Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. The Federal lawsuit, Prewitt v. OPEC, establishes an antitrust violation by OPEC, and my letters to Presidents Clinton and Bush set forth legal mechanisms for dealing with OPEC where they engage in a conspiracy in restraint of trade and conspiracy to limit production and raise prices. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Harrisburg Patriot be printed in the Record. It sets out in some detail a way that the sludge can be turned into fuel to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. SPECTER. And this issue I raise with some reluctance. But there is no doubt that if we face an embargo and if we face the Saudis joining Iraq in using oil as a weapon, Israel will be blamed and anti- Semitism, which now bubbles just a little below the surface in many parts of the world, will rise to the surface and exceed it. I think it is vital that the Congress establish a policy to be independent of OPEC oil. Today, in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, there is a plant which converts sludge into diesel fuel. If we set our minds to it, we can use the billions of tons of coal to find an alternative source of oil and not put up with the arrogance and the chutzpah of the Saudis telling us to change our policy in response to their blackmail. A strong statement to follow, Madam President.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask for 1 more minute.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Delaware. Mr. President, I support the Carper amendment because I think it is vitally important that the United States take affirmative steps to free ourselves from dependence upon OPEC oil. This amendment is a modest step in that direction. While we are using 7.8 million barrels of oil a day to drive our vehicles--the estimate by the Department of Energy is that it will grow to 10.6 million barrels by the year 2015--the Carper-Specter amendment proposes to limit that growth to 9.6 million barrels. We are still going to use about 2 million barrels more. But this amendment makes the modest step of slowing the rate of increase by 1 million barrels of oil. It is an intolerable situation, for us to be dependent upon OPEC oil. Today's New York Times carries a report about Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's proposed statement to the President concerning using Saudi oil as an ``oil weapon'' against the United States to demand that the United States change our policy in the Mideast. That is blackmail, pure and simple. And the United States ought not to put up with it and ought not to be in the position to have to put up with it. Then the New York Times article goes on to point out that the Saudi position is that they are prepared to ``move to the right of bin Laden'' if necessary to make the United States capitulate on our policy. Now, how much more arrogant and inflammatory can a comment be? Saudi Arabia produced bin Laden. Fifteen of the nineteen terrorists who attacked the United States on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia. Now the Saudis are telling us they are not only embracing bin Laden but are prepared to move to the right of him if the United States does not yield to their demands on changing our policy in the Mideast. In 1973, we faced lines at the gas station, and I think it would have been a blessing--perhaps a blessing in disguise--if we had not had relief from the oil embargo at that time, so that the United States, in 1973, would have been compelled to find alternative sources of energy. But we went back to our old ways, and the old ways were the easy ways and the ways of consuming vast quantities of OPEC oil. I have opposed the CAFE standards; that is, for Congress to set a mandatory limit of so many miles per gallon, and earlier in this debate I voted against those CAFE standards. I recall, about a decade ago, being asked to oppose CAFE standards for 1 year. Well, that year turned into another year, and yet another year. And, finally, it has been a decade or more, and we are still avoiding the imposition of CAFE standards, which is right because Congress ought not to micro-manage how much gasoline is used. But where you have a broad policy consideration, as the Carper- Specter amendment proposes, modestly, to reduce the rate of increase-- and bear in mind, again, the statistics are that we use a little over 7 million barrels a day, and we will go to more than 10 million barrels a day by 2015--this amendment simply requires the Department of Energy and the Department of Transportation to find a formula to limit it to 9.6 million barrels a day. American ingenuity can find the solution to the alternative fuel issue if we are put to the test we always have. After all, we put a man on the Moon. We invented and placed predators--robots--on the battlefield in defense of our troops. We have plans for a strategic defense initiative. The opportunities for scientific advances that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil are virtually limitless in our inventive society. Back in 1973, when we had the long gas lines, there was blame attached to Israel and there was the undercurrent of anti-Semitism in the United States. Today, we see the outburst of anti-Semitism in Europe and in many parts of the world as a result of the Israeli policy and as a result of the United States backing Israeli policy.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is a very brief period of time, 40 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I voted for the Levin-Bond amendment on that 68-to-32 vote. But the Carper-Specter amendment is not inconsistent with that at all. We simply establish a consistent standard. We are not establishing a CAFE standard. We are just asking that there be a national policy to limit U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Today, this week, this month is not the first time that I have expressed my concern about our undue dependence on foreign oil. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to President Clinton, dated April 11, 2000, and my letter to President Bush, dated April 25, 2001, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I seek recognition today to acknowledge the service of my constituent Sister Adrian Barrett, who will be the recipient of this year's Americanism Award at the Amos Lodge of B'nai B'rith's 50th annual awards dinner on May 5, 2002. Sister Adrian is a native of Dunmore, PA, and after she graduated from Marywood Seminary, she entered the religious community of the Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Scranton, PA. She later earned a bachelor of arts degree from Marywood College and a master's degree in Afro-Asian history from St. John's University. In 1986, she was conferred an honorary Doctor of Social Science degree by the University of Scranton. Through her work, Sister Adrian demonstrated her dedication to the service of the less fortunate. She is a co-founder of Project Hope at Camp St. Andrew. In 1985, she established Sisters of the IHM-Friends of the Poor to bring together, as she says, ``those who can give with those who have a need to receive.'' Sister Adrian facilitates one of the largest Thanksgiving dinners in the country, aimed not just at the impoverished and the homeless, but also senior citizens and residents of nursing and personal care homes. She also makes sure that during the December holiday season, children's gifts, Christmas trees and food baskets are available to parents who are unable to afford them. Sister Adrian's extraordinary work was the subject of an award- winning PBS documentary depicting her various activities with youth, the elderly, and the underprivileged in Scranton. She was also honored with the Christopher Spirit Award, the Martha Brinton Wollerton Award, and the United Neighborhood Centers of America Award. Scholarships at Keystone College and the University of Scranton are named in her honor. For her leadership and service on behalf of the less fortunate, I would like to extend the gratitude and recognition of the U.S. Senate to Sister Adrian Barrett.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I seek recognition today to acknowledge the Golden Lancers, the boys basketball team at Bishop Hannan High School in Scranton, PA. On March 23, 2002, the Lancers won the PIAA Class AA State Boys Basketball Championship, when, in a very close game, the team defeated Sto-Rox, 70-68, becoming the first Lackawanna County team to win a State title since 1993 and the first team from Scranton to take home the title since Bishop Klonowski in 1976. Each and every member of the team and its coaching staff should be proud of their accomplishment. Their hard work and commitment have produced many awards throughout this past season and will no doubt mean even more in the years to come. I want to express my congratulations not only to the team and coaches, but to the entire Bishop Hannan community for representing Pennsylvania in such an outstanding manner.