Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a bill that would allow States to pass laws limiting the import of waste from other States. Addressing the interstate shipment of solid waste is a top environmental priority for millions of Pennsylvanians and for me. As you are aware, Congress came very close to enacting legislation to address this issue in 1994, and the Senate passed interstate waste and flow control legislation in May, 1995 by an overwhelming 94-6 margin, only to see it die in the House of Representatives. I look forward to my new role as a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and am confident that with the strong leadership of my colleagues Chairmen Chafee and Smith, we can get quick action on a strong waste bill and put the necessary pressure on the other body to conclude this effort once and for all. As you are aware, the Supreme Court has put us in the position of having to intervene in the issue of trash shipments. In recent years, the Court has struck down State laws restricting the importation of solid waste from other jurisdictions under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The only solution is for Congress to enact legislation conferring such authority on the States, which would then be Constitutional. It is time that the largest trash exporting States bite the bullet and take substantial steps towards self-sufficiency for waste disposal. The legislation passed by the Senate in the 103rd and 104th Congresses would have provided much-needed relief to Pennsylvania, which is by far the largest importer of out-of-State waste in the Nation. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 3.9 million tons of out-of-State municipal solid waste entered Pennsylvania in 1993, rising to 4.3 million tons in 1994, 5.2 million in 1995, 6.3 million tons from out-of-State in 1996 and 1997, and a record 7.2 million tons in 1998, which are the most recent statistics available. Most of this trash came from New York and New Jersey, with New York responsible for 44 percent and New Jersey responsible for 41 percent of the municipal solid waste imported into Pennsylvania in 1998. This is not a problem limited to one small corner of my State. Millions of tons of trash generated in other States find their final resting place in more than 50 landfills throughout Pennsylvania. Now, more than ever, we need legislation which will go a long way toward resolving the landfill problems facing Pennsylvania, Indiana, and similar waste importing States. I am particularly concerned by the developments in New York, where the closure of the city's one remaining landfill, Fresh Kills, has been announced this year. I am advised that 13,200 tons per day of New York City trash were sent there and that Pennsylvania is a likely destination of this trash. I have met with county officials, environmental groups, and other Pennsylvanians to discuss the solid waste issue specifically, and it often comes up in the public open house town meetings I conduct in all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. I came away from those meetings impressed by the deep concerns expressed by the residents of communities which host a landfill rapidly filling up with the refuse of millions of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans whose States have failed to adequately manage the waste they generate. Recognizing the recurrent problem of landfill capacity in Pennsylvania, since 1989 I have pushed to resolve the interstate waste crisis. I have introduced legislation with my late colleague, Senator John Heinz, and then with former Senator Dan Coats along with cosponsors from both sides of the aisle which would have authorized States to restrict the disposal of out-of-State municipal waste in any landfill or incinerator within its jurisdiction. I was pleased when many of the concepts in our legislation were incorporated in the Environment and Public Works Committee's reported bills in the 103rd and 104th Congresses, and I supported these measures during floor consideration. During the 103rd Congress, we encountered a new issue with respect to municipal solid waste, the issue of waste flow control authority. On May 16, 1994, the Supreme Court held (6-3) in Carbone versus Clarkstown that a flow control ordinance, which requires all solid waste to be processed at a designated waste management facility, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In striking down the Clarkstown ordinance, the Court stated that the ordinance discriminated against interstate commerce by allowing only the favored operator to process waste that is within the town's limits. As a result of the Court's decision, flow control ordinances in Pennsylvania and other States are considered unconstitutional. I have met with country commissioners who have made clear that this issue is vitally important to the local governments in Pennsylvania and my office has, over the past years received numerous phone calls and letters from individual Pennsylvania counties and municipal solid waste authorities that support waste flow control legislation. Since 1988, flow control has been the primary tool used by Pennsylvania counties to enforce solid waste plans and meet waste reduction and recycling goals or mandates. Many Pennsylvania jurisdictions have spent a considerable amount of public funds on disposal facilities, including upgraded sanitary landfills, state-of-the-art resource recovery facilities, and co-composting facilities. In the absence of flow control authority, I am advised that many of these worthwhile projects could be jeopardized and that there has been a fiscal impact on some communities where there are debt service obligations. In order to fix these problems, my legislation would provide a presumptive ban on all out-of-state municipal solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, unless a landfill obtains the agreement of the local government to allow for the importation of waste. It would provide a freeze authority to allow a State to place a limit on the amount of out-of-State waste received annually at each facility. It would also provide a ratchet authority to allow a State to gradually reduce the amount of out-of-state municipal waste that may be received at facilities. These provisions will provide a concrete incentive