Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah and the Senator from California for those statements. Let us proceed on that basis. Picking up on what the Senator from Utah said, it isn't a political mailing touting what any of us may think he or she has done. It is notice that the Senator is going to have his or her body at a given place. As open house town meetings go, that can be a fairly high price to pay, to go out and face the music and face the constituents because they do keep track of our votes. But they have a very hard time following us if they live in Coudersport in Potter County or live in the northern tier of Pennsylvania or a southern tier county such as Fulton. They don't necessarily get any of the major newspapers and are outside television range. They may see some national television, but that is not an effective way for Senators to communicate with the people of their States. When you appear at a town meeting, there is a feeling that something is going on that is positive. We Members of Congress in the Senate and the House are subject to a lot of criticism as being ``inside the beltway'' and not being accessible. People don't know what we are doing. And then we are going to these fundraisers where people have to make contributions to have access to us. This is something which is not very healthy for a democracy. So let us proceed. I will not offer an amendment at this time. I will see if we can work it out, starting with the chairman and ranking member on this subcommittee, and moving over to the chairman and ranking member on the Rules Committee, to try to structure a program which would accomplish the purpose and be affordable. I thank the Senator from Utah and the Senator from California.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have reserved time for an amendment which would deal with funding for mailings for open house town meetings. The budgets today are very restrictive. In years gone by, there was an opportunity for a Senator to schedule an open house town meeting in a county seat and send out postal patron notices to everybody in the county. Then, an open house town meeting would be held where a relatively small number of people would appear, but at least everybody in the county had notice that the Senator was coming. Everyone had an opportunity to hear a short report about what was going on in Washington and then an opportunity to ask the Senator questions. We are under considerable fire and criticism on the issue of fundraising and the issue of access. For example, when we have fundraisers and people attend, they certainly do have access to Senators. There is no way to have a fundraiser where people attend without having that kind of access. The question then arises: Is that kind of access unfair? I believe there is a very good answer to that by having the Senator go to the county seat, and make it convenient for people in the county to have access to the Senator to ask questions. The concept of having a town meeting to let people express themselves is something that I believe is very important and very fundamental. The budget we have today does not allow for that. I was just discussing the matter with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee to see if we might structure something which could be accommodated without having a contested amendment and a contested debate and then a rollcall vote. What the Senator from Utah and I were talking about was an analysis of how many of our colleagues want to have open house town meetings. Many of our colleagues do not choose that as a form of communication with constituents. Others may have only a few open house town meetings. There is a big difference between small States and big States. There is a different picture that certainly arises in Utah than Pennsylvania. As I said to the Senator from Utah, I would not necessarily be concerned about having the town meetings in the big metropolitan areas where there is a greater opportunity to communicate with the citizens through television and through newspaper stories. However, if you take, say, some of the northern tier counties of Pennsylvania or the north central or southern tier, unless you actually go to the county, it is very hard to make that kind of contact. I would not want the entire year to go by without taking action. As I discussed with the Senator from Utah, perhaps in collaboration with the Senator from California, who is the ranking member on this subcommittee, and the Senators on the Rules Committee, we could try to get an estimate and perhaps put a funding mechanism in one of the later appropriations bills. Perhaps it could come in the appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair. I do believe Senators would like to have this opportunity. It may well be that it would not be very expensive, depending on how many Senators chose it. Maybe we could, on an experimental basis, create a relatively small fund and find some way to administer it so the people who want to have the town meetings can but with some limitations so that one or a few Senators do not take too much of the fund. Therefore, we could move in the direction of encouraging these open house town meetings.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for their second reading. I make that statement on behalf of the leader.