Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. At the end of the 2 minutes, I will have to ask for another minute, I say to Senator Grassley. It will take more time than the full allocation. How about 3 minutes? Going, going----

Mr. SPECTER. Since I have a few more minutes remaining, I would like to comment about the bill generally. When President Bush established a target of $1.6 trillion in a tax cut over a 10-year period, it was my view that it was a reasonable figure. It is very hard to pick out a figure without any precision, but I was prepared to follow the lead that President Bush had established which was based upon the projection of a surplus over the 10-year period of some $5.6 trillion. I have said before that I was willing to see the figure up to $1.6 trillion. It has been reduced somewhat to $1.350 trillion now over an 11-year period. I think that is an accommodation which is reasonable. The President and the Administration have come forward and accepted that as a reasonable allocation, but still, in my view, it depends upon that surplus materializing. I am concerned about having a repeat of what happened with the Kemp- Roth legislation which was enacted in 1981, where we had substantial tax cuts. At the beginning of President Reagan's term, there was a national debt of $1 trillion, and it escalated to $4 trillion in the course of 8 years. I think that is a path which we do not want to repeat. A tax cut will stimulate the economy. I think it is useful, but at the same time we do not want to add to the national debt. Paying down the deficit is also a very good way to stimulate the economy by eliminating the Government's use of a portion of the capital and having it come into private hands. There have been quite a number of discussions about ways to have the so-called trigger mechanism, that if the surplus does not hold up, there will be a time for reevaluation as to what we are doing with respect to the tax cut. Of course, it is always possible for Congress to revisit this as a legislative matter. Although from my experience, I know it is much harder to get a tax increase--much, much harder to get a tax increase-- than it is to get a tax cut, and for good reason. The Government at the National, State, and local level now takes an enormous bite. We had a battle in 1993, the first year of President Clinton's administration, when I opposed the tax increase. However, I do think it is important to keep our eye on many balls at the same time, and on the ball to be sure that the surplus materializes. I know the manager has given me 7 minutes, but I was negotiating for 10. So I will ask Senator Grassley, if I could have his attention, for my other 3 minutes at this time.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Iowa for yielding the time. I am going to be submitting for the Record an amendment which would provide for a tax credit for clean coal technology research, but I am not going to be pressing for a vote at this time because of the very crowded calendar and the limitation of time for debate. But in an era when we are struggling with a national energy policy, it is my view that we ought to be relying on coal as a major source of supply to avoid reliance on foreign oil, and to ease off on a great many of the controversies which are present as we look to oil exploration in a variety of places. My own State, Pennsylvania, has some 7.2 billion tons of demonstrated reserves of anthracite coal in the northeastern part of the State and some 21.4 billion tons of demonstrated reserves of bituminous coal. Coal is spread across the United States in great supply. Notwithstanding the tremendous problems we are having in finding sources of energy, we have never developed coal as a source because of the problems with sulfur dioxide and the problems of pollution which we confronted in the Clean Air Act of 1990. The legislation I would like to see enacted would provide a tax credit for clean coal technology research. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, has introduced legislation, S. 60, which provides a broader range of tax credits regarding which I have deferred to the Senator's proposed legislation. I only recently joined as a cosponsor to S. 60 because of some concerns which I had about the environmental aspects. But more recently there has been an addressing of those concerns, so I think what Senator Byrd seeks to accomplish in S. 60 is very sound. In the reconciliation bill, as we all know, with the very limited period of time for debate, there is really not an opportunity to have the kind of exploration of this issue which is required. I have talked to a number of my colleagues about it and I am advised that in July, perhaps, there will be on the floor a tax bill and a energy bill which would provide a better opportunity for the in-depth discussion which this issue requires. But there is no doubt about the need for additional energy. There is no doubt about the problems from OPEC oil and from drilling in many places which have been proposed, with environmental concerns. There is no doubt that coal could provide the answer if we had clean coal technology and sufficient tax incentives for people to move to develop coal as an alternative. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent a copy of this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to comment on Senator Murray's amendment regarding class-size reduction. Yesterday, I withdrew my second degree amendment, amendment No. 388, which would have accomplished what I sought to do last year on the appropriations bill covering the Department of Education. I would have preferred to give class-size reduction in hiring new teachers a presumption among the various items which the Federal funds could be spent for on teachers. If a school district would make a determination that other issues--such as training teachers to improve the education of students with disabilities or those with limited english proficiency--are more important, then I believe Federal funds should be available for those purposes as they may be decided at the local level. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that is responsible for funding critical labor, health and education programs, I have sought to strike a balance between providing States and localities the flexibility they need to implement programs designed to improve the academic achievement of all students--thereby relieving them of Washington's straightjacket--and placing the highest priority on those issues that we deem critical to the success of America's schoolchildren. I believe that we must weight carefully the flexibility our States and school districts need to improve student achievement with priority programs such as class-size reduction. The underlying bill will permit the Federal funds to be used for class-size reduction by hiring more teachers although it lacks the impetus which a presumption would have given.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition to withdraw amendment No. 388, which is a second-degree amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. I have done so because pursuant to some substantial complications of the bill and a number of corrections, I believe the underlying bill accomplishes what I have sought, and that is to allow the States to have discretion to use funds under this bill for classroom size or additional teachers if they choose to do so. There is a long and involved history to this issue which came up on the appropriations bill which I managed last year in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. But in any event, the objective which I have sought will be accomplished by the underlying bill, and it would simplify the process if I withdraw the amendment, which I hereby do. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the underlying amendment by Senator Murray.