for the largest exporting states to get a handle on their solid waste management immediately. To address the problem of flow control my bill would provide authority to allow local governments to designate where privately collected waste must be disposed. This would be a narrow fix for only those localities that constructed facilities before the 1994 Supreme Court ruling and who relied on their ability to regulate the flow of garbage to pay for their municipal bonds. This is an issue that affects numerous states, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a bill that would allow States to pass laws limiting the import of waste from other States. Addressing the interstate shipment of solid waste is a top environmental priority for millions of Pennsylvanians and for me. As you are aware, Congress came very close to enacting legislation to address this issue in 1994, and the Senate passed interstate waste and flow control legislation in May, 1995 by an overwhelming 94-6 margin, only to see it die in the House of Representatives. I look forward to my new role as a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and am confident that with the strong leadership of my colleagues Chairmen Chafee and Smith, we can get quick action on a strong waste bill and put the necessary pressure on the other body to conclude this effort once and for all. As you are aware, the Supreme Court has put us in the position of having to intervene in the issue of trash shipments. In recent years, the Court has struck down State laws restricting the importation of solid waste from other jurisdictions under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The only solution is for Congress to enact legislation conferring such authority on the States, which would then be Constitutional. It is time that the largest trash exporting States bite the bullet and take substantial steps towards self-sufficiency for waste disposal. The legislation passed by the Senate in the 103rd and 104th Congresses would have provided much-needed relief to Pennsylvania, which is by far the largest importer of out-of-State waste in the Nation. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 3.9 million tons of out-of-State municipal solid waste entered Pennsylvania in 1993, rising to 4.3 million tons in 1994, 5.2 million in 1995, 6.3 million tons from out-of-State in 1996 and 1997, and a record 7.2 million tons in 1998, which are the most recent statistics available. Most of this trash came from New York and New Jersey, with New York responsible for 44 percent and New Jersey responsible for 41 percent of the municipal solid waste imported into Pennsylvania in 1998. This is not a problem limited to one small corner of my State. Millions of tons of trash generated in other States find their final resting place in more than 50 landfills throughout Pennsylvania. Now, more than ever, we need legislation which will go a long way toward resolving the landfill problems facing Pennsylvania, Indiana, and similar waste importing States. I am particularly concerned by the developments in New York, where the closure of the city's one remaining landfill, Fresh Kills, has been announced this year. I am advised that 13,200 tons per day of New York City trash were sent there and that Pennsylvania is a likely destination of this trash. I have met with county officials, environmental groups, and other Pennsylvanians to discuss the solid waste issue specifically, and it often comes up in the public open house town meetings I conduct in all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. I came away from those meetings impressed by the deep concerns expressed by the residents of communities which host a landfill rapidly filling up with the refuse of millions of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans whose States have failed to adequately manage the waste they generate. Recognizing the recurrent problem of landfill capacity in Pennsylvania, since 1989 I have pushed to resolve the interstate waste crisis. I have introduced legislation with my late colleague, Senator John Heinz, and then with former Senator Dan Coats along with cosponsors from both sides of the aisle which would have authorized States to restrict the disposal of out-of-State municipal waste in any landfill or incinerator within its jurisdiction. I was pleased when many of the concepts in our legislation were incorporated in the Environment and Public Works Committee's reported bills in the 103rd and 104th Congresses, and I supported these measures during floor consideration. During the 103rd Congress, we encountered a new issue with respect to municipal solid waste, the issue of waste flow control authority. On May 16, 1994, the Supreme Court held (6-3) in Carbone versus Clarkstown that a flow control ordinance, which requires all solid waste to be processed at a designated waste management facility, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In striking down the Clarkstown ordinance, the Court stated that the ordinance discriminated against interstate commerce by allowing only the favored operator to process waste that is within the town's limits. As a result of the Court's decision, flow control ordinances in Pennsylvania and other States are considered unconstitutional. I have met with country commissioners who have made clear that this issue is vitally important to the local governments in Pennsylvania and my office has, over the past years received numerous phone calls and letters from individual Pennsylvania counties and municipal solid waste authorities that support waste flow control legislation. Since 1988, flow control has been the primary tool used by Pennsylvania counties to enforce solid waste plans and meet waste reduction and recycling goals or mandates. Many Pennsylvania jurisdictions have spent a considerable amount of public funds on disposal facilities, including upgraded sanitary landfills, state-of-the-art resource recovery facilities, and co-composting facilities. In the absence of flow control authority, I am advised that many of these worthwhile projects could be jeopardized and that there has been a fiscal impact on some communities where there are debt service obligations. In order to fix these problems, my legislation would provide a presumptive ban on all out-of-state