Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. I would be agreeable to 4 hours equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. I was saying I would be glad to agree to a time limit.

Mr. SPECTER. I am surprised that the Senator from Iowa was not listening. We have a close partnership on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am proposing this amendment on behalf of Senators Landrieu, Collins, Schumer, Snowe, Leahy, Allen, Biden, Bond, Breaux, Carnahan, Carper, Chafee, Cleland, Clinton, Cochran, Dodd, Edwards, Frist, Gregg, Helms, Hollings, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Miller, Reed, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Sessions, Shelby, Smith of New Hampshire, Thompson, Thurmond, Torricelli, and Warner. As the distinguished manager, the Senator from Iowa asked for a time agreement--if I might have the attention of the Senator from Iowa.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1191.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak briefly about amendment No. 1055, which has been filed and is at the desk. This is an amendment which I understand will be included in the managers' package. I thought it might be useful to make a comment or two about it. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify congressional intent on the highway congestion relief program created under the 1998 TEA-21 highway authorization bill. Under the ITS, Traffic.com, a Wayne, PA, company employing some 150 workers, competed for and won an initial $8 million contract to create a traffic management system to monitor congestion in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The bidders competing for this initial contract expected and were led to believe that the winner on the first phase of the contract would automatically receive the follow-on contract. The intent of the TEA-21 ITS provision was to eventually expand this program beyond Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and award the next phase of the contract to the same team that won the first phase. The fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations Act contained a $50 million earmark to further fund an intelligent transportation system, ITS, section 378, Public Law 106-346. This intelligence transportation system project was originally conceived under TEA-21 to serve as a national, interoperable program that would allow local residents and trucking companies to receive up-to-date information on traffic patterns and congestion. TEA-21 section 5117 (b)(3)(B)(v) set forth that the ITS program should utilize an advanced information system designed and monitored by an entity with experience with the Department of Transportation in the design and monitoring of high-reliability, mission-critical voice and data systems. It was thought at the time by the draftsmen that this provision would cover the $50 million, but there has been a determination by general counsel for the Department of Transportation that this language is insufficient. We had thought we might correct it with a colloquy, but we have been advised that there needs to be a so-called legislative fix. In that light, I have submitted the amendment, which is No. 1055, which has been reviewed by the Department of Transportation. And we have been assured, I have been assured that the language in the amendment will be satisfactory. This is an important matter to my constituents. It is a Wayne, PA, company employing some 150 workers. I have conferred with Senator Warner, who was a party to the initial transaction where, as is the case with many highway projects, the arrangements were worked out that the firm winning the first contract of $8 million, which was, as I say, Traffic.com, would get the second contract. But the legislative draftsmen were not sufficiently precise, as I have said. Senator Warner confirmed to me yesterday that was the intent at that time, and he is prepared to confirm that. The distinguished Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, chairman and manager of this report, had wanted confirmation from the authorizing committee that this was acceptable, as is the practice, if a matter like this is included in an appropriations bill. The appropriate process is to have the authorizers agree that it may be inserted, not to have any jurisdiction taken away. I had consulted with the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, who is the subcommittee chairman, who is on the floor now and hears what I am saying, and also with the distinguished chairman, Senator Jeffords. They have concurred in this. As I say, it is my expectation, having just conferred with the chairman, Senator Murray, that it be included in the managers' package. I thought it would be useful for the record to have this brief explanation as to precisely what happened and what the intent of the amendment will be as included in the managers' package. As they say at wedding ceremonies, Senator Murray and Senator Reid, if you have anything to say, speak now or forever hold your peace. I thank the Chair. They used to call that an adoptive admission before they were declared unconstitutional, when I was a prosecuting attorney. I thank Senator Murray, Senator Reid, and my other colleagues. I yield the floor and I 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths, those exempt from attending school, between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I introduced identical measures in the 105th and 106th Congresses. Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House twice before. I am hopeful the Senate will also enact this important issue. As the former Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer employment where they live. The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish community. In 1998, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, PA, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. In December 2000, Representative Pitts and I held a meeting in Gap, PA, with over 20 members of the Amish community to hear their concerns on this issue. On May 3, 2001, I chaired a hearing of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to examine these issues. At the hearing the Amish explained that while they once made their living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand into other occupations as farmland has disappeared in many areas due to pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish culture expects youth, upon the completion of their education at the age of 14, to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and lifestyle of the Amish. Under my legislation, youths would not be allowed to operate power machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that they are enforced. The Department of Justice has raised serious concerns under the Establishment Clause with the House legislation. The House measure conferred benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities. I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. In Yoder, the Court held that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self- reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish do not need the final two years of public education. I offer my legislation with the hope that my colleagues will work with me to provide relief for the Amish community. I am pleased to have received a commitment on the Senate floor from Senator Kennedy, Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, to hold a hearing on this issue, and I urge the timely consideration of my bill by the full Senate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths, those exempt from attending school, between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I introduced identical measures in the 105th and 106th Congresses. Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House twice before. I am hopeful the Senate will also enact this important issue. As the former Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer employment where they live. The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish community. In 1998, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, PA, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. In December 2000, Representative Pitts and I held a meeting in Gap, PA, with over 20 members of the Amish community to hear their concerns on this issue. On May 3, 2001, I chaired a hearing of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to examine these issues. At the hearing the Amish explained that while they once made their living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand into other occupations as farmland has disappeared in many areas due to pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish culture expects youth, upon the completion of their education at the age of 14, to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and lifestyle of the Amish. Under my legislation, youths would not be allowed to operate power machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that they are enforced. The Department of Justice has raised serious concerns under the Establishment Clause with the House legislation. The House measure conferred benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities. I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. In Yoder, the Court held that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self- reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish do not need the final two years of public education. I offer my legislation with the hope that my colleagues will work with me to provide relief for the Amish community. I am pleased to have received a commitment on the Senate floor from Senator Kennedy, Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, to hold a hearing on this issue, and I urge the timely consideration of my bill by the full Senate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition at this time to comment briefly on legislation that I have introduced today to address an injustice now contained in statutory formulas which define which veterans will, and will not, be allowed priority access to free Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care services. To simplify, VA currently provides access to health care under the following priority scheme: veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities have first opportunity to enroll for VA care; then, veterans who are former prisoners of war, those who are catastrophically disabled, and those who have no where else to turn for health care because of financial constraints may enroll for VA care; and, finally, veterans who simply choose to seek VA care even though they can afford care elsewhere, and, in testimony to the quality of care VA provides, many do, are invited to enroll. Currently, VA welcomes all veterans to enroll for care, and VA generally turns away no veteran who seeks hospital or clinical care. But lower priority patients are required to make copayments for the care and the medications they receive from VA. As I have noted, poor veterans, technically, those who are classified as being ``unable to defray the expenses of necessary care,'' have priority over veterans who have nonservice-connected illnesses or disabilities. In order to determine who is, in fact, ``unable to defray,'' VA uses a single, national ``means test.'' In effect, a veteran without dependents who has an annual income of less than $23,688 has priority access to VA care at no charge; a veteran with a higher annual income who does not otherwise qualify for priority status is required to make a copayment to receive the same care. In addition, that patient is placed in the pool of ``discretionary'' patients who face the risk of disenrollment should VA budget shortfalls ever require limiting enrollment. A single, national ``means test'' applies irrespective of cost-of- living variations among geographic localities. In many other Federal pay and benefits systems, by contrast, geographic cost-of-living variations are taken into consideration. For example, the housing allowance paid to active duty service members is based on the average housing costs in the area they are assigned; salary and wage payments to Federal employees, while utilizing national pay scales, also contain locality adjustments; and, benefits afforded to low income families by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, are based on median family income in the area in which the applicant resides. VA's ``means test'' should also take such local cost-of-living variations into account. Today, I introduce legislation which would require VA to do so. My legislation would adjust VA's current ``means test'' to