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on legislation I have introduced today which would increase educational assistance benefits for two highly worthy groups: survivors of service members who were killed on active duty or who died after service as consequence of service-related disabilities; and immediate family members of veterans who survived service but who are living with permanent and total disabilities. No one can doubt that spouses and children of service-deceased members of the armed forces are worthy of our Nation's gratitude. No less worthy are those whose veteran-spouse returned from service in a profoundly disabled state and, in many cases, later died as a direct result of that same disability. It is entirely proper that the Nation provide these worthy people with sufficient educational assistance benefits to offset the loss of support that would have been provided by the veteran but for his or her service-related wounds. The legislation I introduce today would increase the rate of monthly Survivors' and Dependents' Education Assistance, DEA, benefits from $670 to $985. The increase would be phased in over a two-year period, and would reflect the same phased-in increase provided to veterans eligible for Montgomery GI Bill, MGIB, benefits under Public Law 107- 103, the recently-enacted ``Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001.'' Under my bill, DEA benefits would first increase from $670 to $900 per month on October 1, 2002, and to $985 per month on October 1, 2003. In addition, the legislation would equalize with MGIB benefits the number of months, at 36, an eligible person would be allowed to use his or her benefit. This legislation would create parity between DEA and MGIB monthly benefits as recommended by a recent Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, program evaluation. Both programs would provide an aggregate of $35,460 worth of education benefits. Thus, both veterans and survivors would have the resources necessary to meet the average cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at four-year, public institutions of higher learning. As was stated by VA's Deputy Secretary, Dr. Leo Mackay, in connection with a Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing on June 28, 2001, VA ``believe[s] it is only fair that these benefits should be at the same level as those provided to veterans.'' VA estimates that a monthly benefit at that level will entice 90% of eligible persons to use the benefit. In addition to increasing DEA benefits, the legislation I have introduced today would provide a $4 million funding increase for State Approving Agencies, SAA, State educational program certifying offices which are funded by VA grants. These offices protect the integrity of VA educational assistance and job-training programs and protect veterans and survivors, and, not unimportantly, taxpayers, from fraudulent ``providers'' of education and training opportunities. Since 1989, funding for SAAs has been nearly flat, but SAA responsibilities have grown. Most recently, Public Law 107-103 tasked the SAAs with veteran and servicemember outreach in each state, and expanded the scope of education programs which SAAs must review and approve. My legislation would provide an increase, from $14 million to $18 million in fiscal year 2003, to address the loss of purchasing power absorbed by SAAs over the last decade, and to adequately fund the additional responsibilities SAAs have been given. I hope there will be unanimous support for this legislation. Our troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere need to know that if they die or are seriously injured on the battlefield, their loved ones will be cared for. This legislation will assure that survivors' needs in the critical area of education will be met. 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 today to comment briefly on legislation I am introducing which will help many veterans achieve the dream of home ownership. The legislation would permit the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to guarantee adjustable rate mortgage, ARM, loans as part of its loan guaranty program. The legislation would also give VA the authority to guarantee a relatively new type of ARM financing, ``hybird'' ARM loans. Hybrid ARM's provide a fixed rate of interest during the first three to ten years of the loan, and an annual interest rate adjustment thereafter. Both conventional ARM's and hybrid ARM's would expand the financing options available to veterans, options which are currently available under Federal Housing Administration, FHA, insured loan programs for non-veterans. The VA loan guaranty benefit has helped millions of active duty service members and veterans to purchase homes without a down payment. VA currently provides a guaranty only on loans applying a fixed rate of interest over a thirty year period, so-called ``30-year conventional'' loans. While a 30-year conventional loan makes sense for some home buyers, it does not provide the flexibility others need given differing personal circumstances. ARM loans and hybrid ARM loans provide that flexibility. Traditional ARM and hybrid ARM loans provide flexibility by offering lower rates of interest during an initial period, one year for traditional ARM's and three, five, seven, or ten years for hybrid ARM's, as compared to 30-year conventional rates. Lower rates translate into lower monthly payments, often making a home more affordable and permitting home buyers to qualify for loans. In addition, hybrid ARM's have another attractive aspect in that they provide the security of a lower interest rate for a fixed number of years prior to the annual adjustment period. Service members and veterans who know beforehand they will be moving out of their homes in a set number of years may find hybrid ARM's make financial sense given their circumstances. While home buyers must be prudent in choosing to use ARM financing, foreclosing the option to veterans, in my estimation, smacks of paternalism. ARM loans are insured by FHA; my legislation would simply apply to the VA loan guaranty program a principle already embraced by FHA and the commercial lending sector: one type of financing does not meet all home buyer needs. This bill would also extend certain protections to veterans who use ARM financing. During an annual interest rate adjustment period, rates would not be permitted to increase more than one percent. Further, interest rates would not be permitted to exceed more than five percentage points above the initial fixed rate. These are standards that have evolved in the marketplace over the past 20 years; veterans, like other home purchasers, should gain the benefit of these protections The VA supports the addition of an ARM option to its loan guaranty program. It administered a successful, and popular, ARM pilot program in the mid 1990's; the program was so popular that ARM's constituted up to 21 percent in 1995, of VA-guaranteed home loans. Unfortunately,the program was not reauthorized by Congress. The time has arrived to rectify that oversight. I ask my colleagues for their support. 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 comment briefly on legislation I have introduced today which would increase educational assistance benefits for two highly worthy groups: survivors of service members who were killed on active duty or who died after service as consequence of service-related disabilities; and immediate family members of veterans who survived service but who are living with permanent and total disabilities. No one can doubt that spouses and children of service-deceased members of the armed forces are worthy of our Nation's gratitude. No less worthy are those whose veteran-spouse returned from service in a profoundly disabled state and, in many cases, later died as a direct result of that same disability. It is entirely proper that the Nation provide these worthy people with sufficient educational assistance benefits to offset the loss of support that would have been provided by the veteran but for his or her service-related wounds. The legislation I introduce today would increase the rate of monthly Survivors' and Dependents' Education Assistance, DEA, benefits from $670 to $985. The increase would be phased in over a two-year period, and would reflect the same phased-in increase provided to veterans eligible for Montgomery GI Bill, MGIB, benefits under Public Law 107- 103, the recently-enacted ``Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001.'' Under my bill, DEA benefits would first increase from $670 to $900 per month on October 1, 2002, and to $985 per month on October 1, 2003. In addition, the legislation would equalize