municipal solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, unless a landfill obtains the agreement of the local government to allow for the importation of waste. It would provide a freeze authority to allow a State to place a limit on the amount of out-of-State waste received annually at each facility. It would also provide a ratchet authority to allow a State to gradually reduce the amount of out-of-state municipal waste that may be received at facilities. These provisions will provide a concrete incentive for the largest exporting states to get a handle on their solid waste management immediately. To address the problem of flow control my bill would provide authority to allow local governments to designate where privately collected waste must be disposed. This would be a narrow fix for only those localities that constructed facilities before the 1994 Supreme Court ruling and who relied on their ability to regulate the flow of garbage to pay for their municipal bonds. This is an issue that affects numerous states, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an extract of a report from CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER. We have a nominee who has been put forward by the President who has very impressive credentials: United States Attorney in Boston, United States Attorney in San Francisco, 3 years as Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department, where I had contacts and saw his impressive work. He will be succeeding a man, Director Louis Freeh, who came to the Bureau with extraordinary credentials and overall did a good job, although he presided over the Bureau at a time when there were many institutional failures. I analogize Director Freeh to the little boy on the Netherlands dike running around putting his finger in all the holes to try to stop the water from coming through. With so many holes and so many problems, it was not possible. I believe similarly that the Congress, including the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee, has not been sufficiently active on oversight. These hearings will give us an opportunity to set standards as to what the FBI should be doing in response to oversight activities by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I had an opportunity to talk for the better part of an hour yesterday to FBI Director-designee Mueller and went over quite a number of issues that I intend to ask him in the public forum. I comment about these today because the Senate ought to be preparing for this hearing with unique care for this very important position. One of the matters I intend to discuss with Mr. Mueller in the confirmation hearings is the failure of the FBI to turn over for congressional Senate oversight a memorandum dated December 9, 1996, which was written at a time when there was a question as to whether Attorney General Reno was going to be reappointed by President Clinton. At that time, the campaign finance investigation was just being started. There was a conversation by a top FBI official Esposito, with a top Department of Justice official Lee Radek, and FBI Director Freeh wrote this memorandum to the file to Mr. Esposito actually. Referring to a meeting that he had with the Attorney General on December 6, Director Freeh wrote this memo December 9: I also advised the Attorney General of Lee Radek's comment to you that there was a lot of ``pressure'' on him and the Public Integrity Section regarding this case because the ``Attorney General's job might hang in the balance'' (or words to that effect). This memorandum did not come to the attention of the Judiciary Committee until April of 2000, some 3\1/2\ years later, when, in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee on Department of Justice oversight, a subpoena was issued for all of the FBI records and writings relating to the campaign finance investigation. When this memo was discovered, Director Freeh was questioned as to why he hadn't turned it over for Judiciary Committee oversight, because it was the view of many that it absolutely should have been done. Director Freeh defended his inaction on the ground that it would have compromised his relationship with Attorney General Reno. But notwithstanding that fact, it is my view that this is the sort of oversight the Judiciary Committee must undertake. This will be the subject of my questioning of Mr. Mueller during the confirmation hearing. Director Freeh declined to appear voluntarily before the Judiciary Committee or the subcommittee to comment about this memorandum, and the committee decided not to issue a subpoena, which I thought should have been done. It is my view that when a matter of this importance comes to light there ought to be a public inquiry as to what happened between the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI. It takes a congressional committee to get to the bottom of that. When Attorney General Reno testified, she said, ``I don't recall that, but if that had come to my attention, I certainly would have done something about it.'' In my view, anybody who is going to be confirmed for FBI Director has to have a commitment to making this sort of information available to Senate oversight. Another matter which I intend to question Mr. Mueller about is the insistence of the FBI on not cooperating with Senate oversight where there is a pending criminal investigation. Now, I understand the sensitivity of a pending criminal investigation, having some experience as a prosecutor myself, but the case law is plain that congressional oversight is so fundamental and so important that it may proceed even as to pending criminal investigations. But that has not been honored by the Department of Justice or by the FBI. And in the case involving Dr. Wen Ho Lee, the subcommittee on the Department of Justice oversight was stymied at every turn by the FBI refusing to make available information, citing a pending criminal investigation. Now, the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, or chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee, have standing, it seems to me, on a discrete inquiry, carefully controlled, where the prosecution would not be compromised. That is the role of oversight. But when Wen Ho Lee was indicted on December 11, 1999, immediately, the FBI used that as a reason