Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to report on a trip I made to Europe and the Mideast from December 23 until January 7. The information I found bears on the current problems of the Mideast peace process and the Israeli-Palestinian issues, but also on the opinions of a variety of the countries we visited on the issue of Iraq and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. In Great Britain, in talking to executive branch officials, we heard there would be an effort made on the Mideast peace process to bring in the Palestinians in mid-January in advance of the Israeli elections in late January to try to keep the peace process stimulated. We learned that in a recent trip which had been made by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is married to a woman raised in England, and we heard obviously considerable talk about the Iraq issue. Prime Minister Tony Blair has been one of the strongest allies of the United States and has stated his willingness to partner with the United States to see to it that Saddam does not maintain weapons of mass destruction regardless of what the United Nations does. We heard talk that Prime Minister Blair had taken credit for the United States going to the United Nations--or at least partial credit. And that was very well received by the British populous. But there remains a general feeling in Great Britain of opposition to a war against Iraq unless it is sanctioned by the United Nations. We heard pretty much the same sentiment in Germany where we met with members of the Bundestag and officials in the executive branch, and with German and U.S. businessmen and women on the Chamber of Commerce there. The situation in Germany is surprising to the extent that we heard repeated talk that it is politically incorrect to say, ``I am proud to be a German.'' I found that surprising. It is a result of perhaps German instigation in two wars in the 20th century. In a country where we are so proud to be Americans, I found it surprising the people would not say, ``I am proud to be a German.'' The Germans won't say that. Chancellor Schroder, we are told, referred to the ``German way,'' and it drew criticism and the abandoning of that kind of expression. The sentiment in Germany seems to be pretty solidly against a war with Iraq. The members of the Bundestag with whom we met urged the U.S. to go back for a second resolution to authorize the use of force. I asked him if such a resolution was obtained would that make a difference to Germany on joining in. He said no it wouldn't; that there was a feeling of pacifism against war as a result of what happened in World War II and the predecessor war, and that the Germans were just opposed to it. Chancellor Schroder had problems within his own party when they changed party strength if he would deviate from the political position he took to win reelection--really running against, in effect, the United States and U.S. policy on taking action against Saddam Hussein. In the Mideast we met with Egyptian President Mubarak who expressed great concern about what the reaction would be in the Mideast and in Arab countries to a war against Iraq. President Mubarak thought some countries would have trouble containing the people in the streets. He felt confident he could but was worried about other countries. He thought U.S. installations would be at risk where the Arab sentiments run so strongly against the United States. In Syria, I had an extensive talk with Syrian President Bashar al- Assad and Foreign Minister al-Shara. The view there was that they are very much opposed to military action against Iraq. We noted that Syria had joined in the unanimous Security Council Resolution on 1441. But that, of course, fell short of the use of military force. On January 6 I attended a session of the United States-Syrian dialog which had been initiated by the James Baker Institute last May in Houston, TX. There was an effort made to bring the Syrian and U.S. officials together to talk about problems of mutual concern. The principal area was the question of Syria playing host to terrorist organizations. I raised that issue in a meeting with President Assad and told him that if he wanted to get off the terrorist list there would have to be something done about that, the terrorist groups would have to leave Syria. He declined, saying that they were representatives of the Palestinians, and they were carrying out a political agenda and he would not ask them to depart from Damascus. In the U.S.-Syrian dialog, and in talks with President Assad, we discussed the support of Syria and Iran for Hezbollah and the rockets which are pointed at the Israelis. I had conveyed to President Assad Prime Minister Sharon's willingness to meet with Syrian officials on a second peace track. When we met with Prime Minister Sharon in Israel, the subject came up of the possibility of Israeli-Syrian peace talks. And Prime Minister Sharon said he favors that. I asked him if he would mind if I passed that message on to President Assad, and he said: You are authorized to do that. President Assad responded that he thought peace talks would be a good idea. He said he would not want to finish them before the Israeli-Palestinian talks were concluded, but we talked about the negotiations which had been brokered by President Clinton in the mid-1990s where they came very close to a peace agreement between Prime Minister Rabin and President Hafez al-Assad. Candidly, I do not expect things to blossom in that direction, but I do think it would be useful, always, to keep the conversations going and to see if peace could be attained. Hearing the sentiments in Great Britain, in Germany, in Egypt and in Syria as to the general concerns about a military confrontation without explicit United Nations authorization, it is my hope that authorization will yet be obtained. I thought the President's speech on Tuesday night was right on the mark, right on target, laid down the gauntlet in a very clear way. It is a different world after September 11, when we learned a bitter lesson by not taking action against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida after we had ample warning to do so. We cannot ignore imminent threats. There is a basis in international law, as I said when we discussed the resolution authorizing the use of force, to take action, sanctified by international law where there is an imminent threat. I was encouraged by President Bush's statement that he was going to send Secretary of State Powell back to the United Nations to produce specific evidence. I believe there is evidence to show that Saddam Hussein has not complied with Resolution 1441. When there is all this talk about a smoking gun, I think that metaphor misses the point. You do not need a smoking gun to get a conviction. In fact, you do not even need a gun to get a conviction where you have other evidence. I believe the evidence is very strong, as Hans Blix and the other U.N. inspectors have said in their preliminary report, that Saddam has not accounted for the weapons of mass destruction which we knew he had when the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in December of 1998. I believe there is other evidence. And the word is the decisions are now being made as to how much of that information can be transmitted to the United Nations without tipping Saddam off so he will move his weapons of mass destruction, which are mobile, or so that we will compromise sources and methods. The media reported earlier this week that Britain was in support of a German plan to have a second interim report on February 14. If that does come about, it will give the U.N. inspectors a little additional time, perhaps, to act on additional information which Secretary of State Colin Powell can provide. As I said on the floor of the Senate when we discussed the resolution for the authorization for the use of force, I think the hand of the United States would be much stronger if a second U.N. resolution is obtained. I believe there is a considerable body of evidence on the record at the present time to warrant a second United Nations resolution, which would authorize the use of force. But there is no doubt there is resistance from France and Germany. I think the President is absolutely correct, we cannot allow our national interests and our national policy to be determined by anybody but the United States, and we cannot be subjected to a French veto. It is my thinking that the French may be satisfied. If they are, I think the Russians will not veto nor will the Chinese, and we can move ahead for a second United Nations resolution. The President has emphasized his hope to avoid a war. If the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein face a united United Nations, perhaps that is possible. Back in January of 1990, Senator Shelby and I had an opportunity to meet with Saddam Hussein for about an hour and a quarter. And although he is brutal--he has a record for using chemicals on his own people, the Kurds, in the Iran-Iraq war--and is venal, I think it may be accurate to say he is not suicidal. I believe that if he sees the noose around him, perhaps there is some opportunity he may step aside or that the military or others in Iraq may take action to dislodge him from a leadership position. If war can be avoided, obviously, that is in the interests of everyone, to avoid putting our fighting forces in harm's way and to avoid casualties of the Iraqi civilian population and the Iraqi military population. In essence, the trip to Europe and the Mideast showed me a state of substantial unrest. People are uneasy about a prospective war for many reasons. If the United Nations were to authorize it, I think that would allay a great many concerns and might even present the setting for deposing Saddam Hussein without the necessity of war. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my report on foreign travel to Europe and the Middle East and op-ed pieces which I have published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Harrisburg Patriot be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I would report that the language does not require the Secretary of Labor to re-issue ergonomics regulation, but simply make sure that funding is available for work within the $18 million recommended for safety and health standards activities of OSHA. wildlife management