allow veterans who live in high-cost areas, such as Philadelphia, to qualify for priority status in VA hospitals even if their incomes are slightly higher than VA's single, national threshold amount. My bill would provide for an additional formula to measure a veteran's ``unable to defray'' status, the ``Low Income index'' established by HUD under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. That index defines ``low income'' by reference to the median family income in the Metropolitan Statistical Area in which the applicant lives. Clearly, a formula which takes into account local variations in income, and, thus, the local cost of living, more fairly measures a veteran's actual ability to assist in defraying the cost of his or her medical care. I note, however, that the current VA formula would also be retained lest veteran-patients who live in relatively low cost areas lose priority status they might currently have under that formula. It is not my intention to shrink the pool of priority patients; it is my intention to expand it by allowing more low income persons, particularly the urban poor, to qualify. I ask my colleagues to join with me in improving VA's medical care priority ``means test'' so that it more accurately accomplishes its true purpose of measuring whether a veteran can, or cannot, be expected to assist in defraying the cost of his or her necessary medical care. Such a test, clearly, must take into account variations in the cost-of- living in the locality in which the veteran resides. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition at this time to comment briefly on legislation that I have introduced today to address an injustice now contained in statutory formulas which define which veterans will, and will not, be allowed priority access to free Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care services. To simplify, VA currently provides access to health care under the following priority scheme: veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities have first opportunity to enroll for VA care; then, veterans who are former prisoners of war, those who are catastrophically disabled, and those who have no where else to turn for health care because of financial constraints may enroll for VA care; and, finally, veterans who simply choose to seek VA care even though they can afford care elsewhere, and, in testimony to the quality of care VA provides, many do, are invited to enroll. Currently, VA welcomes all veterans to enroll for care, and VA generally turns away no veteran who seeks hospital or clinical care. But lower priority patients are required to make copayments for the care and the medications they receive from VA. As I have noted, poor veterans, technically, those who are classified as being ``unable to defray the expenses of necessary care,'' have priority over veterans who have nonservice-connected illnesses or disabilities. In order to determine who is, in fact, ``unable to defray,'' VA uses a single, national ``means test.'' In effect, a veteran without dependents who has an annual income of less than $23,688 has priority access to VA care at no charge; a veteran with a higher annual income who does not otherwise qualify for priority status is required to make a copayment to receive the same care. In addition, that patient is placed in the pool of ``discretionary'' patients who face the risk of disenrollment should VA budget shortfalls ever require limiting enrollment. A single, national ``means test'' applies irrespective of cost-of- living variations among geographic localities. In many other Federal pay and benefits systems, by contrast, geographic cost-of-living variations are taken into consideration. For example, the housing allowance paid to active duty service members is based on the average housing costs in the area they are assigned; salary and wage payments to Federal employees, while utilizing national pay scales, also contain locality adjustments; and, benefits afforded to low income families by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, are based on median family income in the area in which the applicant resides. VA's ``means test'' should also take such local cost-of-living variations into account. Today, I introduce legislation which would require VA to do so. My legislation would adjust VA's current ``means test'' to allow veterans who live in high-cost areas, such as Philadelphia, to qualify for priority status in VA hospitals even if their incomes are slightly higher than VA's single, national threshold amount. My bill would provide for an additional formula to measure a veteran's ``unable to defray'' status, the ``Low Income index'' established by HUD under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. That index defines ``low income'' by reference to the median family income in the Metropolitan Statistical Area in which the applicant lives. Clearly, a formula which takes into account local variations in income, and, thus, the local cost of living, more fairly measures a veteran's actual ability to assist in defraying the cost of his or her medical care. I note, however, that the current VA formula would also be retained lest veteran-patients who live in relatively low cost areas lose priority status they might currently have under that formula. It is not my intention to shrink the pool of priority patients; it is my intention to expand it by allowing more low income persons, particularly the urban poor, to qualify. I ask my colleagues to join with me in improving VA's medical care priority ``means test'' so that it more accurately accomplishes its true purpose of measuring whether a veteran can, or cannot, be expected to assist in defraying the cost of his or her necessary medical care. Such a test, clearly, must take into account variations in the cost-of- living in the locality in which the veteran resides. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I will not include my letter to President Clinton, dated April 11, 2000, because the two letters are largely the same. I further ask unanimous consent that the first caption page of the case entitled ``Prewitt Enterprises v. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries'' be printed in the Record so that those who study the Congressional Record may have a point of reference to get the entire case and do any research which anybody might care to do.