to resist any further Senate oversight. And there was a real question of why the FBI and the Department of Justice allowed Dr. Lee to remain at large after a search of his premises in April of 1999 was conducted, and then he was at liberty, at large, until December when an arrest warrant was issued. Suddenly, he became more problematic than public enemy No. 1, when he was put in manacles and solitary confinement, in a situation which had all the earmarks of an effort at the top of the Justice Department and FBI to coerce a guilty plea. After the guilty plea was entered, Judiciary Committee oversight had been further stymied by the refusal of the FBI to allow access to what was going on because Dr. Lee was still being debriefed. Here again, I believe the Judiciary Committee is entitled to a commitment that oversight will be respected, and the case law will be respected, and that there may be oversight even on pending criminal investigations. In the case of Hanssen, who has just entered a guilty plea on an arrangement to be spared the death penalty, raises some very fundamental questions that need to be answered as to procedures in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although this matter did not come to light until very recently, in August of 1986, Hanssen's voice was recorded by an FBI wiretap on his Soviet contact's telephone. In 1992, Hanssen improperly accessed his supervisor's computer. In 1997, Hanssen began to search the FBI computerized case database for his name, his home address, and for terms referring to espionage activities. A question arises, what steps have been taken by the FBI to detect a spy such as Hanssen? There was a very probing report issued by the inspector general of the CIA after Aldrich Ames was detected as a spy, and the inspector general of the CIA, Fred Hitz, wrote this in the report: We have no reason to believe that the directors of Central Intelligence who served during the relevant period were aware of the deficiencies described in this report. That relates to Aldrich Ames. But directors of Central Intelligence are obligated to ensure that they are knowledgeable of significant developments relating to crucial agency missions. Sensitive human source reporting on the Soviet Union and Russia during and after the Cold War clearly was such a mission, and certain directors of Central Intelligence must therefore be held accountable for serious shortcomings in that reporting. Now, what that does essentially is to say that the Directors are at fault, even though they didn't know about Aldrich Ames, or have reason to know about Aldrich Ames, because the presence of spies in the Central Intelligence Agency so threatens national security that the Directors have an obligation to find out about it. If you make it an absolute responsibility, that, according to the CIA inspector general, would put the pressure on the Directors to find out about it. The three Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency who were in office during the time Aldrich Ames functioned--Judge Webster, Gates, and Woolsey--responded with a very hot letter denying responsibility and saying that the standard set by the CIA inspector general was too high. Well, this is a subject I have discussed preliminarily with Mr. Mueller and intend to ask him about. It is a very tough standard to say that a public official is liable for matters that he didn't know about or didn't have reason to know about. But if our Nation's secrets are to be guarded, and if we are to be secure from spies such as Ames and Hanssen, this is a matter that we are going to have to determine as to what is the appropriate standard. When I talked to Mr. Mueller, I didn't ask him for a response, but this is another subject that will be probed during the course of the confirmation hearings. The issues of management in the FBI are just gigantic; they are enormous. We have seen repeated failures by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to come forward with documents in a timely manner. In the McVeigh case, for example, the FBI had reason to know as early as January of this year that all of the documents relating to McVeigh had not been turned over to McVeigh's lawyers. Yet those documents were not made available until May. And then there was the issue about the fairness to McVeigh. No doubt he was guilty; he had confessed to the most horrendous crime in American history, where 168 people were killed in a Federal building in Oklahoma City--women, children, men, going there for official business, blameless, and it was done in a cold, calculated way. There was no doubt as to guilt or as to the justification for the death sentence which was imposed, but there was an obligation on the part of the prosecution to turn over all the papers. There may have been something which bore on sentencing. Here you had a 5-month delay where the Federal Bureau of Investigation had reason to know that all those documents were not turned over. The question is: What is to be done in the management of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to avoid this sort of an error? In an age of computerization and mechanization, we search for an answer and really must find a way that the FBI will correct these kinds of problems. A similar issue was confronted in the Waco matter. It was an incident which occurred on April 19, 1993, where the compound was attacked and where so many people lost their lives in one of the most controversial incidents in American history, but it was not until August of 1999 that the FBI suddenly found a whole ream of records. Here again, management responsibilities require something much, much better than that. The incident at Waco is really a very sad chapter in American history for many reasons: The confrontation, the deaths, the failure of congressional oversight, the failure of candid disclosure by the officials who were in charge. On April 28 of 1993, Attorney General Reno and then FBI Director William Sessions testified before Congress that no pyrotechnic tear gas rounds were used at Waco. The hostage rescue team commander, Richard Rogers, who was present for their testimony but who did not testify, did not correct them. Regrettably, that is an occurrence which has happened too often where there is a concern about the FBI institutional