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have already discussed with my colleagues, Senator Voinovich, Senator Carnahan, and Senator Feinstein, that I might have 30 seconds to lay down a second-degree amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on the events of a Judiciary Committee meeting this morning where the agenda contained the nominations of Larry Thompson to be Deputy Attorney General and Ted Olson to be Solicitor General. Those nominations had moved through all of the procedural hurdles. The hearings were held 4 weeks ago. Many questions had been answered. In accordance with the Judiciary Committee rules, they had been held over for a week so that they were ready for action when the Judiciary Committee met today. I will say they are very important nominations because the Attorney General of the United States is the only official requiring confirmation who has been confirmed so far. He does not have the No. 2 person, the Deputy; he does not have the No. 3 person, the Solicitor General. The discussion in the Judiciary Committee, instead of focusing on those individuals for confirmation, the discussion concerned itself with the blue slips and the American Bar Association and many collateral matters. Finally, when the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch, said he was going to rule all other discussion out of order and we would proceed to a vote, at that point, the ranking Democrat said there was going to be a caucus, and the Democrats--there are very few of them there; actually three, perhaps four--started to file out of the room so that there were only nine Senators present, not enough for a quorum of 10 which is necessary to have any Senate action. It was an unusual executive session because all nine Republicans came to the session because of the importance of acting on the Deputy Attorney General and the Solicitor General. Then the Republicans sat and waited and waited and waited for a caucus to conclude by the Democrats. Finally, when it was apparent there would be no response, the executive session was over. The announcement was made that if there was not an undertaking by the Democrats to have a vote on those two positions by 4 o'clock this afternoon, or after our votes which are scheduled at 4 o'clock, that the Republican members would proceed in a news conference to tell the American people exactly what had happened. With an evenly divided, 50/50 Senate, 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, there has been a great deal of controversy, and almost all of it has been below the surface. But today in plain public view, this controversy erupted. The executive session of the Judiciary Committee was being televised, and it is certainly unsenatorial to have this kind of conflict. Enough is enough, and the time has come that the American people need to know that the important business of a very important department of the Federal Government cannot be conducted because the Attorney General alone is the only official of rank who has had Senate confirmation and cannot carry on all the duties. He needs the No. 2 person, the Deputy, and he needs the No. 3 person, the Solicitor General. It is not irrelevant to note that in the executive committee session of the Judiciary Committee today, we had, in addition, the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division and the Assistant Attorney General for Legislation. I make no special point about the failure of the committee to report those nominees out because this was the first week they were on the agenda, and there is the established right of any member to hold over anybody for a 1-week period. The people's business needs to be conducted, and the long discussion which ensued over the blue slip, which is an arcane procedure where Senators can have a lot to say or perhaps the controlling determination about U.S. district court judges, is not of much interest to the American people. The input and status of the American Bar Association, while I think it is important, and I think there ought to be some input at least to district court judges, is not of great interest. I think the American people are concerned about what happens in the Department of Justice. Again, I say, regrettably, it is not senatorial to have this kind of gridlock spill out into the public arena and into the public press. But I think the American people need to know what is happening. Not too long ago, someone said on a controversial issue, ``Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage?'' This is one of those items where I think there may be some outrage, once America knows that there is gridlock on a great many collateral issues which do not affect at all the confirmations of the Deputy Attorney General, a very able man, Larry Thompson, or the confirmation of the Solicitor General, a very able man, Ted Olson. On that there has been no disagreement. Nobody has questioned that those people ought to be confirmed. But they are not being confirmed, and the business of the Department of Justice cannot be conducted. I think once there is focus on that, we may see a little change in the practices in the Judiciary Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the principal reason for my seeking recognition is to comment briefly on the announced resignation of FBI Director Louis Freeh. He has tendered his resignation effective in June of this year. I believe Director Freeh has done an outstanding job in a very difficult position. I had considerable opportunity to work with Director Freeh in my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary and when I chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism in 1996 had extensive hearings on Ruby Ridge, with Randy Weaver isolating himself, and action by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms units and FBI that led to a shootout which regrettably caused the death of a U.S. Marshall, Randy Weaver's wife, and Randy Weaver's young son. During the course of that investigation, FBI Director Freeh had the courage to stand up and change very deeply ingrained policies in the FBI, changing their rules of engagement and their use of deadly force. I think that took some doing in the face of institutional opposition. He led an outstanding FBI investigation into the bombing on Khobar Towers, personally making a number of trips overseas. That is a matter which has yet to see a final resolution, but there has been very able and excellent investigative work done by the FBI in that matter in a very difficult circumstance, working with officials from Saudi Arabia. Director Freeh did a good job in campaign finance reform, taking positions which were sometimes in conflict with the Attorney General, technically his superior, in the Department of Justice, although the FBI Director has unique status, really, in that he has a 10-year appointment. So there were times when Director Freeh found it necessary to take stands in opposition to the Attorney General of the United States and sometimes even in opposition to the President of the United States. While I didn't always agree with some of the details, it was my view it was a strong performance on the part of FBI Director Louis Freeh. I think the Director also did an outstanding job in expanding the FBI's role in combating organized crime internationally, and his tenure has seen a vast expansion of FBI offices around the world carrying on very important counterespionage work and counterterrorism work. There has been an excellent level of cooperation established between the FBI and the CIA under the CIA leadership of George Tenet and, before that, John Deutch, with the FBI directorship under Louis Freeh. There have been difficulties during Director Freeh's tenure with the FBI crime lab and with the investigation of Dr. Wen Ho Lee--on that subject, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts is continuing the inquiry--and also with the allegations as to the Hanssen case, the alleged spy. But I think, overall, Director Freeh's tenure with the FBI has been outstanding. He brought to the position unique credentials, having been an FBI agent and assistant U.S. attorney, a Federal judge, and he had the capacity to know law enforcement while also understanding civil rights. When the problems arose in Ruby Ridge, he did not hesitate to change the longstanding FBI policies on the use of deadly force in recognition of civil rights, at the same time maintaining very strong law enforcement standards. I think the President will have a difficult replacement assignment in finding another Director who can measure up to what Director Freeh has done. It is certainly a fact when law enforcement has faced tough issues, they have moved ahead and made many assignments to the FBI. Director Freeh's response on changing the FBI's use of deadly force was in sharp contrast to the refusal of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms units, and even the Secretary of the Treasury, to make changes when there had been clear-cut fault established as to the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms unit. I salute Director Freeh on the announcement of retirement and note his very excellent work and say we will have a tough time finding someone to fill those big shoes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a ``Commentary'' on the mideast peace process. There being no objection; the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset I commend my distinguished colleague from Delaware for his statement on the issues of flexibility and local control and accountability. In a few months in the Senate he has made a distinct contribution. It is good to share the train with the Senator from Delaware. I have done so with his distinguished colleague, Senator Biden, for many years. Those hours on the train enable some Members to learn more about each other and to come to bipartisan agreements on a great many of the issues. At the outset, I compliment the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to make a statement on a recent trip I have made to the Mideast. I want to alert my colleagues to