Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. (The remarks of Mr. Specter are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize my Legislative Fellow, Geoff Yeowell, who will be leaving my office at the end of the month to assume the duties of supervisory special agent for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Office in Rota, Spain. Geoff has been on loan to my office from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service where he has worked since 1987. Over the past 11 months, Geoff has become an indispensable part of my legislative shop. He has worked hard on a broad range of issues--each time jumping in feet first, soaking up knowledge, and moving legislation forward in this often complicated process. From his first assignment, he earned the respect of my staff, as well as mine. Geoff's primary duty consisted of working as my legislative assistant for Military Construction. He quickly realized the Milcon appropriations priorities for my home state of Pennsylvania and was helpful in making sure these items were given the time and attention they deserve. Geoff also provided a tremendous service to the people of Pennsylvania in working with those in need of assistance. He demonstrated a remarkable amount of patience and courtesy with each constituent requiring special assistance and worked countless hours to help them in the best way possible. Finally, Geoff was instrumental in working on the Counterintelligence Reform Act of 2000 (S. 2089) which I introduced on February 24, 2000. His skills and judgement in this arena are exceptional. My staff and I were constantly impressed with the wealth of knowledge he demonstrated. His dedication to each project was remarkable, and the assistance he provided to my office will not be easily matched. However, I am informed that for Geoff this level of dedication is par for the course. In 1999 he was selected as a Naval Investigative Criminal Service agent of the year and received the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award for his work on a major espionage investigation. He also received the 1999 Department of Defense Counterintelligence Award for Investigations. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me today in commending Special Agent Geoff Yeowell for his service as a Legislative Fellow and for his dedication and leadership to our country.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I compliment my distinguished colleague from Tennessee for offering this amendment. I do support it. I think it is a significant step forward. As I listened to the Senator from Tennessee speak, I was persuaded, however, that the consequence or the conclusion of his eloquence was that the entire bill for permanent normal trade relations with China should be defeated. I thought the Senator from Tennessee made a very strong case that it is necessary for the United States to be wary of where the People's Republic of China is heading. It is my hope--and I know it is the hope of the Senator from Tennessee--that we will have good relations with China and that we will have a peaceful world. As the Senator from Tennessee enumerated the problems with nuclear proliferation and the potential difficulties from the People's Republic of China, it underscored in my own mind the grave concerns about making a concession at this stage to permanent normal trade relations with China instead of advancing that economic benefit to China on a year-by- year basis so that the United States would retain some leverage as to the conduct of China. It is important to have the kind of an annual report about which the Senator from Tennessee talks. I think it is a good idea to have it as to Russia and North Korea as well as to China. The reality is, as documented substantially by the Senator from Tennessee, there are real potential problems on the horizon. At the outset, I wish to make it clear that I support the concept of free trade. I believe history is on the side of free trade. I voted in favor of the North America Free Trade Agreement, in the face of considerable opposition from my constituency in Pennsylvania. Similarly, I voted for the African Growth and Opportunity/United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act. Although not without some qualms, I have supported most-favored-nation status for China. That was a hot concern on this floor and in the House of Representatives for some time because of China's violations of human rights. It was my judgment that we should have given China most-favored-nation status to try to build their country in the hope that it would move toward democracy and that it would move toward a greater recognition of human rights. In one fell swoop, to grant permanent normal trade relations with China seems to me to be a mistake. I spoke on this subject at some length back on May 17 of this year. I know there are others who wish to speak. I will not repeat what I said at that time but would incorporate my comments at that time by reference. On the issue of proliferation, there is very substantial evidence that the People's Republic of China is harming the interests of world peace. When they sold the M-11 missiles to Pakistan, they put Pakistan in a position to move forward on a potential nuclear confrontation with India, putting that area of the world at risk. When the People's Republic of China has assisted North Korea's missile program in providing special accelerometers, again, there is a country, a rogue country where the People's Republic of China threatens the interests of world peace. And when they have provided assistance to Libya's long-range missile program by assisting in the building of a hypersonic wind tunnel, there again, they assist a rogue nation which really has the potential of threatening world peace. There has been a very elaborate chart prepared by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, which is on every desk in the room. I know Senator Helms came to the floor a few moments ago and will doubtless speak about it. It particularizes the problem we face on nuclear proliferation by the Chinese, which raises the question: Why give away our bargaining power? The People's Republic of China is vitally interested in normal trade relations with the United States. Why not grant it to them this year but reserve judgment next year as to what happens? The record of the People's Republic of China on human rights is dreadful. The massacres at Tiananmen Square constitute only one issue in a long line of flagrant violations of human rights. These are detailed in a statement which is a part of the Record of my speech from May 17. I shall not detail them again, except to refer to the case of the Dickinson College librarian, Mr. Yongyi Song, a constituent of mine from Pennsylvania. Mr. Song went to China in August of 1999 to study the Cultural Revolution. While in China, he was unceremoniously arrested without cause, without any justification, and kept in jail for months. When I found out about the case and consulted with Mr. Song's family and with Dickinson College, I sponsored a resolution, cosponsored by many of my colleagues, and I spoke on the floor of the Senate. I said if the People's Republic of China wanted to be accorded a seat with the nations of the world on matters such as trade, or on matters generally, they would have to have a decent legal system and they would have to not arrest people without any cause. Shortly thereafter, I sought a meeting with the Chinese Ambassador to the United States. The morning of our meeting, I heard a rumor that Yongyi Song was going to be released, and in late January, he was in fact released. I had a very interesting discussion with the PRC Ambassador to the United States. He admonished me about meddling in internal PRC affairs. I had a few responses about the PRC record on human rights, especially as they related to the detention of my constituent for many months without any justification. Then I said that I personally was concerned about having good relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China, a nation of 1.2 billion people. The PRC Ambassador quickly