image which blinds people who ought to be coming forward and who ought to be making a disclosure as to what the facts were when there is congressional oversight and you have critical testimony by the Attorney General of the United States and by the Director of the FBI. When Mr. Mueller and I talked yesterday, we discussed at some length the culture of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the difficulties of even the Director finding out what is going on in the FBI. That is a challenging task which Robert Mueller is going to have to confront. In the context of what has happened with Wen Ho Lee, Waco, McVeigh, Hanssen, and the campaign finance investigation, these are issues which need to be very thoroughly explored in the confirmation hearing, and we ought to come to some common understanding between those of us who have oversight responsibilities on the Judiciary Committee and the Director of the FBI as to what his standard will be and what we think the standard should be so that we can come to a meeting of the minds or so that we may not confirm a Director who does not measure up to what Congress thinks is required as a matter of legitimate oversight. At the same time, as I suggested before, Congress has not done its job on oversight. We had the incident at Waco on April 19 of 1993. In my view, there should have been a prompt, detailed, piercing oversight investigation of what went on there. It was not until former Senator Danforth undertook that investigation in 1999 that anything really was done. Who can say as to the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building 2 years to the day after the Waco incident, when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995, whether that was related to the Waco incident or whether it might have been prevented had there been vigorous congressional oversight? In 1995, I served as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and moved to have oversight hearings at that time on both Waco and Ruby Ridge because I thought a great deal more needed to be done. Finally, the subcommittee was permitted to have oversight as to Ruby Ridge. That was an incident where Randy Weaver was on the mountain and refused to come down. There was a veritable army which approached him and had a firefight, and a U.S. marshal was killed in the process. The oversight in which the Terrorism Subcommittee got to the bottom of the matter, and to the credit of FBI Director Louis Freeh, the FBI changed the rules of engagement related to the use of deadly force in what was a very important matter. When we finished the hearings, Mr. Weaver said in the hearing room, had he known there was going to be this kind of congressional oversight, he would have come down from the mountain if he had believed there would be an inquiry and an appropriate resolution. It was at that time that militia were springing up in some 40 States across the United States. If Congress exercises appropriate oversight, it is my view that will do a great deal to quell public unrest and public doubts as to what is happening with Federal action in a place such as Ruby Ridge and Federal action in a place such as Waco. In summary, these are matters which are of the utmost importance when we will be confirming the next Director of the FBI, an occurrence which happens only once every 10 years because it is a 10-year turn, although a Director may leave earlier. Louis Freeh is leaving after 8 years, a term of office longer than the maximum a President may serve under the Constitution. The Justices of the Supreme Court have enormous power on 5-4 decisions establishing the law of the land, but there are four others who go with the one deciding vote. The FBI, with all of its power--most of what it does is necessarily confidential and secret--requires that there be very profound changes in FBI management on the items which have been mentioned and an attitude that will not emphasize the institutional image to the sacrifice of not having appropriate congressional oversight, not having appropriate congressional disclosure of the memorandum referred to, having appropriate congressional disclosure when a matter is pending, even if it is a criminal matter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the memorandum from Director Freeh, dated December 9, 1996, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition this morning to comment about the confirmation hearings which are scheduled later this month for Mr. Robert Mueller to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That position arguably is as important as any position in the United States of America, perhaps even the most powerful position. The statutory 10-year term is 2 years longer than the maximum a President may serve under the Constitution. The Director of the FBI has power over the largest investigative organization in the world, global in its exposure. There are an enormous number of problems which have befallen the agency in recent years. The confirmation hearing will provide a unique opportunity for oversight for the U.S. Senate to seek to establish standards as to what the FBI should be doing in cooperating with congressional oversight. The FBI is a well-respected organization. I have had very extensive opportunities to work with the FBI. After graduation from college, I was in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations for 2 years and had training from the FBI. The commanding officer of the OSI was a former top aide to Director J. Edgar Hoover. I worked with the FBI on the prosecution of the Philadelphia Teamsters, an investigation which was conducted by the McClellan committee, with then-general counsel, Robert Kennedy, and saw their very fine work. Then, as Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission, I worked with the FBI; then as district attorney of Philadelphia and for the last 20 years extensively on the Judiciary Committee. I have great respect for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At the same time, my experience has shown me that there is an over concern by the personnel of the FBI with their so-called institutional image and that there cannot be a concession of any problems, which is really indispensable if problems are to be corrected. (Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.)