the fact that beyond what is available in the news media, the situation in the Mideast is so serious it is really hard to describe. The concern I have is that the violence is likely to move beyond the borders of Israel where Hamas and Islamic Jihad may be targeting other installations, perhaps even U.S. installations. I had an opportunity to talk with the Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Sharon, who has the understandable position that he is not going to negotiate for peace until the violence has ended. I had an opportunity to talk with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, who makes representations which simply are not true. Arafat makes the contention that he has issued an unequivocal edict for the Palestinians to cease the violence, citing as an example a speech he made at the Arab summit. When that speech is examined, it is so conditional as to be meaningless. We had an opportunity to travel as well to Damascus where conversations were held with Foreign Minister al-Shara. The situation between Israel and Syria is very tense. Israel retaliated against a Syrian radar installation because of the Hezbollah attacks against Israel from southern Lebanon Hezbollah being backed by Iran with the concurrence of Syria. The trip I made occurred during the past Easter recess, and I will describe it in some detail in the course of this floor statement. Upon coming back to the United States, I have written to the President urging him to appoint a special representative in the Mideast, just as that had been the practice going back to the days when Henry Kissinger shuttled for President Nixon, special envoys being appointed by President Jimmy Carter, President Ronald Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, and President Bill Clinton. Mr. President, from April 7 to April 21, we traveled from New York City to London, Florence, Ashkelon, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Cairo, Damascus, Beruit, Souda Bay, Crete, and Rome en route to Philadelphia. In London, we met at the British Ministry of Defense with Ian Lee, the Director of the NATO and European Security Policy Department, and Deputy Director, A. D. Richards. The meeting touched on a range of issues. Among those were President Bush's position on missile defense, the British outreach to rogue nations, the viability of NATO absent a Soviet threat, plans for the proposed European defense force, and the British thoughts on the War Crimes Tribunal and the International Court. Mr. Lee stated that the British reaction to President Bush's position on Missile Defense and its effect on the ABM Treaty was one of general support. They have an appreciation for the risks and agree with the United States on the threats. However, they are waiting to see what the actual proposal would be. Mr. Lee stated that the United Kingdom was at a different stage than the United States in regards to its relation with several rogue nations. Its mission in Iran is moving toward having an ambassador, while it continues an effort to establish diplomatic ties to Libya. I next met with Mr. Emry Jones Parry, the Political Director and Deputy Undersecretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Also attending was Mr. Jonathan Darby, the U.S. Desk Officer, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and Mr. Mort Dworken, the Charge d' Affairs at the American Embassy. When questioned about the proposed European Defense Force, Mr. Parry offered insight as to why Mr. Blair, who is a strong supporter of NATO, had come out in favor of an European defense force. According to Mr. Parry, Mr. Blair apparently believes that by putting a European flag on the force structure, European nations will be more likely to put money into it as well as spend the money on what they should in a NATO context. Mr. Parry noted the idea of a European defense force has been around since 1952. He said it is not designed to remove the U.S. from the theater, but make it more likely to have the U.S. there because the Europeans would be pulling more of their own weight. On the issue of the International Criminal Court, Mr. Parry stated that the U.K. is generally in favor of it. It believes there is a need for a forum to hold those accountable who would otherwise escape justice because of a lack of interest in their home jurisdiction. He was surprised when I told him that War Crimes Tribunal Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte was thinking of indicting General Wesley Clarke and other NATO officers for targeting civilians and for recklessly endangering them in targeting military objectives. Mr. Parry said it was his understanding that that British troops could not come under indictment because of provisions that the United Kingdom would take care of its own. When I asked why we are putting so much into NATO in light of the loss of the Soviet threat, Mr. Parry replied that NATO's actions in Kosovo show that it is still necessary. Our conversation then turned to the U.K.'s actions with Iran and Iraq. Mr. Parry noted that Britain was looking to keep a relationship open with the nations, and then if firm action was later required, the relationship could be adjusted accordingly. I then asked Mr. Parry if the Europeans might eventually be on board the idea of missile defense. He responded that the assumption in Britain was the United States would go ahead and deploy a missile defense system, if it would work. The British position is that they will do what is necessary to ensure its success, but would like it to be ``arranged in such a manner as to generate greater solidarity on the issue.'' We then had substantive discussions in a working tea with the Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs with ministerial duties including North America. Over tea at the House of Lords, we discussed the American/British relationship. She also described her background and how she came to be in the House of Lords. After having tea in the House of Lords, we then walked across Parliament to the House of Commons Central Lobby, where I was met by the Rt. Hon. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, MP, with whom I had a wide ranging discussion of issues. Smith and I had debated in November 1949 when he represented Oxford and I was on the Penn team. Later that same day, we met with the country team headed by Mort Dworken, Charge d' Affairs, who briefed us on the latest information regarding foot and mouth disease, fallout from the Administration's position on the Kyoto Accords, European security policy and the status of US/British relations. In attendance were Mort Dworken, Charge d' Affairs; Tom Hamby, Foreign Agriculture Minister-Counselor with the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Ed Kaska, Economic Affairs Officer; Captain Stu Barnett, USN, Defense Attache; and Sonya Tsiros, Political Officer. We initially asked about the current status of the foot and mouth epidemic and were told the disease was still not under control. The British Government was undertaking a massive control program to try and isolate the virus. This included the slaughter of over 1 million head of livestock with another half million yet to be killed. In addition, the government was restricting movement in the countryside including the closure of such historic sites as Stonehenge. Tom Hamby, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, noted that the U.S. currently has sixty veterinarians in the country both to help as well as become educated on successful ways to combat the disease. He described the effort much like a military campaign so that if the virus gets to the U.S., we will have people trained and on the ground to fight it. We inquired into the political and economic effect of the disease and found that both had been affected. Prime Minister Blair postponed the national elections until June 27th due to the severity of the disease. Economically, the disease had yet to show its full weight. Although the U.K has less than 2% of its Gross Domestic Product in agriculture, the closure of the English countryside had a clear economic affect in regards to tourism. At the time, there was no definitive number on the economic impact. Early the next morning, we traveled to Florence, Italy where our first meeting was with a trio of lawyers with the famed Ferragamo family businesses to discuss trademark protection. During the meeting, we were told that the majority of Ferragamo products which are illegally copied originate in Asia. We asked how counterfeiting was detected, and whether there were any trouble in distinguishing the quality between counterfeit and non-counterfeit goods. The answer was yes, there often is a difference in the quality of the leather and accessories. But that is not always the case. Now counterfeits can often be of a very good quality, and be very difficult to differentiate. We were surprised that the Italian government doesn't do more to stop this form of theft, especially since so many of the top