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of Senator Mikulski's amendment and against Senator Thomas' amendment because the Thomas amendment provides for quotas. I favor contracting out where there is an individual analysis that saves the Federal Government money and maintains appropriate quality. I have consistently opposed quotas in school admissions and employment and I similarly oppose quotas in this situation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the business about borrowing from the pension plan is a purple herring. It does not even rise to the level of being a red herring. Nobody has said anything about borrowing from the pension plan. Here we have an amendment which is a rifleshot to protect the pensions of thousands of pilots. Otherwise, the PBGC is going to have to pay out money. This jurisdictional business does not have any standing when the equities are so strong in favor of this amendment. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, has the time expired?

Mr. SPECTER. Take another minute.

Mr. SPECTER. Absolutely.

Mr. SPECTER. No. I don't have enough time, I regret to say. Let me make a concluding argument. If time remains, I will yield for a question from the Senator from Montana. We have heard this business of a single shot. That is what we do around here. We fire single shots. We have a problem, and we try to structure legislation to answer the problem. We should fire single shots. The most fascinating part about this argument today is that not one public policy argument has been advanced against this proposition. Nobody has said this is bad public policy. They have said that it is the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Senator Santorum and I were on this floor on January 9 asking unanimous consent to take up the bill, and the Senator from Montana, then the chairman, and the Senator from Iowa, then the ranking member now reversed, said we will try to give you a hearing in January. No hearing has been scheduled. We went ahead in the Appropriations Committee. We heard from the executive director of the PBGC and the general counsel. They had not one public policy argument to advance against what we have said.