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join today with thirty-eight of my colleagues to introduce legislation authorizing interstate dairy compacts. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced similar legislation with 162 cosponsors, including 17 members of the Pennsylvania delegation. This legislation will create a much needed safety net for dairy farmers in the Northeast and other regions and will bring greater stability to the prices paid to farmers. The bill authorizes an Interstate Compact Commission to take such steps as necessary to assure consumers of an adequate local supply of fresh fluid milk and to assure the continued viability of dairy farming within the compact region. Specifically, states that choose to join a compact would enter into a voluntary agreement to create a minimum farm-price for milk within the compact region to form a safety net for dairy farmers when farm milk prices fall below the established compact price. This price would take into account the regional differences in the costs of production for milk, thereby providing dairy farmers with a fair and equitable price for their product. Specifically, the bill would authorize Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Maryland, and Ohio to join the existing Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, which has been in operation since July 1997. Most of these States have already agreed to join the Compact with strong support from their governors and legislatures. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Ridge has been a very strong supporter and advocate of the Compact. The Pennsylvania Senate and House of Representatives have sent a clear signal to Congress by voting with overwhelming majorities of 44 to 6 and 181 to 20, respectively, to authorize the Commonwealth's participation in the Northeast Dairy Compact. In addition to expanding the current Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, the bill would authorize southern States to form a similar compact to provide price stability in their region. I am pleased to join so many of my colleagues from the South in introducing this legislation. Finally, the legislation would allow formation of other compacts in the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain region within three years. We have included language in this bill to recognize the efforts in these States to support dairy compacts and to avoid their exclusion if these efforts lead to passage of compact legislation by their State governments. In total, twenty-five States have already approved dairy compact legislation. This is a broad mandate from States that are attempting to meet the needs of dairy farmers, producers, consumers and other citizens concerned with the future of their milk supply. These States recognize the many positive aspects of dairy compacts. The benefits include providing dairy farmers with a fairer and more stable price structure; providing consumers with price stability and a steady, reliable source of local milk for their consumption; enhancement of conservation efforts in areas threatened by sprawl; and maintenance of rural economies that have been suffering for quite some time from the loss of income-generating farmers. Over the past several years, I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Senate in order to provide a more equitable price for our nation's milk producers. I supported amendments to the Farm Bills of 1981 and 1985, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 1991, the Budget Resolution of 1995 and the most recent Farm Bill in 1996 in an effort to insure that dairy farmers receive a fair price. As a member of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to ensure that dairy programs have received the maximum possible funding, including high quality dairy research conducted at Penn State University. I have also been a leading supporter of the Dairy Export Incentive Program which facilitates the development of an international market for United States dairy products. In recent years, however, dairy farmers have faced low prices for dairy products. Prices have fluctuated greatly over the past several years, thereby making any long-term planning impossible for farmers. These economic conditions have placed our Nation's dairy farmers in an all but impossible position and this is borne out in dairy farmers' declining ranks. Our Nation's farmers are some of the hardest working and most dedicated individuals in America. During my tenure as a United States Senator, I have visited numerous small dairy farms in Pennsylvania. I have seen these hard working men and women who have dedicated their lives to their farms. The downward trend in dairy prices is an issue that directly affects all of us. We have a duty to ensure that our Nation's dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk. If we do nothing, many small dairy farmers will be forced to sell their farms and leave the agriculture industry. This will not only impact the lives of these farmers, but will also have a significant negative impact on the rural economies that depend on the dairy industry for support. Further, the large-scale departure of small dairy farmers from agriculture could place our nation's steady supply of fresh fluid milk in jeopardy, thereby affecting every American. We must recognize the importance of this problem and take prompt action. Twenty-five States have asked us to pass this legislation and provide a necessary tool for their dairy farmers. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation as we continue to work in Congress to bring greater stability to our Nation's dairy industry. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join today with thirty-eight of my colleagues to introduce legislation authorizing interstate dairy compacts. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced similar legislation with 162 cosponsors, including 17 members of the Pennsylvania delegation. This legislation will create a much needed safety net for dairy farmers in the Northeast and other regions and will bring greater stability to the prices paid to farmers. The bill authorizes an Interstate Compact Commission to take such steps as necessary to assure consumers of an adequate local supply of fresh fluid milk and to assure the continued viability of dairy farming within the compact region. Specifically, states that choose to join a compact would enter into a voluntary agreement to create a minimum farm-price for milk within the compact region to form a safety net for dairy farmers when farm milk prices fall below the established compact price. This price would take into account the regional differences in the costs of production for milk, thereby providing dairy farmers with a fair and equitable price for their product. Specifically, the bill would authorize Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Maryland, and Ohio to join the existing Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, which has been in operation since July 1997. Most of these States have already agreed to join the Compact with strong support from their governors and legislatures. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Ridge has been a very strong supporter and advocate of the Compact. The Pennsylvania Senate and House of Representatives have sent a clear signal to Congress by voting with overwhelming majorities of 44 to 6 and 181 to 20, respectively, to authorize the Commonwealth's participation in the Northeast Dairy Compact. In addition to expanding the current Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, the bill would authorize southern States to form a similar compact to provide price stability in their region. I am pleased to join so many of my colleagues from the South in introducing this legislation. Finally, the legislation would allow formation of other compacts in the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain region within three years. We have included language in this bill to recognize the efforts in these States to support dairy compacts and to avoid their exclusion if these efforts lead to passage of compact legislation by their State governments. In total, twenty-five States have already approved dairy compact legislation. This is a broad mandate from States that are attempting to meet the needs of dairy farmers, producers, consumers and other citizens concerned with the future of their milk supply. These States recognize the many positive aspects of dairy compacts. The benefits include providing dairy farmers with a fairer and more stable price structure; providing consumers with price stability and a steady, reliable source of local milk for their consumption; enhancement of conservation efforts in areas threatened by sprawl; and maintenance of rural economies that have been suffering for quite some time from the loss of income-generating farmers. Over the past several years, I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Senate in order to provide a more equitable price for our nation's milk producers. I supported amendments to the Farm Bills of 1981 and 1985, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 1991, the Budget Resolution of 1995 and the most recent Farm Bill in 1996 in an effort to insure that dairy farmers receive a fair price. As a member of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to ensure that dairy programs have received the maximum possible funding, including high quality dairy research conducted at Penn State University. I have also been a leading supporter of the Dairy Export Incentive Program which facilitates the development of an international market for United States dairy products. In recent years, however, dairy farmers have faced low prices for dairy products. Prices have fluctuated greatly over the past several years, thereby making any long-term planning impossible for farmers. These economic conditions have placed our Nation's dairy farmers in an all but impossible position and this is borne out in dairy farmers' declining ranks. Our Nation's farmers are some of the hardest working and most dedicated individuals in America. During my tenure as a United States Senator, I have visited numerous small dairy farms in Pennsylvania. I have seen these hard working men and women who have dedicated their lives to their farms. The downward trend in dairy prices is an issue that directly affects all of us. We have a duty to ensure that our Nation's dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk. If we do nothing, many small dairy farmers will be forced to sell their farms and leave the agriculture industry. This will not only impact the lives of these farmers, but will also have a significant negative impact on the rural economies that depend on the dairy industry for support. Further, the large-scale departure of small dairy farmers from agriculture could place our nation's steady supply of fresh fluid milk in jeopardy, thereby affecting every American. We must recognize the importance of this problem and take prompt action. Twenty-five States have asked us to pass this legislation and provide a necessary tool for their dairy farmers. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation as we continue to work in Congress to bring greater stability to our Nation's dairy industry. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I listened to the proposal by the Senator from Arizona, the thought came to my mind about the right of an individual to waive rights. That is deeply ingrained as part of the law of the United States, so much so that when you talk about constitutional rights in a criminal case--where the rights are much more deep-seated, much more profound, based on the Constitution--that right to waive does exist. In a sense, what the Senator from Arizona is proposing is that an individual who seeks health insurance would have the right to waive certain rights, which is recognized in law. The keyword which I found persuasive in what the Senator from Arizona had to say was the word ``voluntary.'' I would add to that--I think this is part of his concept--that it be a knowing waiver--a voluntary, knowing waiver. And I would expect that, as part of that, the individual would have counsel to understand his rights, because you cannot understand your rights for damages--the complexities--unless you know what they are, and whatever may be said about lawyers on this floor, you need a lawyer to tell you what your rights are. Then the individual would be in a position to evaluate the reduction in premiums, and thereby which savings would be passed on to him for what he was giving up. In that context, I think the proposal passes muster.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this amendment provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal courts. Under the bill, there would be jurisdiction in the Federal courts for interpretation of the contract's coverage or what is referred to as ``quantity of medical care'', and jurisdiction in the State courts for what is called medical malpractice or ``quality of care.'' That means that for a plaintiff to bring a claim, they would have to go into two courts, enormously more expensive, and it would involve removal to the Federal courts and bouncing back and forth. This amendment gives due deference to the States by using any State caps which are in effect and provides for State law on the computation of damages. With the life tenure of Federal judges, the probability is high that the verdicts will be more realistic and more reasonable than we have seen in some of the State courts. In the colloquies with the managers of the bill, it is obvious that there are many of these cases which involve both ``quantity'' and ``quality.'' During the floor presentation, I went over a number of cases where they bounced back and forth. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I believe the colloquies with the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from North Carolina have made my point. That point is that there is jurisdiction created under the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill in two courts. There really is no doubt about that because section 302 provides for the availability of Federal civil remedies, and that covers whether an item of service is covered under the terms and plans and conditions, and later there are medically reviewable decisions in State courts. Although there can be an inconclusive colloquy, as there is no confession or admission on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I think it is pretty plain that there are cases--and I have cited a whole series of specific cases in my presentation, Bauman, Pryzbowski, Lazorko, and Corcoran--where you had factual situations where you have an interpretation of a plan which would come under Federal jurisdiction-- such as the mother's stay covered for more than 24 hours, the suicidal woman's coverage extended for hospitalization under that circumstance-- then a combination of failure to have a plan coverage and also medical malpractice. And you have both claims brought. And under the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill, it is plain that those two claims would be brought in separate courts beyond any question. It