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss briefly this afternoon, in the absence of any activity on the pending legislation, and in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, to discuss a subject which was talked about at the energy town meeting which Vice President Cheney had in Pittsburgh on Monday of this week, July 16. At that time, I had an opportunity to address very briefly a number of energy issues. I talked about the possibility of action under the U.S. antitrust laws against OPEC which could have the effect of bringing down the price of petroleum and, in turn, the high prices of gasoline which American consumers are paying at the present time. I have had a number of comments about people's interest in that presentation. I only had a little more then 3 minutes to discuss this OPEC issue and some others. I thought it would be worthwhile to comment on this subject in this Senate Chamber today so that others might be aware of the possibility of a lawsuit against OPEC under the antitrust laws. I had written to President Clinton on April 11 of the year 2000 and had written a similar letter to President George Bush on April 25 of this year, 2001, outlining the subject matter as to the potential for a lawsuit against OPEC. The essential considerations involved whether there is sovereign immunity from a lawsuit where an act of state is involved, and the decisions in the field make a delineation between what is commercial activity contrasted with governmental activity. Commercial activity, such as the sale of oil, is not something which is covered by the act of state doctrine, and therefore is not an activity which enjoys sovereign immunity. There have also been some limitations on matters involving international law, as to whether there is a consensus in international law that price fixing by cartels violates international norms. In recent years, there has been a growing consensus that such cartels do violate international norms, so that now there is a basis for a lawsuit under U.S. antitrust laws against OPEC and, beyond OPEC, against the countries which comprise OPEC. After writing these letters to President Clinton and President Bush, I found that there had, in fact, been litigation instituted on this precise subject in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, in a case captioned ``Prewitt Enterprises, Inc. v. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.'' In that case, neither OPEC nor any of the other countries involved contested the case, and a default judgment was entered by the Federal court, which made some findings of fact right in line with the issues which had been raised in my letters to both Presidents Clinton and Bush. The court found that OPEC had conspired to implement extensive production cuts, that they had established quotas in order to achieve a specific price range of $22 to $28 a barrel, and that the cost to U.S. consumers on a daily basis was in the range of $80 to $120 million for petroleum products. That is worth repeating. The cost to U.S. consumers was $80 to $120 million daily. The court further found that OPEC was not a foreign state. The court also found that the member states of OPEC, although not parties to the action, were coconspirators with OPEC, and that the agreement entered into by the member states of OPEC was a commercial activity, and the states, therefore, did not have sovereign immunity for their actions. The court further found that the act of state doctrine did not apply to the member states and that OPEC's actions were illegal ``per se'' under the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The court then issued an injunction, which is legalese for saying OPEC could no longer act in concert to control the volume of the production and export of crude oil. The court found that the class of plaintiffs was not entitled to monetary damages because they were what is called ``indirect purchasers.'' That is a legal concept which is rather involved which I need not discuss at this time. But the outline was established, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law were established by the Federal court that indeed there was a cartel, there was a conspiracy in restraint of trade, U.S. laws were violated, U.S. consumers were being prejudiced, and an injunction was issued. Then, a unique thing occurred. After the court entered its default judgment and injunction, OPEC entered a special appearance in the case, and asked the court to dismiss the case. Three nations, who were not parties to the case--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Mexico--then sought leave of the court to file ``amicus'' briefs in support of OPEC's motion to dismiss, which means, in effect, that they wanted to assist OPEC in defending the matter. I think it is highly significant that those nations, which are characteristically and customarily oblivious and indifferent and seek to simply ignore U.S. judicial action, had a change of heart and decided to come in. They must have concluded that an injunction by Federal court was something to be concerned about. I think, in fact, it is something to be concerned about. In an era where we are struggling with an extraordinarily difficult time of high energy costs, with real concerns laid on the floor of the Senate about where additional drilling ought to be undertaken, about the problems with fossil fuels, about our activities to try to find clean coal technology to comply with the Clean Air Act, at a time when we are looking for renewable energy sources such as air and wind and hydroelectric power, there is a long finger to point at the OPEC nations which are conspiring to drive up prices in violation not only of U.S. law but in violation of international law. This is a subject which ought to be known to people generally. It ought to be the subject of debate, and it ought to be, in my opinion, beyond a class action brought into the Federal court by private plaintiffs, which is something that the Government of the United States of America ought to consider doing as has been set forth in the letters which I sent to President Clinton last year and to President Bush this year. It is especially telling when we have Kuwait gouging American consumers, after the United States went