Mr. SPECTER. Would my colleague yield for a question? How much longer is he going to take?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his question. The answer is they do not have any chance of losing money unless you say the competitors of US Airways stay in flight. But that is very much in the competitive interest of the United States.

Mr. SPECTER. They lose absolutely nothing.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is exactly correct. It is the money of US Airways paid over a longer period of time which meets the obligations to the pension. The other side of that coin is if the plan is not adopted, PBGC has to pay the pensions. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Twenty seconds.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is fine to talk about working this out this year, but that will be too late, and the pilots will then have 25 percent of their pensions remaining. We talked to the Finance Committee two weeks ago about scheduling a hearing in January. No hearing has been scheduled for the Finance Committee during the month of January, as was anticipated. When the Senator from Mississippi makes a point that the other airlines will have to pay the pensions of US Airways pilots, that is precisely what is going to happen if this plan is not adopted. The PBGC is going to have to pay the pension benefits. So, at worst, if US Airways does not succeed, in any event, PBGC will be no worse off if this is adopted than if US Airways fails. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in response to the arguments raised by the Senator from Arizona, he points out the ``shalls'' in the pending amendment. But each of the ``shalls'' relate to preexisting obligations under which the PBGC can put this plan into effect. The two ``shalls'' in subsection (2)(A) say that ``the minimum funding requirements under this paragraph shall be the requirements set forth in Treasury Regulation.'' So it establishes the funding in accordance with existing regulations. What it does not say is that the PBGC has to put the plan into effect. The later provision under (B)(i) says that ``the plan shall be treated as having met the requirements of Treasury Regulation,'' and specifies the technical compliance. But it does not in any way require that the PBGC has to carry this plan forward. Let me add as cosponsors Senators Warner, Allen, Dole, Clinton, and Senator Santorum, whom I believe I should have mentioned earlier as an original cosponsor to the bill. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this amendment arises out of the bankruptcy proceedings and reorganization of US Airways. It involves the effort by US Airways, with the agreement of the pilots, to restructure one of its pension plans. US Airways, as is well known, was very hard hit, as was the airline industry generally, by the events of September 11. US Airways was hit much harder because Reagan National Airport was closed down. In order to pare their expenses, the employees of US Airways made enormous concessions. The pilots made concessions of some $650 million a year. In order to obtain financing to get a Federal loan guarantee, there had to be substantial modifications made. One of the proposals from US Airways was to restructure its pension plan so that instead of having a 5-year payout, it would be a 30-year payout. This was agreed to by the pilots, by the employees who are affected. And the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, made a determination that it did not have the discretion to permit a plan termination and a reinstatement of the plan with a longer payout. We had an extensive hearing in the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education last Tuesday to inquire into this matter in some detail. It is my view that the PBGC has substantial discretion, but in order to make a clarification, I filed this amendment. Two weeks ago, Senator Santorum and I sought unanimous consent to take up this legislation as a freestanding bill. I offer it on this omnibus appropriations bill because time is of the essence and all of US Airways's reorganization proceedings have to be completed by March 31, 2003. I am well aware of the preference not to have this sort of matter on an appropriations bill, but we have no choice if we are to have this reorganization go forward. Key testimony last Tuesday, a week ago yesterday, was given by an expert attorney, William Kilberg, who had served as Solicitor to the Department of Labor in 1974 when the relevant statute was passed. Mr. Kilberg, along with his affiliate Gary Ford, rendered an opinion that the PBGC has the authority to allow for the plan modification, as I have just articulated. The critical language of Mr. Kilberg's working opinion is as follows: The statute ``allows the PBGC to restore a plan when it is to be terminated or is in the process of termination.'' Then, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the one case that interprets this matter, the LTV case, Mr. Kilberg said ``the court said that a plan can be restored when restoration would further the interest that Title IV of ERISA is designed to protect.'' He then enumerated the three points of the statutory structure: that is, to keep premiums at a reasonable level; to keep plans going; and to have the plans pay benefits. Now, if the proposal by US Airways, agreed to by the Air Line Pilots Association, is not permitted, then the PBGC will have to pay the pensions. So it was in the financial interest of PBGC to have the plan adopted as US Airways and the pilots wanted. Pilots who have worked for 30 years would be cut on their pensions by some 20 to 25 percent, which would be a drastic curtailment, especially inequitable in the context of the pilots giving up some $650 million a year. When unanimous consent was asked 2 weeks ago, an objection was raised by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and hearings were contemplated during the month of January. We went ahead with hearings, as I said, from the subcommittee. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield.

Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.