is not a matter of what the distinguished Senator can imagine. You have case after case which have had these interpretations, contract interpretation and ``quantity of care,'' and that goes to the Federal court. And then you have ``quality of care,'' and that goes to the State court. I am not unaware of the realities of votes in this Chamber where a coalition has been formed, and there is a mindset. But I do hope that the managers of this bill will revisit this situation after this vote and when the bill goes to conference because having both these courts available is going to double the burden on plaintiffs who are injured-- to make a contract interpretation claim in the Federal court and to go to the State court to make a medical malpractice claim--and it is going to require double expenses by the HMO, by the doctors, and by the hospitals--although you might have the doctors and hospitals eliminated from the Federal litigation, but the HMOs will certainly be there; and that is highly undesirable. I have a grave concern about the speed of passage of this bill. Now, it is true we have been considering the Patients' Bill of Rights for a long time--many years. Too long. But this bill has come to the floor without the benefit of committee action, without the benefit of a markup; and what there has been is sort of a moving target markup of this bill on the floor by the committee of the whole, as we have gone through many amendments. But it simply cannot be denied that there are two sections of this bill, one conferring Federal jurisdiction and one conferring State jurisdiction, and the same factual situation would raise questions under both court systems, and this bill would require litigation in two courts. That is very wasteful and very confusing. To call it a procedural quagmire is not an overstatement. The answer is fundamental, and that is to provide for exclusive Federal court jurisdiction, which I have in this legislation. You might argue that it could go to the State court and that would be an improvement rather than have both State and Federal courts. But it is very hard to move exclusively to the State courts where you have the long body of law built up under ERISA as to what is a plan's coverage. So given the fact that you are going to inevitably end up in the Federal court, the Federal court ought to be exclusive jurisdiction. And as the amendment provides, the damages will be determined by State law, no new Federal caps, but whatever State caps there were would be in effect. I see my colleague from Illinois on the floor. He commented to me that he agreed with the provision that there ought to be unitary jurisdiction, but thought it ought to be in the State court. I will yield to the Senator from Illinois if he cares to use the limited time remaining.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, as they say in Oklahoma, we have gone about as far as we can go on this colloquy. I would advise the managers of the bill that I will be prepared to conclude my argument by 6:45.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if you do have those contract decisions, isn't it entirely possible that there may be a factual situation arise where there is a matter of malpractice or a medically reviewable decision involved in the same occurrence?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if it is unlikely, even with the brilliance and conceptual imagination of the Senator from North Carolina--he can't think of one--to occur in real life, why put this jurisdictional provision in the bill?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I will direct this question to my colleague from North Carolina: How do you account for the many, many cases which have been litigated distinguishing between contract coverage, where really the language in the Edwards bill ``whether an item for service is covered under the terms and conditions of the plan,'' and a medically reviewable decision, where so many courts on so many cases labored with those distinctions, if, in fact, there aren't many cases where they are going to end up in different courts under the Edwards bill?

Mr. SPECTER. I can understand the difficulty, Madam President, when people are whispering to him all the time. That is why I keep my people off the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I agree completely with my colleague from North Carolina that when HMOs engage in the practice of medicine, they ought to be treated like physicians. But coming back to the distinction in the Edwards bill, which does have a provision on coverage as distinguished from medically reviewable decisions, there are two thoughts which occur to me. You have a whole body of case law--dozens of cases--which have wrestled with factual situations on coverage, whether a plan covered the specific item: The infant in the hospital for 24 hours; or the woman who was suicidal, whether the plan covered further hospitalization for her. And then those cases also involve counts on medical malpractice, on ``quality.'' So it seems to me it is very hard for my colleague from North Carolina to argue that it is not a commonplace occurrence to have specific cases arise where under his bill they would go to different courts. And then the express language of the Edwards bill has a delineation between medically reviewable decisions on malpractice and a category--``whether an item or service is covered under the terms and conditions of the plan or coverage.'' So I would direct perhaps only two more questions to my colleague from North Carolina--and I say perhaps. The first question is--and I address this question through the Chair--isn't it conclusive where the Edwards bill has language which distinguishes ``whether an item or service is covered under the terms and conditions of the plan or coverage,'' as distinguished from medically reviewable decisions, that the Edwards bill contemplates these two categories, which under the Edwards bill are going to go to two different courts?

Mr. SPECTER. The question, Madam President, that I ask the distinguished Senator from North Carolina is, in taking his conclusion that there are some cases which would involve contract interpretation, and the same case would involve a medical malpractice determination, what do you do when the contract interpretation has jurisdiction in the Federal court and the medical malpractice has jurisdiction in the State court?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am not able to specify when because the Senator from North Carolina and I are in the midst of what I consider to be an important colloquy. But I will try to keep it as brief as possible.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, it is too late now to retain the continuity without yielding, so I do yield.

Mr. SPECTER. I would be glad to yield as soon as I get this answer.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I would accept the modification by my colleague from North Carolina. I think the citation I gave has a contract claim. But rather than disagree about that, since the Senator from North Carolina acknowledges there could be some cases, I will take another case whereas the Senator from North Carolina says there could be that kind of distinction. I ask the Senator, through the Presiding Officer, then in your bill what do you do in that situation where you have the Federal court controlling--in the language of the statutes--``whether an item or service is covered under the terms and conditions of the plan or coverage'' and other aspects of the same set of facts are covered under medically reviewable factors?

Mr. SPECTER. Nunc pro tunc.