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I object to further proceedings on these bills at this time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked to make a statement on behalf of the leader at the outset. Today, the Senate will resume consideration of the military construction appropriations bill. Senator Specter will be recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes under the previous order. Following that statement, the Senate will have approximately 3 hours and 30 minutes on the Daschle and Lott amendments to the military construction appropriations legislation. Votes on those amendments are scheduled to occur at approximately 1:30 p.m. It is the intention of the leader to complete action on the military construction appropriations bill during today's session, with the hope of beginning consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill no later than Thursday. Senators can anticipate votes throughout the day and throughout the remainder of the week.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the leader for entering the order giving me 30 minutes for a statement this morning. I have sought that time to speak on what I believe to be one of the most important issues which will be presented to the Congress this year; that is, the issue of permanent normal trade relations for the People's Republic of China. The Senate is scheduled to take up this issue sometime next month, depending upon what the House of Representatives does. The House of Representatives is scheduled to consider this matter next week. I thought it appropriate to make this statement at this time, to give my views on important issues of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation, insights which I gained, in large part, from serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee for some 8 years, including 2 years as chairman during 1995 and 1996, and other insights on related matters which I have seen in my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on oversight of the Department of Justice. My own record has been that of a strong free trader. I have supported NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. I have supported free trade with the Caribbean nations. I supported, last week, free trade with the African nations. I believe the long tugs and pulls of the economy, both domestic and international, strongly support the notion of free trade. But I am opposed, strongly opposed to granting permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China because of their record on nuclear proliferation, of weapons of mass destruction, because of their record on human rights, and because the executive branch, the administration, has not imposed sanctions as required by law to stop or inhibit such nuclear proliferation but, in fact, has taken affirmative action to grant waivers. So it is necessary for Congress to exercise our constitutional responsibility of checks and balances and congressional oversight of the executive branch, to see to it the national interest is preserved. The Congress has authority under the Constitution. There are some constitutional inhibitions which prohibit the Congress from delegating that authority to the executive branch. I am not necessarily saying that permanent trade with China would be such an unconstitutional delegation, but at the very minimum it is an unwise delegation, based on this state of the record, based on the necessity to impose restraints on conduct of the People's Republic of China, not only as to human rights--fundamental, important human rights--but of greater magnitude, the threat to international peace through their proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. During my tenure on the Intelligence Committee I saw many instances of the People's Republic of China supplying rogue nations, nations which constitute a threat to world order, with weapons of mass destruction. For example, the People's Republic of China provided M-11 missiles to Pakistan back in 1992. Those missiles, now armed with nuclear warheads, are pointed at India, creating a nuclear threat to the subcontinent, the possibility of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, and threatening world peace. The People's Republic of China has assisted North Korea's missile program by providing specialty steel, accelerometers, gyroscopes, and precision grinding machinery. The People's Republic of China is providing assistance to Libya's long-range missile program by assisting in the building of a hypersonic wind tunnel which is useful for designing missiles and cooperating in the development of Libya's Al Fatah missile which has a range of some 600 miles, threatening peace and stability in that area. The People's Republic of China has helped Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and Libya in a way which is very destabilizing. What has been the reaction of the Clinton administration to these issues? The transfer of M-11 missiles to Pakistan falls under category 1 of the Missile Technology Control Regime, which is set up to establish gradations in seriousness of violations. That is category 1. The 1991 National Defense Authorization Act mandates the President to deny for not less than 2 years certain licenses, and we find not only has the President not taken those steps on sanctions, but has, in addition, moved ahead and granted affirmative waivers to facilitate developing China's ballistic missile capability. Those waivers were granted in a celebrated case on the application of Loral Space and Technology. A series of events, beginning in 1992, involving both Hughes and Loral demonstrates a