designers are from Italy, and asked how much litigation they are involved in to protect the Ferragamo name. Most litigation, it turns out, is of a civil nature and is injunctive in nature. Even though most actions are civil, it is very difficult to get damages based upon the design of Italian law. As for criminal actions, it is recognized as a form of larceny, but the criminal courts consider it to be of nominal value and not as important as other crimes. We were told that in one case often cited by the courts, a customer went to buy a ``Ferragamo'' purse and paid a low price for it. The court reasoned that since the price was so low, the purchaser had to know it wasn't a real Ferragamo purse and therefore, no fraud occurred. I commented that by prosecuting a few white-collar crimes, a real deterrent effect could be achieved. Later that day, we discussed a wide range of US/Italian/European issues over lunch with Consul General Hilarion Martinez at his home above the American Consulate. During the course of our discussion, he stated that although American students widely participate in education programs in Florence and all throughout Italy, it was difficult to get Italian students to come to the U.S. because Italian Universities often do not recognize the credit hours bestowed by American Universities, absent a one on one agreement between the institutions. Early the next day, we set out to visit the Georgetown campus in the hills above Florence. Upon arrival, we were greeted by Ms. Heidi Flores, the Director of the Georgetown program. The campus is located on a beautiful villa overlooking the whole of Florence, and was established in 1981 when the facility was donated to the university. It has 27 students currently enrolled and 6 faculty. Other similar programs in the area include New York University, Syracuse, Smith College, California State, Florida State, Stanford, and the Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin. We asked them who it was that we could talk to about producing a reciprocal agreement between the U.S. and Italy which would seek to recognize credits equally. The Minister of Universities was identified as the appropriate individual. He could give substantial background information regarding the problem. During my visit at the Georgetown campus, we met Cuffe Owens a student and a nephew of my colleague Senator Joe Biden. After returning to the city, we met with Mr. Patrick McCormick, the Director of Communications for the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre on Piazza SS. Annunziata. Mr. McCormick gave me a brief on the activities of his center which was founded in 1988 ``to strengthen the research capability of the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, and to support its advocacy for children worldwide.'' We touched on several areas including an on-going study in West Africa on trafficking in children, religious persecution in the Sudan and child protection. His first hand accounts of children as young as five being used as soldiers and camp slaves in Sierra Leon were quite troubling. His organization continues to push for the education of young children which they see ``as central to poor countries economic well-being.'' After leaving UNICEF's Research Center, we participated in a press conference at the Florence City Hall, Palazzo Vecchio regarding a joint effort between Italian Police and Microsoft in Livorno, Italy in which a large counterfeiting operation was uncovered. Attending were representatives of Microsoft, and local government officials. At the news conference, the Microsoft representatives stated that counterfeiting was most prevalent in Tuscany so they had started a law enforcement action in Florence. They said that the reproduction or cloning was so good that it took Microsoft experts some 15 minutes to tell the difference between a counterfeit product and a genuine product. They also stated that they had located in the past year in Europe some 25 million Microsoft counterfeit products on the market at a loss of 1.7 billion dollars. According to Microsoft, the national (Italy) rate for illegal/ counterfeit Microsoft sales was in the 31-37 percent category. In Brescia, the illegal reproduction was 65 percent before passage of the copyright law in 1999, and have since been reduced to 29 percent. The law provides for fines and a jail sentence and also has provisions for search and entry. There have been some efforts to apply the copyright infringements to internet apparently to online sales. We had an opportunity to discuss with the attorneys whether there had been any criminal prosecutions brought under the new law. They responded with a lengthy description of the process. Apparently, there had been no criminal prosecutions. We then asked if there had been a use of the search and entry law, and he said that they had one such case where counterfeit products had been transported from Singapore to Holland to Milan. The Microsoft experts aided the police in the search and entry, helping to identify counterfeit products. In Israel, we met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Our first meeting was with Mr. Peres whom I first met in Tel Aviv in 1980 and have seen him on many occasions since, both in the United States and in Israel. Minister Peres was in good spirits, displayed his great sense of humor, proceeded to give a comprehensive discourse on the state of affairs in the Mid-East, and to respond to our questions. Minister Peres started our conversation by saying that terrorism was as un- American as communism used to be. The topic of conversation on our minds was the escalating violence on the border with Gaza, and the northern border with Lebanon. Peres was firm in his conviction that when the time to negotiate comes, everything must be on the table, no impositions on the Israelis, and no impositions on the Palestinians. Peres then asked me to explain to Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat whom I was scheduled to meet later in the trip, that some of Sharon's words are very tough, but that the Israelis have several guiding principles. They will respect signed agreements as long as both sides respect them. Israel, he said, is ready to make painful compromises for peace, including reemployment in the territories. He also added that the final proposal offered under former President Clinton is dead since he left office. He stated that he thought it was a big mistake on Arafat's part not to accept that deal. Peres stated that it is currently very hard to negotiate because of all the anger. Arafat's delivering of ``impossible" speeches only makes it more difficult as well. His view is that the Palestinians think Israelis are militarily harsh in the territories, and that in order to move forward, a different climate must be created there. The best thing that could happen is to change the conditions there. The answer for the Palestinians is not the battlefield, but the bargaining table-as it has historically been. I asked Minister Peres whether Arafat could control terrorism. He replied he could do a lot by making a strong and unambiguous declaration against it, and prevent the police force participation in the violence. Minister Peres stated that the current situation was not one of absolutes, except that the Israelis seek absolute effort. The first expression of that effort is an unambiguous, unconditional and strong statement rejecting violence delivered in Arabic. Following our meeting with Foreign Minister Peres, we walked a block to a meeting with former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. I had first met the former Prime Minister when he was just out of the army, and starting to become active in labor politics, perhaps five or six years ago. I have met him on several occasions subsequently, including his visit to the White House in July 2000 where President and Mrs. Clinton hosted a large dinner in his office in his honor, in a big tent on the South Lawn. Mr. Barak was also in good spirits considering the strenuous campaign, his recent election defeat, and the difficult negotiations and tenure as Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister spoke at length about his extensive three-way discussions involving President Clinton, Arafat and himself. He spoke about, as he put it, his ``contemplation'' as to what might have been encompassed in a settlement, but emphasized that none of the discussions about Jerusalem or the concessions on land were final offers until the entire deal was complete. I told him that I had met in Washington several weeks ago with the Egyptian Foreign Minister who said he knew I had a trip planned to the Mid-East and urged me to meet with Arafat. I told him I would consider it. When President Mubarak was in Washington in early April, he also urged me to meet with Arafat and I agreed to do so providing the meeting took place in Cairo. In my discussions with President Mubarak, I had anticipated his being present during my meeting