in the United States. It has caused a lot of concern throughout the country. This legislation is directed to having an identification system, an electronic nationwide livestock identification system which will enable the Federal Government, the Department of Agriculture, to identify animals. There is a chip in the animal's ear and it will be possible to identify the animals and where they came from so that in the event there is any diagnosis of mad cow disease, there will be a way to deal with it and to prevent its spread and provide public confidence that the meat is not infected with mad cow disease. This disease has had a very major impact on the livestock industry, touching Pennsylvania, my State, as well as many other States in the country. This is a salutary, preventive legislation. I ask unanimous consent a full copy of the text be printed in the Congressional Record following my statement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Martin Finkel, a distinguished doctor and family friend. Dr. Finkel has practiced medicine for over 30 years on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Martin Finkel, M.D., F.A.C.P., P.C., a Diplomat of the American Board of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, was voted for inclusion in the October edition of the prestigious ``Guide to America's Top Physicians.'' In designating this distinction, the editors of the Guide noted that Dr. Finkel was ``among the select few that have earned this prestigious recognition.'' I join them today in their salute to Dr. Martin Finkel.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I seek recognition to discuss an amendment to S. 671, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003. My amendment will strengthen our domestic dress shirt manufacturers and the pima cotton growers. My amendment is a technical correction that levels the playing field by correcting an anomaly in our trade laws that has unfairly advantaged foreign producers and sent hundreds of jobs offshore. The amendment reduces duties levied on cotton shirting fabric, fabric that is not made in the United States. Currently, U.S. law recognized this lack of fabric availability and granted special favorable trade concessions to manufacturers in Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, the Andean region, and Africa. The U.S. has allowed shirts to enter this country duty-free from so many other countries, while we have failed to reduce tariffs on those manufacturers that stayed in the U.S. and were forced to compete on these uneven terms. My amendment will correct this inequity. This amendment also recognizes the need to creatively promote the U.S. shirting manufacturing and textiles sectors, and does so through the creation of a Cotton Competitiveness grant program, which is funded through a portion of previously collected duties. Our country has experienced an enormous loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. It is critical that our domestic manufactures be able to compete on a level playing field. In the case of the domestic dress shirting industry, the problem is our own government imposing a tariff of up to 11 percent upon the import of fabric made from U.S. pima cotton. My amendment is a concrete step that this Congress can take to reduce the hemorrhage of U.S. manufacturing jobs. One group of beneficiaries of this amendment is a Gitman Brothers factory in Ashland, PA. The Ashland Shirt and Pajama factory was built in 1948 and employs 265 workers. This factory in the Lehigh Valley turns out world class shirts with such labels as Burberry and Saks Fifth Avenue that are shipped across the U.S. These workers and their families deserve trade laws that do not chase their jobs offshore. This amendment enjoys the support of the domestic shirting industry, UNITE, and the pima cotton associations. I offer this legislation on behalf of the men and women of the Gitman factory in Ashland, the domestic dress shirting industry, and the pima cotton growers, so that for them free trade will indeed be fair trade as well.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wireless Consumer Privacy Protection Act. As every Senator is aware, consumers today rely on their wireless telephones as a vital and important means of communication. Wireless telephones enable families to stay connected, permit commerce to be conducted anywhere at any time, and provide a vital link in the event of an emergency. Some people have even abandoned traditional telephones and now use their wireless phones as their primary phone service. In fact, just this month, the Federal Communications Commission began requiring number portability for wireless phones so that consumers, if they wish, can make their wireless phone their only phone. The wireless industry is on the verge of introducing a ``wireless white pages'' service, and though this step could have positive benefits, it raises concerns about how consumers' expectation of privacy will be protected. The legislation I am introducing today along with Senator Boxer ensures that consumers expectations will be preserved. An important reason that Americans increasingly trust their cell phone service is that they have a great deal of privacy on their cell phone numbers. For more than 20 years of cellular service, consumers have become accustomed to not having their wireless phone numbers available to the public. The protection of wireless telephone number is important. For example, wireless customers are typically charged for incoming calls. Without protections for wireless numbers, subscribers could incur large bills, or use up their allotted minutes of use, simply by receiving calls they do not want--from telemarketers and others. Because consumers often