with MGIB benefits the number of months, at 36, an eligible person would be allowed to use his or her benefit. This legislation would create parity between DEA and MGIB monthly benefits as recommended by a recent Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, program evaluation. Both programs would provide an aggregate of $35,460 worth of education benefits. Thus, both veterans and survivors would have the resources necessary to meet the average cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at four-year, public institutions of higher learning. As was stated by VA's Deputy Secretary, Dr. Leo Mackay, in connection with a Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing on June 28, 2001, VA ``believe[s] it is only fair that these benefits should be at the same level as those provided to veterans.'' VA estimates that a monthly benefit at that level will entice 90% of eligible persons to use the benefit. In addition to increasing DEA benefits, the legislation I have introduced today would provide a $4 million funding increase for State Approving Agencies, SAA, State educational program certifying offices which are funded by VA grants. These offices protect the integrity of VA educational assistance and job-training programs and protect veterans and survivors, and, not unimportantly, taxpayers, from fraudulent ``providers'' of education and training opportunities. Since 1989, funding for SAAs has been nearly flat, but SAA responsibilities have grown. Most recently, Public Law 107-103 tasked the SAAs with veteran and servicemember outreach in each state, and expanded the scope of education programs which SAAs must review and approve. My legislation would provide an increase, from $14 million to $18 million in fiscal year 2003, to address the loss of purchasing power absorbed by SAAs over the last decade, and to adequately fund the additional responsibilities SAAs have been given. I hope there will be unanimous support for this legislation. Our troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere need to know that if they die or are seriously injured on the battlefield, their loved ones will be cared for. This legislation will assure that survivors' needs in the critical area of education will be met. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment briefly on legislation I am introducing which will help many veterans achieve the dream of home ownership. The legislation would permit the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to guarantee adjustable rate mortgage, ARM, loans as part of its loan guaranty program. The legislation would also give VA the authority to guarantee a relatively new type of ARM financing, ``hybird'' ARM loans. Hybrid ARM's provide a fixed rate of interest during the first three to ten years of the loan, and an annual interest rate adjustment thereafter. Both conventional ARM's and hybrid ARM's would expand the financing options available to veterans, options which are currently available under Federal Housing Administration, FHA, insured loan programs for non-veterans. The VA loan guaranty benefit has helped millions of active duty service members and veterans to purchase homes without a down payment. VA currently provides a guaranty only on loans applying a fixed rate of interest over a thirty year period, so-called ``30-year conventional'' loans. While a 30-year conventional loan makes sense for some home buyers, it does not provide the flexibility others need given differing personal circumstances. ARM loans and hybrid ARM loans provide that flexibility. Traditional ARM and hybrid ARM loans provide flexibility by offering lower rates of interest during an initial period, one year for traditional ARM's and three, five, seven, or ten years for hybrid ARM's, as compared to 30-year conventional rates. Lower rates translate into lower monthly payments, often making a home more affordable and permitting home buyers to qualify for loans. In addition, hybrid ARM's have another attractive aspect in that they provide the security of a lower interest rate for a fixed number of years prior to the annual adjustment period. Service members and veterans who know beforehand they will be moving out of their homes in a set number of years may find hybrid ARM's make financial sense given their circumstances. While home buyers must be prudent in choosing to use ARM financing, foreclosing the option to veterans, in my estimation, smacks of paternalism. ARM loans are insured by FHA; my legislation would simply apply to the VA loan guaranty program a principle already embraced by FHA and the commercial lending sector: one type of financing does not meet all home buyer needs. This bill would also extend certain protections to veterans who use ARM financing. During an annual interest rate adjustment period, rates would not be permitted to increase more than one percent. Further, interest rates would not be permitted to exceed more than five percentage points above the initial fixed rate. These are standards that have evolved in the marketplace over the past 20 years; veterans, like other home purchasers, should gain the benefit of these protections The VA supports the addition of an ARM option to its loan guaranty program. It administered a successful, and popular, ARM pilot program in the mid 1990's; the program was so popular that ARM's constituted up to 21 percent in 1995, of VA-guaranteed home loans. Unfortunately,the program was not reauthorized by Congress. The time has arrived to rectify that oversight. I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I seek recognition today to acknowledge the service of the late Claire T. Shadie of West Nanticoke, PA, a very special woman whose untimely death on October 10, 2001, left a great void in the lives of her family and the many whom she touched. Claire Shadie was Founder and Chairman of the Board of ``Supporting Autism and Families Everywhere,'' or SAFE, Inc., which is a non-profit group of parents of autistic children that works to help people with autism live full and independent lives. From April 24 through April 26, 2002, the annual SAFE, Inc., conference on autism will bring together international experts on autism and families affected by the malady, and the meeting will be dedicated to the memory of Claire Shadie. Claire was known throughout her community as the ``Angel of Autism,'' and she dedicated her life to helping find effective ways to aid individuals with the condition, including her son Alexander. She worked diligently throughout the years, counseling families and organizations throughout the United States. In addition to SAFE, Inc., she helped establish the Coalition on Autism, whose goal is to bring together related agencies and support groups to help ease the bureaucracy and improve the quality of service in Northeast Pennsylvania. Through SAFE, Inc., she worked with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Wyoming County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and other agencies to create New Hope Farm, a facility that will provide its learning-disabled residents with daily opportunities for social interaction, skill acquisition, and integration into the greater community. For her leadership and work on behalf of autism, I would like to extend the gratitude and recognition of the United States Senate to Claire Shadie, ``Angel of Autism.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in January 2002, Judge Legrome Davis was nominated by President Bush to serve on the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The American Bar Association rated Judge Davis as well-qualified for a judgeship on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Davis presently serves on the Court of the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, a position he has held since 1987. From 1992 until January 2001, Judge Davis served as the Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division, with principal responsibility for all issues of policy, planning and administration involving criminal case processing. During his tenure as Supervising Judge, numerous city, state and federal funding authorities awarded the First Judicial District more than nineteen million dollars to support supervisory endeavors for defendants developed by Judge Davis and administered under his direction. He is the Coordinator of the Female Offenders' Criminal Justice Treatment Network, a collaborative project linking the criminal justice and treatment communities in addressing the complex and special challenges of women in the criminal justice system. Judge Davis was integral in conceptualizing and implementing the court reforms which were integral to the suspension of the federal prison cap in 1995. Previously he worked for Ballard, Spahr, Ingersoll & Andrews, and the Office of the General Counsel of the University of Pennsylvania. He was also an Assistant District Attorney for nine years, serving in the Homicide, Narcotics, and Career Criminal Units, and was the Chief of the Rape Prosecution Unit when he left office to seek a state court judgeship. He has been honored by the Pennsylvania Trial Judges Association ``Golden Crowbar Award, the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Board of Judges Exceptional Service Award, the Philadelphia Bar Association; Thurgood Marshall Award, the Philadelphia Coalition for Victim Advocacy; Victim Advocacy Award and the Fraternal Order of Police Honorary Lifetime Membership--Lodge 92.