with Arafat. As it worked out, Mubarak was not in Cairo for my scheduled meeting with Arafat. His deputy Osama El-Baz joined me in the meeting. The former Prime Minister stated that he thought it would be very useful for me to meet with Arafat, so Arafat would understand the thinking of a member of the Senate. I asked Mr. Barak about the prospects for the peace process from this point forward and he said he thought it would be very difficult for the immediate future. He emphasized that he had great admiration, respect and friendship for Prime Minister Sharon whom he has known for decades, and emphasized he would do anything in his power to help the new Prime Minister. Mr. Barak asked me about Israel's standing in the United States. I replied that U.S. Congressional support for Israel was continuing, and I thought that the new Bush Administration would similarly be very favorably disposed. We talked about the evenly divided Senate, and he was very interested to know about our recent budget battle and the significant role played by Vice President Cheney. He asked about the economy which we then discussed at some length. Upon leaving my discussion with former Prime Minister Barak, I met with Ambassador Uri Lubrani, the Lebanon Coordinator for the government of Israel at the Ministry of Defense Headquarters. Joining us was the former Foreign Minister to Iran, Zidma Divon, Deputy Director General of the Foreign Ministry, and John Scott, Counselor for Political Affairs at the American Embassy. They expressed real concern with Iran's backing of the Hezbollah movement in South Lebanon. During the course of our discussion about Iran, Ambassador Lubrani showed me a quote from a report of a British Ambassador to Tehran in the sixties, at the end of his tour of duty: ``The Iranians are people who say the opposite of what they think and do the opposite of what they say. That does not necessarily mean that what they do does not confirm to what they think.'' After our meeting with Ambassador Lubrani, we drove from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem where we met the next morning with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Also in attendance was Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, the Minister of Defense, and Daniel Ayalon, the Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister. Our meeting was conducted with a backdrop of an escalating conflict. During the previous evening, Israeli planes had bombed a Syrian radar installation in Lebanon in retaliation for the actions of Hezbollah in south Lebanon. I started my conversation with the Prime Minister by noting that the Egyptian Foreign Minister had asked me to talk to Chairman Arafat. Prime Minister Sharon wasted no time in delivering his message. The policy of the Israeli government would be to draw a distinction between the civilian population and terrorists, supporters of terrorists and instigators. He stated that he plans to ease the conditions in the territories. And at the time, stated he was ready to show flexibility except in one area, under no circumstances will he be flexible with the security of the Israeli citizens. Although Sharon did express some willingness to negotiate, it was clear that in his eyes the plan pushed by President Clinton in his waning days in office, is dead. ``Peace is more painful than war,'' he said, ``because you have to make concessions for peace.'' ``I have a true desire to move the process forward, not the process that has already failed.'' No negotiations would occur, Sharon assured me, under the ``threats of terror.'' The violence must stop. The Prime Minister noted the violence occurring in Gaza, and stated that the violence could not continue. The Israelis wouldn't accept it. ``We are very much interested in stability in the Middle East, but we are not going to pay for it. We have the natural right to exist and defend ourselves.'' I told Sharon that we were planning on driving from Damascus to Beruit as part of our trip. He said the current situation that exists in south Lebanon, is not what was contemplated by the withdrawal agreement. Hezbollah wasn't supposed to occupy the positions they currently hold. Sharon then stated that Iranian influence continued to grow in the area, with the approval of Syria. ``Iran is building an independent center of international terror, which could not have been done without the support of Syria. Syria could have stopped them.'' Sharon then noted that the actions of the previous evening in bombing the Syrian facility was a warning to Syria. He wanted to send a signal that Israel would not accept the possibility of Israeli soldiers being killed in Israel. Negotiations do not currently exist with Syria. First must come the Palestinian question. ``Israel can't negotiate on two fronts when peace requires painful concessions.'' Out talk concluded with Prime Minister Sharon noting that the immediate threat to stability in the region remained Tehran, and that only the United States could lead the anti- terror struggle in the free world. After our meeting with Sharon, we flew to Cairo, Egypt and at approximately 6 p.m., had a meeting with Dr. Osama el-Baz, advisor to President Mubarak. Dr. el-Baz and I talked at some length about the current situation in the Middle-East, the U.S. role, and about my meeting with Chairman Arafat later that evening. During that meeting, some issues arose as to U.S. intelligence questions, so I called CIA Director George Tenant in Washington to get the current status report. Dr. el-Baz arranged a boat ride and dinner for us on the Nile river where we met with a variety of Cairo's leading citizens including journalists, professionals, businessmen and industrialists. I was questioned about why the U.S. continued to support Israel when Israel has responded with disproportionate force to the actions of the Palestinians. I responded that the U.S. was trying to carry out the Camp David Accords in which their great President Anwar Sadat had invested so much time and effort, and that Israel had agreed to discuss peace once the violence had stopped. Shortly before 10:30 p.m., we arrived at Chairman Arafat's guest house. After meeting quite a number of his colleagues Dr. el-Baz, Chairman Arafat and Arafat's chief deputy, Saeb Erakat and I went upstairs to a private room so we could have, as Osama el-Baz said, a tete-e'-tete. Arafat and Erakat were visibly disturbed about the status of the violence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. They were especially distressed because, as they told us immediately upon our arrival, Israel was taking forceful military action against Gaza as we spoke. During the course of our discussion which lasted more than an hour, we were interrupted six or eight times by Arafat's men who came in and handed Arafat written messages. Arafat spoke in Arabic which was interpreted by Erakat on detailing the action being taken by Israeli military with helicopters and missiles. Arafat and Erakat described the situation as very serious recounting the number of Arabs who had been killed and wounded and then reciting the number of Israeli casualties which showed a much larger number of Arab casualties. Erakat was especially feverent in pleading for some help as to a way to break the impasse. After a considerable discussion, I said that I would venture a possible approach which was not a recommendation because I thought that would not be appropriate. I then said that one approach might be for Arafat to make a public statement that the cycle of violence was untenable, and that while he would much prefer to have a joint statement made by Sharon and himself with a schedule on a comprehensive approach, he would make a unilateral statement directing all Palestinians to stop any acts of violence. I said to Arafat that the instruction to stop any acts of violence would be in accordance with his famous letter of September 9, 1993 which was the inducement for Prime Minister Rabin and Peres to meet with Arafat at the White House on September 13, 1993. In that letter Arafat renounced the use of violence and said he would take disciplinary action against any of his people who violated his direction. Arafat then said that he had said all the things that I had mentioned. Erakat then said that not only had Arafat made these statements in a speech at the Arab summit, but that Shimon Peres had asked Arafat to make these statements from his own lips, and that Arafat had done so. Dr. Osama el-Baz and I both stated that we had not heard any such statement. If any such statement was ever made, it was doubtless in a long speech and was followed or preceded by many conditions. I told Arafat that there was considerable anti-Palestinian Authority sentiment in the Congress with some 87 members of the Senate and over 200 members of the House writing a letter urging action that the Palestinian Authority be ousted from its Washington office. At one point I asked Arafat why he had not accepted the very generous