corrected me, saying it is not 1.2 billion people, it is 1.250 billion people. There is no doubt about the PRC's recognition of the PRC's power. They are emerging as the second major superpower in the world. That is fine so long as they comply with the norms of a civilized world. That requires nonproliferation, and that requires respect for human rights. We have two other matters that have come to the fore recently--both issues where the Senator from Tennessee and I have been involved collaboratively. One is on the issue of the efforts by the People's Republic of China to influence U.S. elections, and the second is the effort of the People's Republic of China on espionage. China has portrayed a very aggressive posture, in my judgment. China has moved ahead with many people who have made contributions in the political arena in flat violation of U.S. law, and there are cases--now documented--of the aggressive efforts of the People's Republic of China on espionage. The Judiciary subcommittee that I chair on the Department of Justice oversight has prepared a very lengthy report on Dr. Peter Hoong-Yee Lee. Dr. Peter Lee on October 7 and 8, 1997, confessed to the FBI that he had provided classified nuclear weapons design and testing information to scientists of the People's Republic of China on two occasions in 1985 and had given classified anti-submarine-warfare information to the Chinese in May of 1997. Now it is true that espionage is not limited to the People's Republic of China. But when they recruit a scientist in the United States and acquire information about our classified nuclear weapons design and information on our anti-submarine-warfare procedures, that is a matter of considerable importance. There is another major case which is very much in the forefront today and has been for some considerable period of time, and that is the case involving Dr. Wen Ho Lee, where this morning's media accounts disclose that later today, within a few hours, the Department of Justice has agreed to a plea negotiation for 1 count of a 59-count indictment concerning taking classified material and not maintaining the appropriate classification. This is a case that was under investigation by the Department of Justice Oversight Subcommittee, which I chair, and we had looked into it from October of last year until December 14 when the FBI asked that we cease our oversight inquiries because Dr. Wen Ho Lee was being indicted. We complied with that request so there would be no question at all about any interference in the prosecution of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. Now that the matter is finished, we will move ahead very promptly on that oversight investigation. But the case against Dr. Wen Ho Lee is an extraordinary one which raised very serious questions about whether Dr. Wen Ho Lee provided the People's Republic of China highly classified information. The investigation as to Dr. Lee proceeded from 1982, was accelerated in 1993 and 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. Then there was a request by the FBI, which was a personal request from FBI Director Louis Freeh, transmitted by Assistant Director John Lewis, who went personally to Attorney General Reno. Attorney General Reno assigned the matter to a man named Daniel Seikaly who had never had any experience with an application for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In a context that was reasonably clear that the warrant should have been granted, Attorney General Reno rejected that application. Then, inexplicably, from August of 1998 until December of 1999, the FBI did not act to further investigate Dr. Wen Ho Lee. Then, when the Cox Commission was about to publish a report in January of 1999, suddenly the Department of Justice and the FBI sprang into action, but did not take any steps to terminate Dr. Lee until March, and no steps to get a search warrant until April. Now there is no doubt that Dr. Wen Ho Lee is entitled to the presumption of innocence as to passing any matters to the People's Republic of China, which was the essence of the FBI investigation. Equally, there is no doubt that the Department of Justice has been convicted of extraordinary incompetence in the way this case has been handled, and the questions as to whether the People's Republic of China gathered key information remain unanswered and perhaps will be illuminated by oversight by our Judiciary Subcommittee. But it is hard to understand how the Department of Justice could maintain last week that Dr. Wen Ho Lee had information at his disposal that would ``change the global strategic balance'' or could ``result in the military defeat of America's conventional forces,'' posing the ``gravest possible security risk to the supreme national interests'' of the United States. So when the matter is concluded--as we have every reason to suspect it will be--with the plea bargain, the Department of Justice is going to have a great many questions to answer in terms of why they permitted Dr. Wen Ho Lee to have access to classified information for such a protracted period of time when they had very substantial probable cause, as shown in the application for the warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that there were connections with the People's Republic of China, which might have access to very important nuclear secrets. I mention that case because here is another illustration like the Dr. Peter Lee case where there were questions in the Dr. Peter Lee case, and he confessed and was convicted of passing secrets to the People's Republic of China. But in the long investigation on Dr. Wen Ho Lee, the Department of Justice is going to have some very important questions to answer about why Dr. Wen Ho Lee was enabled to have access to this classified information for such a long period of time, and why they kept him in detention with arguments which they have made. They argued even that on his release he should not have contact with his wife on their assertion that she might pass this highly classified information on, and fought it even to the Court of Appeals. Now, suddenly, in a day of reversal of position, which by the accounts will result in Dr. Wen Ho Lee's release later today, is really very extraordinary. The incompetence of the Department of Justice is obvious. The Department of Justice owes an explanation perhaps to Dr. Wen Ho Lee and to the people of the United States for their bungling of that case. But the point of the matter is, and it is sufficient really for Dr. Peter Lee's case, that you have an aggressive People's Republic of China which is after U.S. military secrets. Then there is the issue of the efforts by the People's Republic of China to influence our elections. That, too, has been documented in great length. I shall not speak about it at any length this afternoon except to comment about the conviction of Maria Hsia linking the People's Republic of China and the plea bargain with John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, and many, many others where there is documentation that the People's Republic of China had transferred funds to people in the United States to make campaign contributions, which were flatly illegal under U.S. laws, in the interests of the People's Republic of China in influencing our elections. While it is not unusual for one country to engage in espionage against another country, I believe it is quite unusual for a country to seek to influence U.S. elections. Those are matters which weigh in the balance. In essence, what we have before us at the moment is the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee who seeks to have a report from the President on the question of nuclear proliferation involving the People's Republic of China, and with all due respect, it is subject to being avoided by waivers which the President can exercise. But at least it is a step in the right direction. But when we take a hard look at what China has been doing in international affairs with Taiwan, with their threats and blackmail, having missile tests off the coast of Taiwan, what they have done with human rights, what they have done with proliferation, and what they have done in so many of the activities, there is very strong reason to conclude that the United States should not grant permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China. Let's trade with them on a year-by-year basis. It is an insufficient answer to say that if we don't trade with the People's Republic of China, other nations will. The United States ought to assert U.S. leadership in trying to lead our allies not to trade with China to the benefit of China, if China is to maintain its current course of proliferation, of violating human rights, of espionage activities, and trying to influence the internal elections of a country such as the United States. At a minimum, in conclusion--the two most popular words of any speech--I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee. I urge my colleagues to accept the strong persuasion of the Senator from Tennessee to vote no on the entire bill. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I will need 15 total.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this 15 minutes will be on another subject. I have sought recognition to introduce legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to deal with very serious problems disclosed in hearings yesterday in the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. The hearing involved 88 deaths that have resulted from Firestone tires shredding, and a great many Ford vehicles--mostly Ford Explorers--rolling over and resulting in those 88 deaths. The hearing yesterday produced substantial evidence that ranking officials at Firestone and Ford knew about this problem, but subjected the owners of Ford Explorer vehicles riding on Firestone tires to the risk of death, which did eventuate for 88 people, and to very serious bodily injury formany more. These risks were foisted upon the American traveling public at a time when both Ford and Firestone knew what the problems were, at a time when, in October of 1998, customers in Venezuela had found the problem, and Ford and Firestone were alerted to it, with officials in Venezuela now talking about criminal prosecutions. In August of 1999, the Saudis had their tires replaced, so the people in Saudi Arabia were being protected while U.S. consumers were not being protected. An internal Ford memorandum on March 12, 1999, considered whether Governmental officials in the United States ought to be notified, and a decision was made not to notify Federal officials. The matter then came into sharp focus in late July of this year, with the Ford executive witness testifying that Ford did not know about the problem in its full import until July 27 when Firestone turned over the information to Federal authorities. There was a representation by the Ford witness-- which candidly strains credulity--and Firestone made representations that they did not find out about this problem until they had conducted some extraordinary tests--tests which obviously should have been conducted at a much earlier stage. Yesterday, I questioned the Ford and Firestone officials on their willingness to turn over all of the records to the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and they said they would; although, as I had said at the time, I thought there ought to be a subpoena issued which made it an obligation. Failure to perform would subject anybody who did not comply with the subpoena to charges of obstruction of justice. When cases of this sort have arisen in the past, there is a tremendous amount of experience that there is reluctance on the part of companies to turn over their documents, and they are found only after the most detailed and excruciating discovery in litigation. So this is a matter where the documents will be the best evidence as to who knew what, when that was known, and what action, if any, was taken. The tragedy with the Firestone tires and the Ford Explorer rollovers is a matter that is going to have to be determined after very substantial investigation. The witnesses who testified yesterday were Joan Claybrook, President of the Public Citizen Organization, and R. David Pittle, Senior Vice President and Technical Director, Consumers Union. Both of them felt that criminal prosecutions were appropriate, perhaps rising to the level of second degree murder because of a willful disregard or reckless disregard of the safety of others, resulting in death, which is the legal equivalent of malice and which is the basis for a charge as serious as murder in the second degree. Whether that is applicable to Firestone and Ford remains to be seen. However, we find a situation where the laws of the United States are inadequate to deal with this kind of situation. There is no legislation on the books which establishes a prosecution in these terms. Back in 1966, the House of Representatives considered similar legislation. I have considered it for some time and have deferred introducing such legislation because it seemed to me that perhaps it was just a little harsh. But with the experience of Ford and Firestone, I do think it is appropriate for the Congress of the United States to consider such legislation. That is why today I am introducing a bill which would establish criminal sanctions for any person who, in gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care, introduces into interstate commerce a product known by that person to be defective which causes the death or serious bodily injury of any individual, calling for penalties up to 15 years where the requisite malice is shown resulting in death, and up to 5 years where the requisite malice is shown for serious bodily injury. This is a matter I have studied in considerable detail over many years, having represented defendants in personal injury cases--some plaintiffs in personal injury cases--but, more specifically, as district attorney of Philadelphia seeing the impact and the effect of criminal prosecutions and seeing to it that people pay attention. When there are similar monetary awards, it costs the company and it costs the shareholders, but it doesn't do anything to the individuals who make these decisions. Before an individual could be held responsible under my proposed legislation, there would have to be a showing that the person knew there was a defect and that defect subjected a person to death or serious bodily injury. That kind of knowledge and putting the instrumentality into commerce does constitute gross disregard for the safety or the life of another, which is the equivalent of malice and justifies this kind of a prosecution. As I noted, this is a subject I have studied for some time. Although the Firestone-Ford issue came up only yesterday, the studies I have undertaken have shown me the desirability of this kind of legislation. Last year, in Anderson v. General Motors Company, 1999 WL 1466627, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury ordered General Motors to pay a record $4.8 billion in punitive damages when six people were trapped and burned when their Chevrolet Malibu exploded after its fuel tank was ruptured in a rear-end crash. General Motors had made a calculation that it would cost in damages $2.40 per automobile if they left the defect in existence, but to correct and redesign the fuel system to reduce the fire cost would have been $8.59 a car. So that cost analysis did constitute actual malice. That kind of an analysis was very similar to the punitive damages which were awarded in the famous case involving the Ford Pinto, which goes back to a 1981 decision in Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 119 Cal. App. 3d 757, where an analysis was made that it would cost some $49.5 million to pay damages resulting from deaths and injuries contrasted with $137 million to pay for correcting the automobile. In this particular case, the punitive damage award was $125 million, but it was subsequently reduced to $3.5 million, which frequently happens in punitive damage awards. In a similar case, Ginny V. White and Jimmy D. White v. Ford Motor Company, CV-N-95-279-DWH (PHA), a 3-year-old child was crushed to death under the rear dual wheels of a Ford truck