very serious problem on transmitting to the People's Republic of China high-level technology. On December 21, 1992, a Chinese Long March 2E rocket carrying a Hughes manufactured satellite crashed shortly after takeoff. Without attaining the required State Department license, the Hughes personnel engaged in a series of discussions with Chinese officials, giving them very important information. On January 26, 1995, a Chinese Long March 2E missile carrying another Hughes satellite exploded approximately 50 seconds after takeoff. A 1998 State Department assessment showed that, ``Hughes directly supported the Chinese space program in the areas of [accident analysis] . . . .'' The Cox committee reviewed these matters and called for a very detailed investigation as to what had actually occurred. On February 15, 1996, the People's Republic of China's Long March 3B missile exploded with a communications satellite on board built by Loral. Following these explosions, Loral and Hughes transmitted to the People's Republic of China their assessments of why the rockets failed. The assessments required a prior license from the Department of State which had not been obtained. In May 1997, a classified Department of Defense report concluded that Loral and Hughes significantly enhanced the guidance and control systems of the People's Republic of China's nuclear ballistic systems. As a result of the Department of Defense report, the U.S. Department of Justice began a criminal investigation of Loral and Hughes. Then Loral applied for a waiver from the Clinton administration to launch another satellite from a Chinese rocket. The Department of Justice weighed in and objected to a Presidential grant of a waiver on the ground that such a waiver would have ``a significant adverse impact on any prosecution that might take place based on a pending investigation of export violations by Loral.'' Notwithstanding the very serious issue of China having sold M-11 missiles to Pakistan creating a threat of nuclear war, notwithstanding the fact that Loral and Hughes gave an assessment to China which significantly enhanced their nuclear capability system, notwithstanding the fact that there was a criminal investigation pending by the Department of Justice, notwithstanding the fact that the Department of Justice objected to the grant of a waiver on the ground that it would have an adverse impact on their criminal investigation potential prosecution, the President on February 18 of 1998 granted the waiver. What are we to make of all of that, and why, in fact, was the waiver granted? A preliminary investigation has shown that in an early memorandum in January of 1998 from the National Security Adviser, there was a reference to a State Department concern about transfers by the People's Republic of China to Iran of C-802 antiship cruise missiles. That was a January 1998 draft memorandum from National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger to the President. When the final memorandum was submitted to the President by Mr. Berger on February 12, 1998, that important warning was dropped. The earlier memorandum had contained language of the importance of an expedited waiver because Loral was in the process of losing money. Isn't it curious that emphasis is placed upon Loral's financial situation while an important factor about the PRC's furnishing key weaponry to Iran is excluded in the final memorandum? The decision by the President to grant that waiver is further suspect because the chief executive officer of Loral, Mr. Bernard Schwartz, had made a contribution to the President's campaign of some $1.5 million, and the chief executive officer of Hughes, Mr. C. Michael Armstrong, was the chairman of the President's export council actively lobbying on these issues, raising a very serious issue of a potential conflict of interest. In the face of activity of this sort, it is my view that it is indispensable that the Congress maintain close oversight on what the executive branch is doing. It is my view that it is indispensable for Congress to maintain close oversight on the effort by the administration now to grant permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. The preferable course, by far, in my view, is for Congress to make a year-by-year analysis as to what is happening so we can exert the maximum pressure on the People's Republic of China and not delegate to the President broader authority to initiate action which will grant permanent trade status to China so there is no opportunity for the Congress to impose leverage to try to secure China's compliance with their international commitments. As a result of the large campaign contribution, $1.5 million from Mr. Schwartz, the special counsel retained by the Department of Justice to evaluate the campaign finance issue, Charles LaBella, recommended to the Attorney General that an independent counsel be appointed. One of the reasons cited by Mr. LaBella for the need for independent counsel was the contribution made by Mr. Schwartz. That reason, among many other reasons, was forwarded by Mr. LaBella to the Attorney General, along with a strong recommendation by the Director of the FBI that independent counsel be appointed. Notwithstanding those strong recommendations, the Attorney General declined to appoint independent counsel on a complex subject which has been the matter of extensive hearings by the Judiciary subcommittee, which I chair, on Department of Justice oversight. It is an extraordinarily