offer from Barak on territorial concessions on the West Bank and significant concessions on Jerusalem. Arafat replied that he had accepted that offer on a number of occasions including his meeting with President Clinton at the White House. Again, Arafat's statement did not comport with the facts since he had imposed so many conditions. I said that my staff and I had met with Prime Minister Sharon earlier that day and that Sharon had said, among other things, that peace was more painful than war because in peace you had to make concessions. I thought from that, it was apparent that Sharon was interested in peace talks. Erakat commented that he had expected a call from an Israeli contact. I told Erakat that I would call the contact which I did the next day. When I telephoned Erakat later in the day, he confirmed that the Israeli contact had called him. I further told Arafat that Sharon had told me earlier in the day that he was prepared to allow Palestinians to come into Israel for work providing there was no security risks. Sharon had specified that he was not doing this in exchange for anything from the Palestinian Authority because he did not want it viewed that Israel was making concession or buying peace in any way. I asked Arafat if there was any substance to the contention that the Palestinians had been firing out of Gaza into Israel. Arafat replied that he did have a report of three such mortar shots; but that as soon as Arafat found out about it, he had ordered it stopped with the people doing the shooting to be arrested. In the course of the next several days there was repeated mortar shelling into Israel by Palestinians. Contrary to Arafat's assertions, our intelligence sources advised he had authorized the shelling. From Cairo, we departed for Beirut by way of Damascus. Climbing up the mountains on the way to Beirut, we passed the location of the Syrian Radar site that Israeli forces destroyed in a raid just a few days earlier. The U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut is the most heavily fortified embassy in the world. Standing in the middle of the compound, as a stark reminder, are the remains of the prior Embassy that was destroyed by a bomb. While remaining in the compound overnight, we received an in depth briefing on the current situation in Beirut and Lebanon, with insight provided by Ambassador David Satterfield, and his Deputy Chief of Mission David Hale. As Ambassador Satterfield pointed out, Lebanon was very badly divided because of its charter (its form of a constitution) which divided authority between three Lebanese factions. He commented about how Beirut had the potential to regain its status as ``Paris of the Mid-East,'' but that there would have to be major economic reforms. He also commented that the Prime Minister Rafik Hariri had been discussing with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund about ways to get financing which could lead to a revitalization of Beirut. Satterfield also noted that Hezbollah was a very strong force in Southern Lebanon, with only a few hundred fighters. Beirut still shows the scars of its savage civil war with its once beautiful hotels reduced to shells. There is a rebuilding effort, however, and its central business district has been rebuilt to some extent. We drove back from Beirut to Damascus. Ambassador Ryan Crocker hosted a dinner for visiting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Edward Walker and our party. We had a wide ranging conversation about the current state of affairs in the Mid-East. I reported on our trip to Beirut, which Ambassador Ryan noted with some interest as he was the Ambassador to Beirut when our embassy was last bombed. The next morning we met with Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara and Deputy Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu'allim. At the start of our meeting we discussed my last visit to Syria, which was for President Assad's funeral. I told FM al-Shara that my fellow Senators were very interested in Syria, and then mentioned that I had just been to see Chairman Arafat in Egypt. I discussed my recent travels in the area, and related that everyone would like the violence to stop. The Foreign Minister asked me what Israel was seeking, and I told him of my discussions with Prime Minister Sharon, who stated that he is determined to avoid Israeli loss of life and will act accordingly. I also told him that the Israelis intended to ease up on the borders as long as there were no threats to security; the Israeli government position was that all the violence must stop prior to any talks taking place. I then encouraged him to talk to the Israelis. Foreign Minister Shara said I had persuaded Syria, or perhaps, more accurately been a factor, to enter into negotiations with Israel in my numerous discussions with former President Hafaz El-Assad during the 1980's and 1990's. I had first visited Damascus in 1984 and had met with President Assad almost every year from 1988 to 1998. Minister Shara stated that only after beginning discussions with the Israelis did it become apparent that they didn't want peace. I reminded him that both sides came very close on the Golan and that a dialogue must continue. Our attention then turned to Iraq, China and recent American politics as well as efforts to exchange Parliamentarians with Iran. We left Damascus and flew into Souda Bay, Crete, which houses the U.S. Naval Support Activity Souda Bay, and Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron Two, VQ-2, a unit responsible for reconnaissance missions for the Mediterranean, and which is the counterpart to the unit that was involved in the recent mishap with a Chinese pilot in international waters off the coast of China. I was met by Captain Steve Hoefel, the Base Commanding Officer and was set up in quarters for the night. That night, Rear Admiral Steve Tomaszeski, the Commander of the Mediterranean Air Fleet, flew in for a brief to be held the next morning. On Friday, April 20, we received a classified brief on the mission of the base and its reconnaissance aircraft. The base's main responsibility is to support and resupply the forward-deployed Navy and Marine Corps forces. It has the largest fuel storage facility, largest ammo storage facility and the deepest port in the Mediterranean, and is strategically located near the Mid-East. We toured the base, and the port facility located nearby. A large amount of construction was occurring on the dock with the installation of new facilities designed to give sailors and Marines all the amenities of home when they dock. I was pleased to find two Pennsylvanians among the many Navy Construction Battalion sailors working on the structures. We also had the opportunity to tour an EP-3 aircraft similar to that which remains in China, and were briefed on the various station's responsibilities during flight operations, as well as talk to several of the crew members. We also had the opportunity to see an E3 AWACS on the runway. From Crete we flew to Rome where we received a brief by the Charge d'Affairs William Pope, and Margaret Dean, Minister-Counselor for Economic Affairs. We discussed the effect of the European Union on NATO, reviewed the current areas of work for the embassy, and the effect of the strong U.S. dollar on tourism. In addition, I briefed them on parts of my visit to Florence including our meeting with the attorneys for Ferragamo, and our visit to the Georgetown campus. Margaret Dean was familiar with the case that the Ferragamo attorneys had told us about in which a person purchased counterfeit goods at such a low price that the judiciary reasoned the purchaser could not have believed the goods to be authentic, and therefore found no fraud in the sale. She stated that often, because of that case, sellers of counterfeit goods often go so far to label the goods as ``fake'' to avoid prosecution. The Embassy reported that it doesn't have any one overriding area that it concentrates on. It has several areas of concentration which include tourism, trade disputes, military issues, and the Mid-East situation. Charge d'Affairs Pope reported that Italy had changed a lot and had become a fairly different place in the last decade. He reported a recent high-tech emphasis that has helped propel the country's economy to the 6th largest in the world. The country has also benefitted from the increase in tourism generated by the strong American dollar. On April 21, we flew from Rome to Philadelphia. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to name the Federal building and courthouse in Allentown, Pennsylvania for retired Judge Edward N. Cahn. Judge Cahn, a native Pennsylvanian and resident of the Lehigh Valley, served with distinction on the Federal bench for 23 years, including 5 years as chief judge. Judge Cahn attended school at Lehigh University and graduated magna cum laude in 1955. He went on to receive a law degree from Yale University in 1958 and began practicing law in Allentown in 1959. His accomplishments on the basketball court as a 1,000 point scorer for Lehigh University translated into his later success in another court, when President Ford nominated him to be a federal judge in 1974. Judge Cahn was instrumental in helping build Allentown's new courthouse, which opened in 1995. This beautiful structure is a symbol for the resurgence of the Lehigh Valley, and it is only fitting that the courthouse should bear the name of an individual who did so much to help his community. His dedication to his work and fairness were well recognized throughout Pennsylvania and it is my hope that future jurists who serve in this courthouse will uphold those same ideals. On February 28, 2001, the House unanimously passed an identical measure, H.R. 558, introduced by my colleagues, Congressmen Patrick Toomey and Tim Holden. I am hopeful that the Senate will also see fit to pass my bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Judge Edward N. Cahn. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to name the Federal building and courthouse in Allentown, Pennsylvania for retired Judge Edward N. Cahn. Judge Cahn, a native Pennsylvanian and resident of the Lehigh Valley, served with distinction on the Federal bench for 23 years, including 5 years as chief judge. Judge Cahn attended school at Lehigh University and graduated magna cum laude in 1955. He went on to receive a law degree from Yale University in 1958 and began practicing law in Allentown in 1959. His accomplishments on the basketball court as a 1,000 point scorer for Lehigh University translated into his later success in another court, when President Ford nominated him to be a federal judge in 1974. Judge Cahn was instrumental in helping build Allentown's new courthouse, which opened in 1995. This beautiful structure is a symbol for the resurgence of the Lehigh Valley, and it is only fitting that the courthouse should bear the name of an individual who did so much to help his community. His dedication to his work and fairness were well recognized throughout Pennsylvania and it is my hope that future jurists who serve in this courthouse will uphold those same ideals. On February 28, 2001, the House unanimously passed an identical measure, H.R. 558, introduced by my colleagues, Congressmen Patrick Toomey and Tim Holden. I am hopeful that the Senate will also see fit to pass my bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Judge Edward N. Cahn. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and honor Dr. Thomas E. Starzl on the 20th anniversary of the first liver transplant performed in Pittsburgh. On February 26, 1981, Dr. Starzl made history upon his performance of the first liver transplant at Presbyterian University Hospital (now UPMC Presbyterian). In the two decades since that remarkable accomplishment, Dr. Starzl has led the University of Pittsburgh transplant program to national and international prominence. UPMC, now the largest and most successful transplant center in the world, has performed more than 5,700 liver transplants; 3,500 kidney transplants; 1,000 heart transplants; and 500 lung transplants--largely attributed to Dr. Starzl's trailblazing vision. Dr. Starzl's influence reaches well beyond western Pennsylvania. He has been a pioneer in the field of organ transplantation for more than 40 years, and has compiled a distinguished career that spans the country and medical technology. Dr. Starzl performed the world's first liver transplant in 1963 at the University of Colorado, and helped to develop the truly revolutionary surgical techniques and anti-rejection drugs which have brought organ transplantation to the mainstream of American medicine. Dr. Starzl has authored or co-authored more than 2,000 scientific articles and four books, received 21 honorary doctorates, and has been honored with more than 175 awards. Most recently, he was a co-winner of the King Faisal International Prize in Medicine for the year 2000, sharing the award with two other transplant pioneers. Although retired from clinical practice since 1991, Dr. Starzl continues to actively contribute to biomedical research as the director emeritus of the transplant institute in Pittsburgh, renamed in his honor in 1996. The Thomas E. Starzl Transplantation Institute and the University of Pittsburgh will pay tribute to Dr. Starzl this month with a ``Festschrift,'' a collection of articles by colleagues, former students and others published in his honor. This special event will inaugurate the Starzl Prize in Surgery and Immunology and unveil a portrait of Dr. Starzl that will be displayed in the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. With more than 20 years of landmark advancements in science and medicine to his credit, I salute Dr. Thomas E. Starzl for his remarkable dedication and honor his contribution to the lifesaving field of organ transplantation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, If the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee is willing to review this matter with OMB and the Appropriations Committee, there are several issues I hope he will consider. First and most important, the practice provides the lead time stations need to line up programs that may take up to two or three years to produce--programs like Baseball and the Civil War that are years in the making. In other words, advance funding encourages prudent planning. Second, it allows the stations to use the availability of federal funds to leverage private sector funding both through foundations and viewer fundraising to maximize the resources available for quality programs. And lastly, advance funding reduces the potential of political interference in programming decisions.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the ``Stem Cell Research Act of 2001.'' As chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funds medical research, my distinguished colleague, Senator Tom Harkin and I convened a series of seven hearings to learn more about an exciting medical discovery and the promise it holds. The source of this new hope is what scientists call ``stem cells.'' These are living cells which, in their earliest stages, have the ability to transform into any type of cell in the human body. If the scientists are correct, a stem cell implanted in a heart, for example, would become a healthy heart cell; if the same stem cell were implanted in a liver, it would grow into a healthy liver cell. It is this remarkable adaptability that leads scientists to believe that one day, stem cells could be transplanted to any part of the body to replace tissue that has been damaged by disease, injury or aging. A team of researchers also found that human embryonic stem cells that were injected into the spinal cords of monkeys stricken with Lou Gehrig's disease showed promising signs of movement. These early research findings indicate that stem cells hold hope for countless patients with cancer, Parkinson's, heart disease, Alzheimer's and spinal cord injury, just to name a few. These cells could become a veritable fountain of youth. What had been delaying the advancement of this new line of research is a provision in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that prohibits research on human embryos. In early 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services ruled that Federal researchers could conduct research on stem cell lines derived from private sources. I applaud the HHS ruling and encourage the NIH to review, on an expedited basis, the compliance applications they recently received. However, we have a duty to accelerate medical research by allowing researchers to utilize Federal funds to derive their own stem cells. Human embryonic stem cell research holds such potential for millions of Americans who are sick and in pain that we believe it is wrong for us to prevent or delay our world-class scientists from building on the progress that has been made. Our legislation creates one narrow and specific source for Federal researchers to obtain embryos for use in stem cell research: embryos which would otherwise be discarded from in-vitro fertilization clinics, with the expressed consent of the donating families. In addition, a provision is included which requires that all Federally-funded research must adhere to strict procedural and ethical guidelines to ensure that such research is conducted in an ethical, sound manner. It is important to note that as it stands today, embryonic stem cell research in the private sector is not subject to Federal monitoring or ethical requirements. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Thurmond, Chafee, G. Smith, Hollings, Reid, Murray, Clinton, Corzine, Feinstein, Kerry, and Inouye have joined me and Senator Harkin as original cosponsors of this vital legislative effort. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation that will give many Americans the promise to treat diseases that today are incurable. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the ``Stem Cell Research Act of 2001.'' As chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funds medical research, my distinguished colleague, Senator Tom Harkin and I convened a series of seven hearings to learn more about an exciting medical discovery and the promise it holds. The source of this new hope is what scientists call ``stem cells.'' These are living cells which, in their earliest stages, have the ability to transform into any type of cell in the human body. If the scientists are correct, a stem cell implanted in a heart, for example, would become a healthy heart cell; if the same stem cell were implanted in a liver, it would grow into a healthy liver cell. It is this remarkable adaptability that leads scientists to believe that one day, stem cells could be transplanted to any part of the body to replace tissue that has been damaged by disease, injury or aging. A team of researchers also found that human embryonic stem cells that were injected into the spinal cords of monkeys stricken with Lou Gehrig's disease showed promising signs of movement. These early research findings indicate that stem cells hold hope for countless patients with cancer, Parkinson's, heart disease, Alzheimer's and spinal cord injury, just to name a few. These cells could become a veritable fountain of youth. What had been delaying the advancement of this new line of research is a provision in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that prohibits research on human embryos. In early 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services ruled that Federal researchers could conduct research on stem cell lines derived from private sources. I applaud the HHS ruling and encourage the NIH to review, on an expedited basis, the compliance applications they recently received. However, we have a duty to accelerate medical research by allowing researchers to utilize Federal funds to derive their own stem cells. Human embryonic stem cell research holds such potential for millions of Americans who are sick and in pain that we believe it is wrong for us to prevent or delay our world-class scientists from building on the progress that has been made. Our legislation creates one narrow and specific source for Federal researchers to obtain embryos for use in stem cell research: embryos which would otherwise be discarded from in-vitro fertilization clinics, with the expressed consent of the donating families. In addition, a provision is included which requires that all Federally-funded research must adhere to strict procedural and ethical guidelines to ensure that such research is conducted in an ethical, sound manner. It is important to note that as it stands today, embryonic stem cell research in the private sector is not subject to Federal monitoring or ethical requirements. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Thurmond, Chafee, G. Smith, Hollings, Reid, Murray, Clinton, Corzine, Feinstein, Kerry, and Inouye have joined me and Senator Harkin as original cosponsors of this vital legislative effort. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation that will give many Americans the promise to treat diseases that today are incurable. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 10 years ago today a tragic accident occurred in the Philadelphia suburbs claiming the life of a very distinguished United States Senator. In addition, two 6-year-old girls were killed at the Marion Elementary School, as well as four pilots who were in charge of two aircraft which collided in suburban Philadelphia--a small charter plane carrying Senator Heinz from Williamsport, PA, with the destination of Philadelphia, and two pilots on a Sun Oil helicopter which had attempted to observe the landing gear of the small private plane, which, according to the dashboard, were not in place. Those two planes collided in midair resulting in the deaths, as I say, of the four pilots and wounding many on the ground, including one young man who had 68 percent of his body covered with burns, and the deaths of two 6-year-old girls, and it was a fatal accident for Senator Heinz. Senator Heinz had an illustrious career in the Congress of the United States. I first met him in 1971 when he was running for the seat of former Congressman Robert Corbin, who had died. And Elsie Hillman, the matriarch of Pennsylvania politics, and a leading figure nationally, had asked me to come be a speaker for a John Heinz fundraiser in her home. I was then the district attorney of Philadelphia. I recall very well meeting this good-looking young man who was 32 years old, soon to be elected to the House of Representatives, and saw him in one of his maiden speeches charm the crowd and move on to the House of Representatives. My next extensive contact with John Heinz was in the 1976 primary election where we squared off in what was a traditional Pennsylvania battle of east versus west. I was no longer the district attorney but had a significant following within the metropolitan area in eastern Pennsylvania, and John Heinz was the ``Zion'' of the west. It looked promising for a while when Philadelphia came in 10 to 1 in my favor and then United Press International declared me the winner at 1:30. But Allegheny County and some of the western counties came in as much as 15 to 1. This was a very close vote by 2.6 percent. With 26,000 votes out of a million cast, John Heinz became the U.S. Senator following the 1976 election at the age of 38. He was a very distinguished Senator, as the record shows. He had a place on the Finance Committee. He had a place on the Banking Committee. He was chairman of the Aging Committee. It was rumored that he intended to run for Governor of Pennsylvania in 1994, and that he had aspirations for the White House. Of course, those potentialities were snuffed out by his untimely death. John Heinz had unlimited political potential and was really one of the rising stars on the American political scene. His death left an enormous void in Pennsylvania politics, in American politics, and in the Senate. I had seen him just the day before when we were in Altoona, PA, together. We were speaking at a lunch for the hospital association and had become very good friends after our tough primary battle which had occurred some 15 years before. Senator Hugh Scott and his administrative assistant, Bob Kunsic, had counseled John and me when he was elected to the Senate in 1980, that together we wouldn't be twice as strong but we would be four times as strong. I used to drive John Heinz home. We both lived in Georgetown--he in a mansion and I in a condominium. In the early 1980s, Senator Baker used to work us very late, as did Senator Dole, and then Senator Byrd and then Senator Mitchell, our majority leaders. I would drive him home in the wee hours of the morning. And sometimes after 1 a.m., after one of those 20-hour days, we would sit and talk in his back alley before he entered his home, and we called it an end to the day. The day before he died, I had Joan with me. I called her Blondie, which I do from time to time, and he was surprised. The last words I heard John Heinz say was, ``Does she call you Dagwood?'' I said, ``No, she doesn't, John.'' But in memory of John Heinz there have been many posthumous recognitions. The most important of all are the Heinz Awards, established by his then-widow Teresa Heinz, with very substantial endowments in five categories which were of greatest importance to John Heinz. They were: First, arts and humanities; second, environment; third, human condition; fourth, public policy; and, fifth, technology, the economy, and employment. John Heinz left behind three extraordinary sons, Henry John IV, Andre, and Christopher. Hardly a day goes by that I don't think of John Heinz and the great contributions he made to the United States Senate. I am advised that once a Member has been gone for 10 years, the Member is then eligible to have a stamp named after him. I am sure there will be many awards given to John Heinz. Already the numbers are significant, with the John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center; the H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; the H. John Heinz, III School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University; the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum; and the H.J. Heinz Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator from Iowa will yield, I talked about the cosponsors of the earlier resolution we offered. Let me note that I have offered this on behalf of Senators Harkin, Hutchinson, Mikulski, Collins, Landrieu, Kerry, Wellstone, Murray, DeWine, Snowe, and Senator Sarbanes, as well as myself. I yield to my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for those comments. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. No, as I am advised by the experts, out of the 920 account which covers allowances and administrative costs.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.