to war in the Persian Gulf to save Kuwait. It is equally if not more telling that Saudi Arabia engages in these conspiratorial tactics at a time when we have over 5,000 American men and women in the desert outside of Riyadh. I have visited there. It is not even a nice place to visit, let alone a nice place to live, in a country where Christians can't have Christmas trees in the windows and Jewish soldiers don't wear the Star of David for fear of being the victims of religious persecution; and Mexico, a party to these practices, notwithstanding our efforts to be helpful to the Government of Mexico. But fair is fair. Conspiracies ought not to be engaged in. Price fixing ought not to be engaged in. If there is a way within our laws to remedy this, and I believe there is, that is something which ought to be considered. I am not unmindful of the tender diplomatic concerns where every time an issue is raised, we worry about what one of the foreign governments is going to do, what Saudi Arabia is going to do--that we should handle them with ``silk gloves'' only. But when American consumers are being gouged up to $100 million a day on petroleum products, this is something we ought to consider and, in my judgment, we ought to act on. We have seen beyond the issue of antitrust enforcement a new era of international law, with the War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague prosecuting war criminals from Yugoslavia, and now former President Milosevic is in custody. We also have the War Crimes Tribunal at Rwanda. A new era has dawned where we are finding that the international rule of law is coming into common parlance. That long arm of the law, I do believe, extends to OPEC, and there could be some very unique remedies for U.S. consumers. I ask unanimous consent to print my letter to President Bush, dated April 25, 2001, in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If that is all the debate, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. I am prepared to undertake that job. And if the Senator from Illinois does not understand why I am offering this amendment, let me explain it to him. It would cost, to circulate in Pennsylvania, $735,000, which will be about a third of my budget. We have a grave crisis in America where people think that Members of Congress are up for sale. Campaign finance reform has been a heated subject in this Chamber and in the House Chamber. It is necessary to have fundraisers, and you cannot deny that the people who come to fundraisers have access. But I find that the best answer to that is to tell my constituents that I go to all the counties in Pennsylvania--67 counties. It is onerous. It is very worthwhile in many respects. It is very refreshing to get outside the beltway, to find out what people are thinking about in upstate Pennsylvania; and to say that people will get a notice that Arlen Specter is coming to town, and you can come there, you do not have to buy a ticket. You can listen to a short speech, about 5 minutes on an hour, and the balance of the hour is for questions and answers. That way you have participatory democracy. So it is a partial answer to the problem of fundraisers which we hold. I think it would be great if this sort of financing would encourage Senators to go out and do town meetings, and I intend to pursue this in the Rules Committee. This is just a start. Let's see how it works. My instinct is that most of the $3 million will not be used. And while it is first-come-first-serve, you cannot spend a lot of money for the postal patron postcards going to people in counties with a population of under 50,000. I thank the managers for accepting this amendment. I think it can prove very beneficial to the Senators and, more importantly, to America. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I am not going to object to that.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, only 5 minutes has been allotted for my presentation. I have asked for that limited time only realizing the lateness of the hour. This amendment would establish a relatively small fund of $3 million to pay for notices sent to residents of small counties when a Senator comes to that county to have a town meeting. Town meetings are in the greatest tradition of American democracy. But they have fallen into disuse in the Senate for a number of reasons. One reason is that it is very tough for Senators to go out and face constituents and listen to a variety of complaints and defend a Senator's voting record. It is more comfortable to stay inside the beltway. But there is another reason; that is, the mail accounts are inadequate to provide for all of the funds necessary. For my State alone, it would cost about three-quarters of a million dollars. My total budget is a little over $2 million for all of my office expenses. This is an effort to start on what I think could be a very important project. It provides only for notices in small counties under 50,000 population. It is possible in Pennsylvania, illustratively, to cover the big cities and the suburban counties for television and newspapers. But if you take the northern tier of Pennsylvania, or the southern tier, or some of the counties, you simply can't get there unless you go there. If a Senator is to go there, the only way you could tell people that you are coming is if you send them a simple postal paper notice--not even a name or address--just to every resident. I had anticipated that perhaps a lively debate on this subject might have taken an hour or two. But when I saw that the legislative appropriations bill was going to be listed this evening at about 9:30, I added three magic words to this amendment, and they are, ``subject to authorization.'' I know the Senator from Illinois is opposed to the amendment; the Senator from Utah is in favor of the amendment. We will present this matter, on another occasion, to the Rules Committee. But it is my understanding that pursuant to practice, if it passes the Senate, it is not subject to conference. I do not want to have an amendment accepted and then dropped in conference. That frequently happens. Mr. President, how much time remains of my 5 minutes?

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SPECTER

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

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