after it rolled suddenly down a grade. Here, Ford had known of the defect and knew how to correct it easily but did not do so. Punitive damages in that case were awarded at $150 million but have since been reduced to $69 million. These cases are illustrative of the kind of headlines punitive damage awards make in the newspapers but how they are very frequently reduced. But again, the punitive damages do not really deal with the executives who make these decisions. In the case of Fair v. Ford Motor Company, Civil Action 88-CI-101, 27 people were killed when a school bus in which they were riding burned after being struck by another vehicle. Punitive damages were upheld in this case where the facts showed that the fuel tank failure was preventable and that Ford had the capacity and the opportunity to prevent it and failed to do so. In another similar case, Toyota Motor Company v. Moll, 438 So. 2d 192 (Fla. App. 1983), a Toyota Corona was struck in the rear, causing its fuel system to rupture and three women were burned to death. The court found malice on the part of Toyota because Toyota knew of the defective design of the fuel system and, in wanton disregard of the safety of the purchasing public, continued to market their 1973 Toyota Corona. In Ford Motor Company v. Ammerman, 705 N.E. 2d 539 (Ind. App. 1999), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of Indiana imposed punitive damages, finding malice on the part of Ford, when a Bronco slid sideways and rolled over causing very serious injuries, with the court saying: ``It is apparent to this court that Ford was motivated by profits rather than safety when it put into the stream of commerce a vehicle which it knew was dangerous and defective. Ignoring its own data and advice of its engineers, Ford manufactured a vehicle prone to roll-over accidents in spite of being aware that such accidents result in more serious injuries than any other.'' 705 N.E. 2d at 562. There are similar findings in the famous breast implant case, Hopkins v. Dow Corning, 33 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1994), where they knew that long studies of implants were needed before the product could be marketed but concealed the information. Similarly, in the Dalkon Shield case, Tetuan v. A.H. Robins Co., 738 P.2d 1210 (Kan. 1987), thousands of women were presented with life- threatening and even fatal illnesses with the Kansas Supreme Court noting that the company deliberately and actively concealed the potential dangers of the product, thereby violating their duty to the public. In the interest of time, I will summarize very briefly Batteast v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 526 N.E. 2d 428 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1988), where punitive damages were awarded where drugs were given to individuals knowing of their dangerous propensity. Similarly, in the case of Proctor v. Davis, 682 N.E. 2d 1203 (Ill. App. 1997), a patient had a retina detachment and blindness following the adverse effects of a drug which were known to the manufacturer but not disclosed. In the brief time available this afternoon, I have summarized a series of cases which are only representative--where products have been put in interstate commerce, where there was knowledge on the part of individuals who put those products on the market that they would subject the individuals to risk of serious bodily injury or death, and, when death resulted, they were held liable, with the courts concluding that malice was established by the reckless disregard of the life of another. When we have such a long sequence of cases, when we have the occasional imposition of punitive damages which are characteristically reduced and not really determinative or therapeutic anyway because it goes only after the shareholders as opposed to the individuals who have the ability to eliminate the problem, it is time there was adequate legislation on the Federal books to deal with this sort of problem. I repeat, the culpability of Firestone or Ford has not yet been established, but it strains credulity that the key officials, based on what we heard yesterday in the hearing, did not know of these defects, and with the documents already at hand failed to take action to correct them. That is a matter to be determined. But this legislation, if enacted, will certainly put the officials on notice that they cannot recklessly disregard human life for profits. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I made two statements for the Congressional Record--one on April 26, 1999, which I incorporate by reference, and another statement on May 4, 1999, when Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority did not make a unilateral declaration of statehood. The meeting I had with Chairman Arafat in my Capitol office was a very interesting one and a very constructive one. One note which I had referred to in one of my earlier statements on the floor is worth a very brief reference. I have a very large poster which has a joint picture of President Clinton with thumbs up and a picture of Chairman Arafat right next to him making the V sign, obviously not taken together but juxtaposed together on one large poster. It looks like a campaign poster, almost as if the two men were running for political office, which, of course, they were not. I had accompanied President Clinton on his trip to Israel in December of 1998. I saw the poster and thought it a nice item of memorabilia and had it framed and put in my Capitol office. When Chairman Arafat saw his picture on my wall, it did a good bit more than any of my persuasive comments to establish an aura of goodwill in a complimentary sense. He very much liked seeing his picture there. In fact, he wanted to take a picture of the two of us standing in front of his picture, which now stands beside the poster in my Capitol office. I mention that because of the--I am searching for the right word. ``Congenial meeting'' might not be exactly right, but it was a businesslike meeting where Chairman Arafat listened to my arguments against a unilateral declaration of statehood. When I recite this, I do not really mean to suggest my voice was the determinative voice. I think that comported with what the Palestinian Authority had in mind in any event. I think every extra bit of pressure that can be brought ought to be brought. That is why I wrote to Chairman Arafat earlier this year, on August 18, and that is why I am supporting the bill introduced by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, which would impose certain restraints and, in effect, certain sanctions on the Palestinian Authority if they do make a unilateral declaration of statehood. In my judgment, it would set back the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority substantially. I retain some optimism that the differences between Israel and the Palestinian Authority may yet be reconciled. I compliment the President and the Secretary of State for their very extensive efforts to try to bring about that accord. I believe those efforts should be continued and intensified. I also compliment Dennis Ross of the State Department who has done so much in the negotiating process with the parties. While there are meetings underway at the United Nations, there may be some occasion for the President to act further in consultation with Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to try to bring about advances on the peace process and ultimately an accord. But certainly a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Authority would be met with grave opposition in this Chamber--I know that for a certainty--and I believe also in the House of Representatives. In conclusion, I urge Chairman Arafat and his colleagues in the Palestinian Authority not to make a unilateral declaration of statehood on September 13, or at any other time, but to continue the peace process to try to work out outstanding differences in accordance with the commitments made by the Palestinian Authority on the Oslo accord. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC, March 31, 1999. Chairman Yasser Arafat, President of the National Authority, Gaza City, GAZA, Palestinian National Authority. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for coming to my Senate hideaway and for our very productive discussion on March 23. Following up on that discussion, I urge that the Palestinian Authority not make a unilateral declaration of statehood on May 4 or on any subsequent date. The issue of the Palestinian state is a matter for negotiation under the terms of the Oslo Accords. I understand your position that this issue will not be decided by you alone but will be submitted to the Palestinian Authority Council. When I was asked at our meeting whether you and the Palestinian Authority would receive credit for refraining from the unilateral declaration of statehood, I replied that I would go to the Senate floor on May 5 or as soon thereafter as possible and compliment your action in not unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state. I look forward to continuing discussions with you on the important issues in the Mid-East peace process. Sincerely, Arlen Specter. Exhibit 2 U.S. Senate, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC, August 18, 2000. Chairman Yasser Arafat, President of the National Authority, Gaza City, GAZA, Palestinian National Authority. Dear Chairman Arafat: On March 23, 1999, when you visited my Senate Office in Washington, I urged you not to make a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, which had been discussed as a possibility for May 4, 2000. At that time, I told you that I would make a statement on the Senate floor on May 5, 1999, praising your decision not to declare statehood unilaterally if, in fact, you made that decision. You did not declare statehood on May 4, 1999; and, as promised, I made the statement on the Senate floor. For your re-review, I enclose a copy of that statement. Now, again, there is talk that there may be a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood on September 13, 2000. Again, I urge you not to make such a declaration, but to continue negotiations to try to work out an overall agreement with Israel. I know that there is a strong feeling, both in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, as well as that expressed by President Clinton, that there be no such unilateral declaration of statehood. There has been tremendous support in the Senate and House, as well as from the President, for an overall peace settlement and that Congressional support has included U.S. contributions to implement such an accord. That Congressional support would certainly be eroded by a unilateral declaration of statehood. If you do not make such a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood on September 13, I will again speak on the Senate floor in praise of your restraint. Again, I urge you to renew discussions with Israel for an overall settlement. I look forward to our next meeting when you are in Washington or I am in the Mideast. Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada for those very timely comments. It is important to have that note of bipartisanship. May the Record further reflect, 20 minutes ago the distinguished Senator from New Mexico said he wanted to do something sharp at 6 p.m., and the big hand is at the 12 and the little hand is at the 6 in this instant.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for those comments. We have worked together for many years and earlier today on the Appropriations Committee, and I appreciate what he just said.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the statements by Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat that there may be a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood on September 13. That, in my judgment, would be a grave mistake, and the United States and our allies ought to do everything in our power to prevent Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority from making that unilateral declaration of statehood. When the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, there was an agreement that all of the outstanding issues between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be negotiated with a solution. There have been very extensive discussions, including recent talks at Camp David, which have not produced that kind of an agreement and that has led Chairman Arafat to raise the issue--perhaps more accurately called ``threat''--to have a unilateral declaration of statehood on September 13. I have cosponsored S. 3007, which was introduced today by the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, which calls for action by the United States in the event that there is a unilateral declaration of statehood. The bill contains provisions which would articulate the policy of the United States not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, to extend diplomatic efforts to deny recognition by working with the allies of the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, to downgrade the status of the Palestinian office in the United States if there should be such a unilateral declaration, to prohibit U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority if there should be such a unilateral declaration, to take steps to oppose Palestinian membership in the United Nations or other international organizations, and to oppose Palestinian membership in or assistance from the international financial institutions. I believe this bill is an effective shot across the bow. I wrote to Chairman Arafat on August 18 of this year, urging Chairman Arafat to abandon any thoughts about a unilateral declaration of statehood for the Palestinian Authority. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the essence of the letter which I wrote to Chairman Arafat is contained in two paragraphs where I say: . . . There is a strong feeling, both in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, as well as that expressed by President Clinton, that there be no such unilateral declaration of statehood. There has been tremendous support in the Senate and House, as well as from the President, for an overall peace settlement and that Congressional support has included U.S. contributions to implement such an accord. That Congressional support would certainly be eroded by a unilateral declaration of statehood. I had urged Chairman Arafat in the past to avoid a unilateral declaration of statehood when the possibility was raised that such a unilateral declaration might be made back on May 4, 1999. Chairman Arafat came to the United States on March 23, and I was scheduled at that time to visit him in his hotel in Virginia, but shortly before our scheduled appointment I found that Chairman Arafat was visiting on the House side in the Capitol complex, and I had an opportunity to invite Chairman Arafat to my Capitol office. At that time, we had an extensive discussion where I urged him not to make the unilateral declaration of statehood. He asked me at that time, if he would refrain from that unilateral declaration of statehood, whether I would make a statement saying it was a wise course of action, giving recognition to the restraint of Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. I said I would do so and that I would make a statement on the floor of the Senate on May 5 if Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, in fact, did not make a unilateral declaration of statehood. I wrote Chairman Arafat to that effect on March 31, 1999. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the statements by Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat that there may be a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood on September 13. That, in my judgment, would be a grave mistake, and the United States and our allies ought to do everything in our power to prevent Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority from making that unilateral declaration of statehood. When the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, there was an agreement that all of the outstanding issues between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be negotiated with a solution. There have been very extensive discussions, including recent talks at Camp David, which have not produced that kind of an agreement and that has led Chairman Arafat to raise the issue--perhaps more accurately called ``threat''--to have a unilateral declaration of statehood on September 13. I have cosponsored S. 3007, which was introduced today by the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, which calls for action by the United States in the event that there is a unilateral declaration of statehood. The bill contains provisions which would articulate the policy of the United States not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, to extend diplomatic efforts to deny recognition by working with the allies of the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, to downgrade the status of the Palestinian office in the United States if there should be such a unilateral declaration, to prohibit U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority if there should be such a unilateral declaration, to take steps to oppose Palestinian membership in the United Nations or other international organizations, and to oppose Palestinian membership in or assistance from the international financial institutions. I believe this bill is an effective shot across the bow. I wrote to Chairman Arafat on August 18 of this year, urging Chairman Arafat to abandon any thoughts about a unilateral declaration of statehood for the Palestinian Authority. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the essence of the letter which I wrote to Chairman Arafat is contained in two paragraphs where I say: . . . There is a strong feeling, both in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, as well as that expressed by President Clinton, that there be no such unilateral declaration of statehood. There has been tremendous support in the Senate and House, as well as from the President, for an overall peace settlement and that Congressional support has included U.S. contributions to implement such an accord. That Congressional support would certainly be eroded by a unilateral declaration of statehood. I had urged Chairman Arafat in the past to avoid a unilateral declaration of statehood when the possibility was raised that such a unilateral declaration might be made back on May 4, 1999. Chairman Arafat came to the United States on March 23, and I was scheduled at that time to visit him in his hotel in Virginia, but shortly before our scheduled appointment I found that Chairman Arafat was visiting on the House side in the Capitol complex, and I had an opportunity to invite Chairman Arafat to my Capitol office. At that time, we had an extensive discussion where I urged him not to make the unilateral declaration of statehood. He asked me at that time, if he would refrain from that unilateral declaration of statehood, whether I would make a statement saying it was a wise course of action, giving recognition to the restraint of Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. I said I would do so and that I would make a statement on the floor of the Senate on May 5 if Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, in fact, did not make a unilateral declaration of statehood. I wrote Chairman Arafat to that effect on March 31, 1999. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I made two statements for the Congressional Record--one on April 26, 1999, which I incorporate by reference, and another statement on May 4, 1999, when Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority did not make a unilateral declaration of statehood. The meeting I had with Chairman Arafat in my Capitol office was a very interesting one and a very constructive one. One note which I had referred to in one of my earlier statements on the floor is worth a very brief reference. I have a very large poster which has a joint picture of President Clinton with thumbs up and a picture of Chairman Arafat right next to him making the V sign, obviously not taken together but juxtaposed together on one large poster. It looks like a campaign poster, almost as if the two men were running for political office, which, of course, they were not. I had accompanied President Clinton on his trip to Israel in December of 1998. I saw the poster and thought it a nice item of memorabilia and had it framed and put in my Capitol office. When Chairman Arafat saw his picture on my wall, it did a good bit more than any of my persuasive comments to establish an aura of goodwill in a complimentary sense. He very much liked seeing his picture there. In fact, he wanted to take a picture of the two of us standing in front of his picture, which now stands beside the poster in my Capitol office. I mention that because of the--I am searching for the right word. ``Congenial meeting'' might not be exactly right, but it was a businesslike meeting where Chairman Arafat listened to my arguments against a unilateral declaration of statehood. When I recite this, I do not really mean to suggest my voice was the determinative voice. I think that comported with what the Palestinian Authority had in mind in any event. I think every extra bit of pressure that can be brought ought to be brought. That is why I wrote to Chairman Arafat earlier this year, on August 18, and that is why I am supporting the bill introduced by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, which would impose certain restraints and, in effect, certain sanctions on the Palestinian Authority if they do make a unilateral declaration of statehood. In my judgment, it would set back the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority substantially. I retain some optimism that the differences between Israel and the Palestinian Authority may yet be reconciled. I compliment the President and the Secretary of State for their very extensive efforts to try to bring about that accord. I believe those efforts should be continued and intensified. I also compliment Dennis Ross of the State Department who has done so much in the negotiating process with the parties. While there are meetings underway at the United Nations, there may be some occasion for the President to act further in consultation with Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to try to bring about advances on the peace process and ultimately an accord. But certainly a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Authority would be met with grave opposition in this Chamber--I know that for a certainty--and I believe also in the House of Representatives. In conclusion, I urge Chairman Arafat and his colleagues in the Palestinian Authority not to make a unilateral declaration of statehood on September 13, or at any other time, but to continue the peace process to try to work out outstanding differences in accordance with the commitments made by the Palestinian Authority on the Oslo accord. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC, March 31, 1999. Chairman Yasser Arafat, President of the National Authority, Gaza City, GAZA, Palestinian National Authority. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for coming to my Senate hideaway and for our very productive discussion on March 23. Following up on that discussion, I urge that the Palestinian Authority not make a unilateral declaration of statehood on May 4 or on any subsequent date. The issue of the Palestinian state is a matter for negotiation under the terms of the Oslo Accords. I understand your position that this issue will not be decided by you alone but will be submitted to the Palestinian Authority Council. When I was asked at our meeting whether you and the Palestinian Authority would receive credit for refraining from the unilateral declaration of statehood, I replied that I would go to the Senate floor on May 5 or as soon thereafter as possible and compliment your action in not unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state. I look forward to continuing discussions with you on the important issues in the Mid-East peace process. Sincerely, Arlen Specter. Exhibit 2 U.S. Senate, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC, August 18, 2000. Chairman Yasser Arafat, President of the National Authority, Gaza City, GAZA, Palestinian National Authority. Dear Chairman Arafat: On March 23, 1999, when you visited my Senate Office in Washington, I urged you not to make a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, which had been discussed as a possibility for May 4, 2000. At that time, I told you that I would make a statement on the Senate floor on May 5, 1999, praising your decision not to declare statehood unilaterally if, in fact, you made that decision. You did not declare statehood on May 4, 1999; and, as promised, I made the statement on the Senate floor. For your re-review, I enclose a copy of that statement. Now, again, there is talk that there may be a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood on September 13, 2000. Again, I urge you not to make such a declaration, but to continue negotiations to try to work out an overall agreement with Israel. I know that there is a strong feeling, both in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, as well as that expressed by President Clinton, that there be no such unilateral declaration of statehood. There has been tremendous support in the Senate and House, as well as from the President, for an overall peace settlement and that Congressional support has included U.S. contributions to implement such an accord. That Congressional support would certainly be eroded by a unilateral declaration of statehood. If you do not make such a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood on September 13, I will again speak on the Senate floor in praise of your restraint. Again, I urge you to renew discussions with Israel for an overall settlement. I look forward to our next meeting when you are in Washington or I am in the Mideast. Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada for those very timely comments. It is important to have that note of bipartisanship. May the Record further reflect, 20 minutes ago the distinguished Senator from New Mexico said he wanted to do something sharp at 6 p.m., and the big hand is at the 12 and the little hand is at the 6 in this instant.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for those comments. We have worked together for many years and earlier today on the Appropriations Committee, and I appreciate what he just said.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and the distinguished Ranking Member for that clarification, and appreciate their hard work on the conference report.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee a question regarding the defense appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2001. I noticed that the conference report retained a very important project to buy new bayonets for the Marine Corps. Is the funding within the Marine Corps Procurement line in fact for Bayonet 2000?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would restore Amtrak's eligibility to continue leasing vehicles from the General Services Administration's Interagency Fleet Management System. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 inadvertently removed this eligibility. By way of further explanation, in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Amtrak was removed from the list of ``mixed ownership and government corporations.'' An inadvertent and unintended consequence of this change was brought to Amtrak's attention earlier this spring. The Federal Railroad Administration questioned Amtrak's eligibility to continue leasing automobiles from the General Services Administration's Interagency Fleet Management System. The Federal Railroad Administration and General Services Administration agreed that Amtrak was no longer eligible. As a result of this inadvertent change, there is a fleet of some 1,650 vehicles for which Amtrak currently pays $10 million to lease through the General Services Administration. If Amtrak is forced to lease its vehicles privately, it will cost a total of $25 million annually. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act was intended to allow Amtrak to transition to operating self-sufficiency. This legislation was not intended to put new financial burdens on the corporation, which is in a transition to operating self-sufficiency. This problem was called to my attention yesterday by Governor Tommy Thompson, who is Chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors. The operation for Amtrak has been in high gear to operate like a business in its goal to achieve operational self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2003. The strategy that Governor Thompson and others have articulated, as provided to me, involves, one, developing high-speed rail corridors; two, building a market-based rail network; three, forging partnerships with State and local authorities and large commercial clients; and four, offering a new service guarantee, which is unparalleled in the transportation industry. These strategies are already producing very considerable results. Amtrak's annual revenues reached a record of $1.84 billion in fiscal year 1999. Just over 21 million passengers traveled on Amtrak last year, for a third consecutive year of ridership growth. Overall ridership in the last 5 months is up 8 percent over the same period of last year. Ridership on the high-speed regional service corridor is up nearly 40 percent over the trains that were replaced. Further information provided to me is that the development of more commercial partnerships has boosted mail and express revenue by 35 percent in this calendar year. Amtrak's net worth growth strategy, introduced in February, will expand passenger rail service to 21 States, based on a comprehensive economic analysis of the national rail system and potential market opportunities. The national growth strategy is expected to add as much as $229 million of revenue by the year 2003. New partnerships have been forged with Motorola, Dobbs, and Hertz Corporation, among others. Amtrak's new web site for ticketing has been named one of the 100 most popular bookmark sites on the Internet. For fiscal year 2000, sales are up 113 percent over the same period last year. Since Amtrak's announcement of its service guarantee, it has recorded a satisfactory rate of 99.97 percent. These results point to the successful turnabout Amtrak is making in its efforts to achieve operational self-sufficiency. A goal has been set for Amtrak, and Amtrak is taking the proper steps to achieve that self-sufficiency. My suggestion to the Senate is that we not undermine the corporation by forcing it to swallow some $15 million in unintended costs, while losing its GSA eligibility for the remainder of the glidepath. The General Services Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and Amtrak agreed that the legislation referred to contained an unintended consequence and should be rectified. Amtrak must return all 1,650 vehicles by October 1 of this year, under the existing law. This provision puts an undue and unwarranted burden upon the General Services Administration, which does not want many of these specialized vehicles back in their inventory because they have nobody else who would lease them, so it would be a loss to GSA, as well. This amendment would restore Amtrak's eligibility to continue leasing vehicles from the General Services Administration's Interagency Management Fleet. I am advised by staff, who have consulted with the staff of the General Services Administration, that both GSA and the Federal Railroad Administration, as well as Amtrak, support this amendment. Mr. President, it would be preferable, candidly, not to put this amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill. I have consulted with the Parliamentarian, and there is a defense of germaneness, which is an answer to a challenge on grounds that this is legislation on an appropriations bill. The provisions of H.R. 4461 that we are currently considering, on page 5, line 9, provides the following under ``Payments, Including Transfers of Funds'': For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984 delegation of authority from the Administrator of the General Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C. 486, for programs and activities of the Department which are included in this Act, and for the operation, maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings, $150,343,000, to remain available until expended. As I say, I am advised by the Parliamentarian that this language is sufficient to establish germaneness, and germaneness is a defense for challenging this amendment as legislation on an appropriations bill. There is an obvious concern raised here about whether Amtrak should be able to have the benefit of this leasing arrangement because Amtrak is supposed to be self-sufficient, some might say. The reality is that Amtrak is under a transition period to attain self-sufficiency. We are looking at an additional 2-year window here. I suggest that the savings of $15 million to Amtrak really would not be at the expense of the Federal Government. These are savings which, if the leasing were not possible, and the GSA has nobody to lease it to, is actually a net gain for the Federal Government. While Amtrak would have to pay $25 million annually instead of $10 million to GSA, if GSA doesn't have anybody to lease these vehicles to, which is what has been represented to me, it ends up that the Federal Government loses $10 million, which it would get from these leases. So it is a win-win situation for the Federal Government to have the $10 million in lease payments, and it saves Amtrak some $15 million. What we really need to do is, obviously, put Amtrak back on its feet. In the course of just a few minutes today, I was able to find 10 cosponsors of this legislation. If we had more time to survey the Senate, I think we would find many more Senators. I don't think this is necessary as a disclosure of interest, but I have an interest in Amtrak, besides being a Senator, in wanting Amtrak to succeed. I ride Amtrak every day. It is really an enviable position to be in, whereas some of my colleagues have to fight airplane schedules. Some of us can ride the metroliner, which leaves on the hour. I can tell you that the metroliner is good service, and the other service is excellent as well. Those trains are filled and they are money-makers. The new Acela train is about to be established, which will get from Washington to Philadelphia even faster. Amtrak has come out with a new guarantee and it is moving ahead. There is no reason, it seems to me, to let this technicality stand, which would cost Amtrak $15 million and probably cost GSA $10 million if, as expected, it is unable to lease out all of these vehicles, which would be returned on October 1 of this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I welcome an opportunity to present these issues to students. Anyone in the balcony observing this debate, students, and as the Senator from Arizona alludes to students, perhaps a more elite audience, wanting to know the theory, the philosophy, the approach, the ethics of the proposition, I welcome addressing students on this subject as I spend a good bit of my time addressing high schools, colleges, junior high schools, and even grade schools taking the message to the students about what government ought to be doing. It is a fairly common reference--not too humorous anymore--to analogize making sausage to the making of legislation. But the making of legislation is a very complicated matter. It has to take into account the accommodation of 260 million Americans and many contrary issues and many contrary differences. When the argument is raised about this is a matter turned down by the authorizing committee, the Commerce Committee, and turned down by the Governmental Affairs Committee--they are not the last word. The chairman of the Commerce Committee does not have the last word. He may have it as the Commerce Committee is organized, directed, and run. And the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee may have the last word as to how that committee is run. But the Senate has the last word. There are 100 of us and each Senator has rights under the rules of the Senate. When this Senator offers an amendment, this Senator is offering an amendment within his rights. Even if the full Commerce Committee backs the chairman, or even if the full Governmental Affairs Committee backs the chairman, those committees are not the last word. The last word is the Senate, the 100 Members who constitute the Senate. In offering this amendment, this Senator is functioning within the rules. When the Senator from Arizona says that this amendment has nothing to do with agriculture and he finds the amendment offensive, I take a little offense at that. I set forth the germaneness, which entitles this amendment to be offered on this bill. It is not an unusual occurrence in the Senate to offer legislation on an appropriations bill. That rule has been breached so often that it is hardly referenced anymore. We are trying to come back to a standard of not legislating on an appropriations bill, but the rules of the Senate govern that, and I cited the provisions of the bill we are considering from the House of Representatives which makes this germane. That is the advice I received from the Parliamentarian. That is not my own peculiar, personal opinion. If someone wants to challenge the amendment, there are ways to do so if someone says this violates the rules. But I do not think it does, and the Parliamentarian does not think it does. When there are references to illegal activities by Amtrak, if there are illegal activities, let's refer it to the Department of Justice. Some might say a reference to the Department of Justice doesn't do much good in the United States of America today, and I would not want to argue that point too vociferously, but let's give them a chance. Has it been referred to the Department of Justice? I attended a hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation where Governor Thompson appeared last year. But we met yesterday on another matter. He called this issue to my attention. This is not exactly my purview, to take up this issue. It doesn't come within any of my committee responsibilities. But no high-priced lobbyist came to me to talk about this issue, a high-priced lobbyist who might be fundraising for me. Nobody came to talk to me about it. In fact, not even a low-priced lobbyist came to me to talk about it. But Governor Thompson, a very distinguished American and very distinguished public servant, did. I told him I was concerned about it. Before the afternoon, I had a flood of telephone calls from Amtrak, asking me to look into it, to check it out. This morning I called Senator Kohl who had been working on the matter. Then I started to canvas a few Senators and got 10 cosponsors very promptly. Senator Jeffords--I ask unanimous consent he be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the status of the Record appropriate for the calling of another amendment?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. There is a reference here to ``idiotic.'' I take more than umbrage at that, and would cite rule XIX which says: No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator. I can't represent whether I was called an idiot, or whether I was said to have offered an idiotic amendment. But either way, offering an idiotic amendment is not becoming conduct for a Senator. And I consulted with the Parliamentarian. The rule is that a Senator may challenge another Senator who violates rule XIX by standing and saying: I call the Senator to order. I choose not to do that. I don't want to make a Federal case of it. But, also, I choose not to ignore it, and I think it is unbecoming conduct for a Senator to offer an idiotic amendment. But I don't think this amendment is idiotic. But I will let the body decide that on a vote, either on a challenge on procedural grounds or on a vote on the merits. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3958 on behalf of Senator Kohl, Senator Santorum, Senator Moynihan, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Biden, Senator Hutchison of Texas, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Schumer, Senator Warner, and myself.