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my 22 years in the Senate, there has not been a more heavily lobbied issue than ANWR and there has not been a tougher vote. It is especially difficult because of my commitment to protecting the environment for future generations, including my own grandchildren, as evidenced by my strong environmental voting record. After extensive deliberation, I have decided to vote for cloture, to cut off debate, for a composite of reasons: 1. The United States needs to become independent of OPEC oil; 2. this modified legislation greatly reduces the environmental impact; 3. Federal funds from ANWR would cover legacy retiree health costs for steel workers to allow for re-structuring to save the American steel industry and tens of thousands of jobs, including thousands for Pennsylvanians. Many steps must be taken to free the U.S. from dependence on OPEC oil. To rely on the Saudis, let alone Iraq and Iran, is to court disaster. Our reliance on Arab oil has broad-ranging implications on our policy in the Mid-East including our support for Israel. In this bill, I have voted for a significant increase in renewables to generate more energy from wind, the sun, biomass, hydropower and geothermal sources. I have supported expanded tax credits for clean coal and conservation measures including increasing mileage requirements for motor vehicles. While I would prefer not to open ANWR to drilling if we could become independent of OPEC oil without it, I have visited ANWR and believe that significant steps have been taken to reduce the incursion, such as a reduced footprint through multi-directional drilling, ice roads and winter season drilling. This legislation also allows for the use of funds from ANWR to cover so-called legacy costs for retired steel workers which would enable re- structuring of the domestic industry which is vital for national security. More than thirty steel companies have filed for bankruptcy in the past few years and tens of thousands of steel workers have lost their jobs. The recently imposed tariffs on imported steel gives the industry a three-year period for re-structuring with consolidation of many potentially failing companies into a company which could compete with foreign steel producers. That consolidation could not take place if the acquiring company has to assume the legacy costs. Federal funds derived from ANWR would be used to cover such legacy costs and permit consolidation. Another consideration in my vote to invoke cloture is my view that the Senate should not require 60 votes for passage, a super majority, unless there is a great principle at issue, such as civil rights or civil liberties. Regrettably, a practice has evolved in the Senate to require cloture or 60 votes to pass legislation which is contrary to the fundamental principle, that in a democracy, decisions should be made by a majority.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr President, I have sought recognition at this time to comment briefly on legislation that I am pleased to cosponsor with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller. That legislation, the ``Steel Industry Retiree Benefits Protection Act of 2002,'' would set the Nation on a path of assuring the retirement health care benefits of the Nation's retired steelworkers and their dependants, and the survival of a domestic integrated steel industry. I crafted this bill jointly with Senator Rockefeller with extensive consultation by the integrated steel industry and representatives of the United Steelworkers of America. I am pleased to note that labor and management have joined in a common effort to resolve the near-intractable problems that face the industry today, and I thank them for that spirit of cooperation and compromise. The reasons for this legislation are succinctly stated in the findings set forth in the preamble of the bill. The domestic steel industry has been forced to compete over the last 30 years in an international marketplace in which foreign governments have subsidized both domestic production and employee healthcare costs and, simultaneously, stimulated the creation and maintenance of excess world steelmaking capacity. During the 1980's and 1990's, the steel industry adapted, but literally hundreds of thousands of steel workers were forced into early retirement as the industry streamlined productions methods. Since 1997, the situation has worsened, due to the unfair practices of overseas producers and governments and a resultant glut of foreign imports, to the point that 32 American steel companies have had to resort to bankruptcy protection, causing 45,000 steelworkers to lose their jobs and over 100,000 steel industry retirees to lose vital medical insurance benefits. Record-low steel prices place remaining steel producers, and their workers and retirees, in an increasingly untenable position. A clear consensus now exists that the only way a domestic integrated steel industry can survive is through consolidation. It is true that the ranks of U.S. integrated producers have been decimated; one need only drive through Pennsylvania to see ample evidence of that. But a domestic industry does indeed survive. It will continue to survive only if there is further consolidation and the emergence of a relatively few domestic companies with the muscle to compete in a global marketplace with subsidized foreign behemoths. But there is a significant impediment to such consolidation: the so-called ``legacy costs'' of domestic producers which might otherwise be acquired and consolidated into larger, more efficient U.S. operations. To summarize, a relatively healthy domestic steel producer might find the acquisition, and the continued operation, of a weaker steel company's manufacturing operations to be quite attractive but for one major problem: such operations typically are owned by companies which are weighed down by the health care costs of prior generations of retirees, retirees who are relatively young due to the premature withdrawal of workers from the rolls due to downsizing in the 1980's and 1990's. Potential acquirers of such assets have ``legacy costs'' of their own to deal with; they cannot afford to assume those of their former competitors, a result that would be unavoidable were they to simply purchase and consolidate the assets of former competitors. If we want consolidation to happen, and it is unquestionably in the Nation's self-interest that it happen; few would dispute that the common defense requires a viable domestic steel industry, potential acquirers of these assets must gain relief from the ``legacy cost'' obligations that would otherwise run with the acquired assets. My colleagues might ask: if an acquiring steel company is relieved of these obligations, who would take them on? The answer is this: a Federally-sponsored trust fund, financed with steel tariff receipts; funds previously placed in trust by acquired companies for retiree health and life insurance benefits; fees to be paid by acquiring companies; and, yes, as necessary to cover shortfalls, appropriations. To those who say the public cannot take on these obligations, I offer the following logic: when steel producers go under, as they will if we do not act, the public may very much face exposure to these obligations via the Medicare and Medicaid programs; taking them on before the companies go under will at least assure that the defense-critical steel industry survives. It is an unpleasant choice we face, but it is one which we must face: we may either assume ``legacy cost'' obligations now and save a vital industry; or we can wait and watch a vital industry die and face up to ``legacy costs'' later. I strongly appeal to my colleagues in the Senate to seriously consider this Hobson's choice. If they do, I trust they will come to the same conclusion that I have: we must save this industry by clearing the way for the consolidation that will be necessary to compete in the international market of the future. And we must protect those who have lost, or may yet lose, their health care benefits due to unfair competition from abroad. The steelworkers of America, many from the ``Greatest Generation'' and from my home, Pennsylvania, built the Nation in the 20th Century. They made the United States the world's only superpower. We need to assure that their post-retirement years are secure.