take their cell phones with them everywhere, repeated unwanted calls are particularly disruptive, and may even present safety concerns for those behind the wheel. It may surprise my colleagues that today, no federal or state law or regulation prohibits a carrier from divulging your wireless telephone number. And with the industry poised to introduce wireless director assistance services, it is important for Congress to act now to preserve the expectation of privacy that consumers have in their wireless phone numbers. Because wireless directory assistance offer great benefits as well as posing significant privacy concerns, the legislation I am introducing today strikes an important balance. It enables those consumers who want to be reached to be accessible, while providing privacy protections that are important to consumers. First, this legislation permits wireless subscribers to choose not to be listed in wireless directory assistance databases. This feature gives consumers the ultimate ability to keep their numbers entirely private. Second, for those in the directory assistance database, the bill requires wireless providers to use systems that give users privacy protections and control over the use of their wireless numbers. These services must not divulge a subscriber's wireless number (unless the subscriber consents to disclosure), the service must provide identifying information to the wireless subscriber so that the subscriber knows who is calling through the forwarding service, and the service must give a subscriber the option of rejecting or accepting each incoming call. Finally, this legislation prohibits wireless carriers from charging any special fees to consumers who wish to receive the privacy protections provided by the bill. Customers should not have to pay extra for the privacy protections that they have come to expect. There should be no ``privacy tax'' for consumers to continue the privacy protection they have long enjoyed, and this bill ensures that will be the case. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wireless Consumer Privacy Protection Act. As every Senator is aware, consumers today rely on their wireless telephones as a vital and important means of communication. Wireless telephones enable families to stay connected, permit commerce to be conducted anywhere at any time, and provide a vital link in the event of an emergency. Some people have even abandoned traditional telephones and now use their wireless phones as their primary phone service. In fact, just this month, the Federal Communications Commission began requiring number portability for wireless phones so that consumers, if they wish, can make their wireless phone their only phone. The wireless industry is on the verge of introducing a ``wireless white pages'' service, and though this step could have positive benefits, it raises concerns about how consumers' expectation of privacy will be protected. The legislation I am introducing today along with Senator Boxer ensures that consumers expectations will be preserved. An important reason that Americans increasingly trust their cell phone service is that they have a great deal of privacy on their cell phone numbers. For more than 20 years of cellular service, consumers have become accustomed to not having their wireless phone numbers available to the public. The protection of wireless telephone number is important. For example, wireless customers are typically charged for incoming calls. Without protections for wireless numbers, subscribers could incur large bills, or use up their allotted minutes of use, simply by receiving calls they do not want--from telemarketers and others. Because consumers often take their cell phones with them everywhere, repeated unwanted calls are particularly disruptive, and may even present safety concerns for those behind the wheel. It may surprise my colleagues that today, no federal or state law or regulation prohibits a carrier from divulging your wireless telephone number. And with the industry poised to introduce wireless director assistance services, it is important for Congress to act now to preserve the expectation of privacy that consumers have in their wireless phone numbers. Because wireless directory assistance offer great benefits as well as posing significant privacy concerns, the legislation I am introducing today strikes an important balance. It enables those consumers who want to be reached to be accessible, while providing privacy protections that are important to consumers. First, this legislation permits wireless subscribers to choose not to be listed in wireless directory assistance databases. This feature gives consumers the ultimate ability to keep their numbers entirely private. Second, for those in the directory assistance database, the bill requires wireless providers to use systems that give users privacy protections and control over the use of their wireless numbers. These services must not divulge a subscriber's wireless number (unless the subscriber consents to disclosure), the service must provide identifying information to the wireless subscriber so that the subscriber knows who is calling through the forwarding service, and the service must give a subscriber the option of rejecting or accepting each incoming call. Finally, this legislation prohibits wireless carriers from charging any special fees to consumers who wish to receive the privacy protections provided by the bill. Customers should not have to pay extra for the privacy protections that they have come to expect. There should be no ``privacy tax'' for consumers to continue the privacy protection they have long enjoyed, and this bill ensures that will be the case. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.