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to join my colleague Senator Breaux in introducing legislation which would require the Secretary of Labor to issue a new ergonomics standard within two years of the bill's enactment. The measure is similar to legislation I cosponsored last year, S. 598, but includes additional provisions to ensure that a truly protective standard is issued. Following the overturning of the Clinton Administration's proposed ergonomics regulation by Congress in 2001, I expected the Department of Labor to issue a new rule to protect our Nation's workers. Rather than implement a new standard, however, the Department unveiled an ergonomics plan on April 5, 2002, that calls for voluntary industry guidelines, enforcement measures, and workplace outreach. I have concern that such an approach adequately addresses the safety of our Nation's workforce. I voted in favor of the Joint Resolution of Disapproval of the proposed ergonomics standard because I had concerns over its potential cost and complexity. Last year, as Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I held two hearings on this contentious matter where I heard from witnesses on both sides of the debate. They testified that the potential costs of the rule ranged from $4.5 billion to as much as $1 trillion. There was also considerable disagreement over whether the regulation needed to be as complex as it was. I came away from these hearings with the conclusion that there was a need for promoting worker safety. But I was also concerned as to whether the entire matter ought to be substantially simpler. I firmly believe that the best way to protect our Nation's workers from work-related musculoskeletal disorders and workplace hazards is for the Department of Labor to issue a new ergonomics standard, but one that is substantially simpler than the rule overturned last year. I had hoped that the Department would take action on its own to issue a new rule, and Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao left open this possibility in response to an inquiry I made prior to the ergonomics vote. She stated in a March 6, 2001, letter to me: Let me assure you that in the event a Joint Resolution of Disapproval becomes law, I intend to pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics which may include new rulemaking that addresses the concerns levied against the current standard. The key word in her response was ``may,'' and I remain disappointed that the plan put forward by the Department of Labor does not include such a new rulemaking. For that reason, I believe it is important to press ahead with today's legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr President, I have sought recognition at this time to comment briefly on legislation that I am pleased to cosponsor with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller. That legislation, the ``Steel Industry Retiree Benefits Protection Act of 2002,'' would set the Nation on a path of assuring the retirement health care benefits of the Nation's retired steelworkers and their dependants, and the survival of a domestic integrated steel industry. I crafted this bill jointly with Senator Rockefeller with extensive consultation by the integrated steel industry and representatives of the United Steelworkers of America. I am pleased to note that labor and management have joined in a common effort to resolve the near-intractable problems that face the industry today, and I thank them for that spirit of cooperation and compromise. The reasons for this legislation are succinctly stated in the findings set forth in the preamble of the bill. The domestic steel industry has been forced to compete over the last 30 years in an international marketplace in which foreign governments have subsidized both domestic production and employee healthcare costs and, simultaneously, stimulated the creation and maintenance of excess world steelmaking capacity. During the 1980's and 1990's, the steel industry adapted, but literally hundreds of thousands of steel workers were forced into early retirement as the industry streamlined productions methods. Since 1997, the situation has worsened, due to the unfair practices of overseas producers and governments and a resultant glut of foreign imports, to the point that 32 American steel companies have had to resort to bankruptcy protection, causing 45,000 steelworkers to lose their jobs and over 100,000 steel industry retirees to lose vital medical insurance benefits. Record-low steel prices place remaining steel producers, and their workers and retirees, in an increasingly untenable position. A clear consensus now exists that the only way a domestic integrated steel industry can survive is through consolidation. It is true that the ranks of U.S. integrated producers have been decimated; one need only drive through Pennsylvania to see ample evidence of that. But a domestic industry does indeed survive. It will continue to survive only if there is further consolidation and the emergence of a relatively few domestic companies with the muscle to compete in a global marketplace with subsidized foreign behemoths. But there is a significant impediment to such consolidation: the so-called ``legacy costs'' of domestic producers which might otherwise be acquired and consolidated into larger, more efficient U.S. operations. To summarize, a relatively healthy domestic steel producer might find the acquisition, and the continued operation, of a weaker steel company's manufacturing operations to be quite attractive but for one major problem: such operations typically are owned by companies which are weighed down by the health care costs of prior generations of retirees, retirees who are relatively young due to the premature withdrawal of workers from the rolls due to downsizing in the 1980's and 1990's. Potential acquirers of such assets have ``legacy costs'' of their own to deal with; they cannot afford to assume those of their former competitors, a result that would be unavoidable were they to simply purchase and consolidate the assets of former competitors. If we want consolidation to happen, and it is unquestionably in the Nation's self-interest that it happen; few would dispute that the common defense requires a viable domestic steel industry, potential acquirers of these assets must gain relief from the ``legacy cost'' obligations that would otherwise run with the acquired assets. My colleagues might ask: if an acquiring steel company is relieved of these obligations, who would take them on? The answer is this: a Federally-sponsored trust fund, financed with steel tariff receipts; funds previously placed in trust by acquired companies for retiree health and life insurance benefits; fees to be paid by acquiring companies; and, yes, as necessary to cover shortfalls, appropriations. To those who say the public cannot take on these obligations, I offer the following logic: when steel producers go under, as they will if we do not act, the public may very much face exposure to these obligations via the Medicare and Medicaid programs; taking them on before the companies go under will at least assure that the defense-critical steel industry survives. It is an unpleasant choice we face, but it is one which we must face: we may either assume ``legacy cost'' obligations now and save a vital industry; or we can wait and watch a vital industry die and face up to ``legacy costs'' later. I strongly appeal to my colleagues in the Senate to seriously consider this Hobson's choice. If they do, I trust they will come to the same conclusion that I have: we must save this industry by clearing the way for the consolidation that will be necessary to compete in the international market of the future. And we must protect those who have lost, or may yet lose, their health care benefits due to unfair competition from abroad. The steelworkers of America, many from the ``Greatest Generation'' and from my home, Pennsylvania, built the Nation in the 20th Century. They made the United States the world's only superpower. We need to assure that their post-retirement years are secure.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to join my colleague Senator Breaux in introducing legislation which would require the Secretary of Labor to issue a new ergonomics standard within two years of the bill's enactment. The measure is similar to legislation I cosponsored last year, S. 598, but includes additional provisions to ensure that a truly protective standard is issued. Following the overturning of the Clinton Administration's proposed ergonomics regulation by Congress in 2001, I expected the Department of Labor to issue a new rule to protect our Nation's workers. Rather than implement a new standard, however, the Department unveiled an ergonomics plan on April 5, 2002, that calls for voluntary industry guidelines, enforcement measures, and workplace outreach. I have concern that such an approach adequately addresses the safety of our Nation's workforce. I voted in favor of the Joint Resolution of Disapproval of the proposed ergonomics standard because I had concerns over its potential cost and complexity. Last year, as Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I held two hearings on this contentious matter where I heard from witnesses on both sides of the debate. They testified that the potential costs of the rule ranged from $4.5 billion to as much as $1 trillion. There was also considerable disagreement over whether the regulation needed to be as complex as it was. I came away from these hearings with the conclusion that there was a need for promoting worker safety. But I was also concerned as to whether the entire matter ought to be substantially simpler. I firmly believe that the best way to protect our Nation's workers from work-related musculoskeletal disorders and workplace hazards is for the Department of Labor to issue a new ergonomics standard, but one that is substantially simpler than the rule overturned last year. I had hoped that the Department would take action on its own to issue a new rule, and Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao left open this possibility in response to an inquiry I made prior to the ergonomics vote. She stated in a March 6, 2001, letter to me: Let me assure you that in the event a Joint Resolution of Disapproval becomes law, I intend to pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics which may include new rulemaking that addresses the concerns levied against the current standard. The key word in her response was ``may,'' and I remain disappointed that the plan put forward by the Department of Labor does not include such a new rulemaking. For that reason, I believe it is important to press ahead with today's legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on the trip to the Mideast by Secretary of State Colin Powell. At the outset, I compliment President Bush for his initiative in sending Secretary Powell to the region, and I compliment Secretary Powell for his strenuous efforts, even though they have not achieved a cease-fire. As I listened to Secretary Powell on his live newscast this morning at about 7 a.m. eastern standard time, it seemed to me that his trip was worthwhile and progress had been made, although it is difficult to quantify progress in the Mideast because of the difficult and complex problems that are faced there. I believe Israel has acted in self-defense in moving into Palestinian territories. It is the fundamental duty of a nation to protect its citizens. When Israel has been faced by almost daily suicide bombings, that action is necessary, as viewed by the Israeli authorities. The President did call upon Israel to withdraw several days ago-- almost 2 weeks ago--and Israel has to make its judgments and decisions as a sovereign nation. I do not think it should be viewed as a rebuke to President Bush that Prime Minister Sharon and the Israeli Cabinet saw it differently. President Bush made the judgment call he did as he saw the interests of the United States and the interests of the world community. I am sure he was considering Israel's interests in that mix. However, the judgment is up to Israel as a sovereign nation. It is understandable that when they have virtually daily suicide bombings, they see it differently so as to protect their citizens. This morning, Secretary Powell referred to an international conference, and it is my hope that such a conference would be convened at an early time. It is my view that the so-called moderate Arab States have to become involved, representing Palestinian interests, because of the difficulties of relying upon anything Chairman Yasser Arafat has to say. On March 26, 2002, I visited Israel and talked to General Zinni, Prime Minister Sharon, and Chairman Arafat. On that day, the three were in agreement that they were very close to coming to terms on the so- called Tenet plan on security arrangements. The very next day there was a suicide bombing in Netanya at the Passover seder killing 27 Jews at prayer and wounding approximately 200 others. The whole situation has deteriorated. In the intervening three weeks, evidence has come to light, purportedly bearing the handwriting of Chairman Arafat, that he personally was involved in paying terrorists. I have asked the State Department for an analysis and the verification that, in fact, it was Arafat's handwriting, but on this state of the record, it appears that was the case. It is no surprise that Yasser Arafat is a terrorist. He was involved in the murder of the United States charge d'affaires in the Sudan in 1974. He was involved with the murders of Israeli athletes. He was involved with the murder of Leon Klinghoffer who was pushed off the Achille Lauro. It was hoped that a new page had been turned with the Oslo agreements. I was present on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, when Arafat was honored at the White House. I had grave reservations about seeing this known terrorist honored at that time, but I watched as President Clinton put his left arm around Arafat and his right arm around Prime Minister Rabin, and the two shook hands. Then, Foreign Minister Peres shook hands with Arafat. It seemed to me that if the Israeli leaders were prepared to shake Arafat's hand, where Israel had been the principal victim of the terrorism, that was something we might move ahead with and try to deal with Arafat. I have had occasion to talk to Chairman Arafat on a number of occasions over the years. Again, when I met with him on Tuesday, March 26, I urged him to make a clear-cut, definitive statement denouncing terrorism and denouncing suicide bombings. Chairman Arafat said he would, but of course he has never done so. It is a very difficult call to have U.S. negotiators or the Secretary of State or anyone meet with Arafat because of the outstanding evidence that he is still involved in terrorism, but that is a call the Secretary of State had to make, and I respect that. It seems to me that if the peace process is to go forward, it is very difficult for Arafat to be a major player or a major participant because he is, simply stated, untrustworthy. When Prime Minister Rabin made the famous statement that we have to negotiate with our enemies, we have to make peace with our enemies because we do not need to make peace with our friends, that set a parameter in a statesmanlike way for the necessity for Prime Minister Rabin to deal with Chairman Arafat and for us and others to have had talks with him. However, on this state of the record, where it appears that Arafat has been paying terrorists recently, it seems to me very hard to conduct negotiations with Arafat on the expectation that his commitments will be observed. We do have moderate Arab leaders. We have King Abdullah of Jordan, a man in his late thirties, heir to King Hussein's good work. We have King Mohamed of Morocco, another able young man in his late thirties who has the potential for leadership. We have President Mubarak of Egypt. It seems to me that those are the leaders who ought to be convened. It would be my hope that Saudi Arabia would play a constructive role in a peace conference. The Saudis came forward with a proposal which had merit because it was the first time the Saudis have said they would normalize relations with Israel if Israel would recede to the pre-1967 borders. I do not think it is possible to recede to those borders, but there had been negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on borders, and I think an accommodation would be worked out. However, when the Saudis agreed to normalize and the Syrians agreed with that, that was a significant step forward. Candidly, it was a major disappointment to see Saudi Arabia have a telethon for the Palestinians and raise, according to press reports, some $92 million. Where was their telethon for the American victims from September 11th? We know that of the 19 terrorists involved, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, and then Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. It would be my hope that we could expect something more from Saudi Arabia. As we look forward, I was pleased to see Secretary of State Powell say today that Assistant Secretary Burns will remain in the region, that General Zinni will be there to carry on his role, and that CIA Director George Tenet may be going in the near future to work out security arrangements so that there is an active role by the United States. I urge the administration to move forward on a conference which would be at the ministerial level, in a sense making the move for Foreign Minister Peres to be the negotiator for Israel; a conference which hopefully would omit Arafat; a conference which hopefully would have Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia as principal participants to be guarantors representing the Palestinian efforts and making arrangements which could be relied upon and could be carried out. It is very important, in conclusion, that the process be continued. When Secretary Powell went to the Mideast, he undertook very substantial risks. Everyone cannot hit a home run every time they go to bat, but I think the Secretary did a good job and made a constructive step. Now it should be carried forward with a peace conference attended by other Arab leaders. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly about a rally which was held this afternoon on the west side of the Capitol, a pro-Israel rally. Some estimated the gathering at 100,000. I believe the group was substantially larger than 100,000. There were many people of all denominations represented--all colors, creeds, and racial diversity. The purpose of the rally was to support Israel's right of self- defense. The gathering was attended by many luminaries. I had not seen so many people wait so long to speak so briefly at any time that I could recall. I stood, as a matter of fact, with Governor Pataki. We waited an hour and a half in the blistering sun to make our presentations. The spirit of the gathering was very emotional, very strong. The essential issue at hand was Israel's right of self-defense. In the brief remarks that I made, I emphasized the basic point that the suicide bombers who are plaguing Israel today are identical with the suicide bombers who attacked the United States on September 11. The only difference was that the suicide bombers who attacked the United States were more sophisticated. They hijacked planes and they crashed them into the World Trade Center towers. One of the planes was, I think, headed for this very building, the Capitol, which went down in Somerset County, PA, my home State. It was speculative, to some extent, as to where it was headed, but many indicators say it was headed for the Capitol. The plane which struck the Pentagon, by many indicators, was headed for the White House. The people of the United States were outraged by that terrorist attack, just as the people of Israel are outraged by the suicide bombers that have attacked civilian populations. The United States responded, as is well-known, by mounting a powerful military offense, which went to Afghanistan and crushed the Taliban and al-Qaida in a matter of a few weeks--an undertaking that the Soviets could not accomplish in 10 years and the Brits could not accomplish many years before. Just as we would not expect anybody to question our right to go after the al-Qaida terrorists who killed thousands of innocent American civilians, that was the theme today in raising Israel's right of self-defense. President Bush has said that there will not be any daylight between the United States and Israel and he has been a strong supporter of Israel. I applaud his decision to send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Mideast. It is a very difficult assignment that the Secretary of State now has. It is my hope there may be some moderate Arab leaders who will come forward to be able to have meaningful negotiations. President Mubarak of Egypt has, for over the past two decades, been a tower of strength. Of course, he has been the recipient of approximately $2 billion a year for more than the past two decades, totaling close to $50 billion at this point. On a recent trip I made to the Mideast, I had the opportunity to visit with King Abdullah of Jordan, a vibrant young man in his late thirties, who is taking over the mantle of his father, King Hussein, and is ready, willing, and able to be a voice of reason in the Mideast. I also met with the King of Morocco, who is also in his late thirties. He also has promise. So there is a new generation of leadership in the Mideast. When I was in the Mideast on Tuesday, March 26, I had an opportunity to be briefed by General Anthony Zinni, our chief negotiator there, and then had an opportunity to meet with Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Late that evening, I traveled to Ramallah to meet with Yasser Arafat. I carried forward the administration's message, and that is for Arafat to make a clear, unequivocal statement in Arabic to stop the suicide bombers. As usual, Chairman Arafat said he would. Of course, again, as usual, nothing has ever been done by him. Then the next day, Wednesday, March 27, there was the suicide bombing at the Passover seder in Netanya. Hundreds were wounded and 27 people were killed. It had been my hope that the Saudi peace plan would come to some fruition if the Saudis would stand up. I was really chagrined to see Saudi Arabia have a telethon for Palestinians and gather some $92 million. The thought on my mind was: When was Saudi Arabia going to have a telethon to raise money for the families of the thousands of victims who perished on September 11 in a terrorist attack, with 19 terrorists, 15 of whom came from Saudi Arabia? So in the midst of these very difficult times, this was a large gathering assembled at the west end of the Capitol--a larger group than customarily meets for the inauguration of the American President. Here, the crowd went beyond the statue on horseback. The crowd was on all sides. It was very emotional, and a very enthusiastic showing of support for Israel. I thought it might be useful, in the absence of any other Senator, to make this brief report for those who may not have captured it on C-SPAN earlier, to get some of the flavor of the passion, emotion, and determination of this cavalry of more than 100,0000 people. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for his kind comments. He and I have worked on many subjects together.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly about a trip I made to the Mideast and to the efforts being made at getting a cease-fire and a truce. Two weeks ago yesterday, I arrived in Jerusalem and met with General Zinni, and then with Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and then with the Palestinian Authority's Chairman, Yasser Arafat. On that day, I was told by all three of those men that they were very close to finding agreement on security arrangements under the so-called Tenet Plan put forward by CIA Director George Tenet. Then the next day there was the massacre, the suicide bomber at the Passover Seder where 22 people were killed and several hundred were wounded. Then the whole situation in the Mideast exploded. The Israelis then undertook a military operation to try to root out the suicide bombers. And following the initiation of that military operation, the suicide bombers stopped for a few days. Then they started again yesterday. I am glad to say that Secretary of State Colin Powell has gone to the Mideast at the President's direction. I know the Secretary would have preferred to have gone after all of the arrangements had been worked out and it could be a triumphant tour, but I do believe it is necessary to make an effort even where success is not assured. Nobody hits a home run, we can't expect someone to hit a home run every time they go to bat. The risks for the United States of doing nothing are much greater than the risks if we try, even if there is not immediate success. On the wave of the suicide bombings, it is very difficult to ask the Israelis to stop their efforts in self-defense to root out the terrorists and to stop the suicide bombers. It is very hard to do. We cannot allow, the world cannot allow suicide bombings to become an epidemic. What happened to the United States on 9-11 involved suicide bombers, just a little bit more sophisticated. They hijacked airplanes that they crashed into the trade towers. One was headed to the White House which hit the Pentagon, and another was headed to the Capitol which went down in Somerset County, PA. If suicide bombers are not stopped, they are going to become an epidemic and a way of life; no one is going to be safe. It is very difficult to expect Israel not to act in its own self-defense in rooting out the suicide bombers. The evidence came to light last week, or the purported evidence, that documents were found which bore the signature of Chairman Arafat on paying money to terrorists who were involved against the State of Israel. It seemed to me that when that evidence came to light, we had to check it out thoroughly to see if in fact it was true. There has not been conclusive authentication, although from all appearances it seems to be accurate. The Palestinian Authority did not directly deny the accuracy but said, somewhat tangentially, that Israel sometimes concocted the documents and said further that Israel was using this issue for propaganda purposes. Both of those responses are really beside the point. The point is, are those documents authentic? There yet ought to be a determination, perhaps made by a U.S. official, perhaps by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or perhaps by the CIA or some impartial agency, to see for sure if that is in fact Chairman Arafat's signature and his handwriting. When I saw him 2 weeks ago yesterday, I asked him a great many questions. One of the questions I asked him involved the Iranian shipment of arms to the Palestinian Authority which was documented. At that time, there was not conclusive proof linking Arafat personally, but there was conclusive proof that it went to the Palestinian Authority. When I talked to Chairman Arafat and his advisers in the face of their denials that it ever happened, it seemed to me not credible and not worthy of belief. When I saw Chairman Arafat, I conveyed General Zinni's message that Chairman Arafat ought to make an emphatic, unequivocal statement in Arabic to stop the suicide bombings. Chairman Arafat refused to do that. If it turns out that these documents do in fact bear Arafat's handwriting and if it is conclusive that Arafat has paid off terrorists, then it seems to me very difficult to deal with Arafat or to ask Israel to deal with Arafat. I am not unmindful of the grave difficulty as to how we negotiate with the Palestinian Authority if we do not negotiate with Arafat. But the ultimate question is, what is an arrangement, what is an agreement with Arafat, worth if in fact he has been paying off terrorists? You have a sequence of events that would be most damning. The Iranian arms deal is very problematic. His refusal to make an unequivocal statement in Arabic to stop the suicide bombings is also obviously very problematic. I am glad to see Secretary of State Powell talking to moderate Arab leaders first. The reports were that when he met with Mohamed VI, the leader in Morocco, Mohamed VI challenged the Secretary on why he had waited so long to come to the Mideast and why he had gone to Morocco instead of going to Jerusalem where the war problem existed. I think Secretary of State Powell was correct in going to Morocco first and then talking to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia who happened to be in Morocco as well, then proceeding to Egypt, and then to talk to King Abdullah of Jordan--to go to the moderate Arabs first. I frankly like King Mohamed VI's spunk in challenging the United States. I think that kind of independence and that kind of directness is very refreshing, even though I believe Secretary of State Powell is correct and had a good answer for Mohamed VI. I have had a chance to meet him on prior trips to the Mideast. He is a man in his late thirties. I think it shows great promise of leadership in the moderate Arab world. He follows his father who had good relations with Israel and had an open mind. He has the real potential for leadership. On the trip to the Mideast a week ago last Thursday, I had a chance to talk to King Abdullah of Jordan. There is another young moderate leader of the Arab world who has real potential. I have been a little disappointed lately in what President Mubarak has had to say and a little surprised to see in the morning's press that it is the Egyptian Foreign Minister who had a press conference with Secretary of State Powell as opposed to President Mubarak. When President Mubarak was visiting here a few weeks ago and a number of Senators met with him in the Foreign Relations Room downstairs in the Capitol, the question was raised about an editor of a newspaper reportedly very close to President Mubarak who had spread false rumors or printed a false report that the United States was engaged in providing tainted food in Afghanistan which is totally untrue. The question arises as to why that is going on. It may be that it can't be controlled by President Mubarak. But when that question was posed, there was not a satisfactory answer given to it. President Mubarak has been a strong moderate leader for many years. The United States has responded with $2 billion a year since the late 1970s, or in the range of $50 billion in United States aid to Egypt in recognition of their leadership. It may be that what we will have to look for ultimately is some other representative, if Chairman Arafat is disqualified because of what he has done, it may be that the moderate leaders such as Mohamed, or Abdullah, or Mubarak, will have to step forward. It is very troublesome as to what may be accomplished. I am hopeful that Secretary of State Powell will be able to broker a truce. As I said, 2 weeks ago yesterday they were very close to security arrangements and to an agreement among Chairman Arafat, General Zinni, and Prime Minister Sharon. But beyond the truce, I think Secretary of State Powell is correct. As he commented yesterday, there has to be an immediate action toward a political settlement. There has been agreement that there will be a Palestinian State. Prime Minister Sharon has acknowledged that, and that is understood in Israel. Those are the terms of the Oslo agreement President Bush talked about. I do think there are ways to move ahead to see to it that the issues of boundaries, the issues of settlements, and all the other issues in the political mixture can be worked out. During our trip, we also had an opportunity to meet with President Bashar al-Asad of Syria, another young man--a new generation--in his thirties. He is 36 years of age. I had occasion to get to know his father, Hafez al-Asad. I have been traveling to Syria almost every year since 1984 and had many meetings--more than a dozen--with President Hafez al-Asad, and I had an opportunity to meet President Bashar al- Asad when I attended the funeral in June of 2000. In a meeting I had with President Asad a week ago Saturday, we talked about a great many subjects. It is my hope, as matters evolve, that President Bashar Asad will present a new image for Syria. I know in today's press it is reported that Vice President Cheney has contacted President Bashar Asad about not opening up a second front in Lebanon. It is my hope that Syria will be cooperative in that respect. When I talked to President Asad a week ago Saturday, I raised a number of issues with him. He had been quoted at the Arab summit, saying it was acceptable to target civilians. I commented to him that I thought that was not appropriate, that you simply cannot target civilians. Civilians might be injured and they might be casualties, as civilians were injured when the United States bombed Yugoslavia, but to target civilians is unacceptable. We had a discussion about that. He responded there were thousands of settlers in the Golan who were armed, and I replied that if that situation was unsatisfactory to Syria, President Asad should pick up what his father did and try to negotiate a settlement on an arrangement brokered by President Clinton back in the mid-1990s, when Syria and Israel were very close to agreement, with Prime Minister Rabin and President Hafez al-Asad. I commented about President Asad's speech last summer where he equated Naziism with Zionism. I told him that that not only was unacceptable and problematic for the international Jewish community, but for the international community generally. President Asad responded that if you talked to the man in the street in Damascus, he or she would not know very much about Naziism, but they would be very unhappy with Israel. I said equating Zionism and Naziism is very repugnant, that the principal reason for the Jewish nation in Israel was the Holocaust and the incineration of 6 million Jews, and that kind of equation is unacceptable. In conclusion, I see colleagues coming to the floor, so I will not take up any more floor time. I think we have to pursue new avenues. I think we have to look to moderate Arabs such as Mohamed of Morocco, Abdullah of Jordan, and Mubarak of Egypt to lead the way. And if we find this evidence as to Yasser Arafat's complicity in paying terrorists, we have to face up to that head on. President Bush has been very emphatic that you can't deal with terrorists, you can't deal with anybody who harbors terrorists. In moving forward with negotiations, before there is a truce, there is a real problem there on the appearance of rewarding terrorism by having negotiations before there is a truce. Prime Minister Sharon had insisted on 7 days of quiet before he would negotiate, and in the interest of trying to move the process forward, he has abandoned that precondition. But we have to be very careful in our dealings here that we do not reward terrorists, which will only encourage more terrorism. I ask unanimous consent that my trip report be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

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