difficult matter to pursue the executive branch to find the facts so the Congress can exercise its constitutional responsibility and authority on oversight. Notwithstanding a subpoena issued by the Judiciary Committee calling for the production of the LaBella report, the report by FBI Director Freeh, and other reports, and all related documents, returnable on April 20, to this day the Department of Justice has not complied with that subpoena. A hearing was held where Mr. LaBella testified about his recommendation for the appointment of independent counsel, including his view--hypothetically stated during the course of the hearing--that there should have been an investigation of Mr. Schwartz, and that where a potential quid pro quo was involved--those were Mr. LaBella's words; and the language of a quid pro quo is the equivalent of bribe language--with the allegation of a bribe, that the President should be investigated as well. Yet no independent counsel was appointed. The Judiciary subcommittee on oversight is pursuing the documents, is pursuing the testimony of FBI Director Freeh. It has recently been disclosed that there are other documents which the Department of Justice has not provided, notwithstanding the return date is almost 1 month old--April 20 to today, May 17--so there will be an application on tomorrow's Judiciary Executive Calendar for a contempt citation as to the Department of Justice. The subpoena is issued; some documents are returned; other documents are not returned; the full scope of the subpoena is ignored. We are trying to find out what happened on many matters, including the grant of a waiver to Loral. It is a long, hard chase to pursue the executive branch. On these stated facts, the question arises inevitably: Is the Clinton administration to be trusted? I am not prepared yet to respond to that question because our investigation is not complete. But I am prepared to say that it is devilishly difficult to pursue the oversight function, that the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, the Judiciary subcommittee, have been led on a merry, meandering chase trying to find answers, trying to find documents, trying to corral witnesses to find out what actually happened in these matters. So when Congress has the authority to decide on normal trade relations as to China, on a year-by-year basis, we ought not to give up that very important, that very powerful prerogative. We ought not to give up on the recommendation of the Clinton administration that China should have it. We ought not to give it to China in the face of their flagrant record of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in the face of the flagrant record by the Clinton administration of not acting with sanctions but even granting affirmative waivers to facilitate the development of Chinese capability for ballistic projection. I believe there is substantial evidence that the People's Republic of China will respond to pressure and to leverage. When we talk about the sanctions, we are talking about something which is really in the hands of the executive branch. But when we talk about granting permanent normal trade relations, that is a power which is in the hands of the Congress. It is very difficult--really impossible--for the Congress to legislate with sufficient specificity to compel the executive branch to impose sanctions. Some of my colleagues are talking about additional legislation. But at the end of every line of public policy, at the end of every line of sanctions, at the end of the rainbow, every time we take up these issues, there is an inevitable grant of authority to the President, as Chief Executive Officer, to grant a waiver under certain circumstances for national security reasons. It is not practical for the Congress to put into place--or at least we have never been able to do it--a set of circumstances which can be predetermined to anticipate every eventuality, to mandate it without giving that kind of discretion to the President. That is why, where we have independent authority, such as granting permanent normal trade relations to China, we ought not to give it up. When we talk about the issue of trusting the administration, trusting the executive branch, I am reminded of President Reagan's comment when dealing with the Soviet Union. There was a lot of wisdom in his comment about ``trust, but verify''--``trust, but verify''--deal with the Soviet Union, make arrangements with the Soviet Union, but verify to see that it is carried out. There may well be an inherent institutional distrust built into the Constitution with the requirement of oversight and with the requirement of checks and balances. Perhaps ``institutional distrust'' is a little strong. But in the context of this record, with what China has done, with what Loral has done, to have a waiver granted under these circumstances certainly requires that there be a determination, at the very minimum, on the part of Congress that if we are to trust, we ought to verify, and we ought not to give up any of our powerful weapons to see to it that the People's Republic of China does not proliferate weapons of mass destruction. In reviewing the efficacy of sanctions, in reviewing the desire of China to have normal trade relations, there was a case involving a librarian from Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA, last year which bears on this issue suggesting that China does respond to pressure, does respond to leverage. The librarian, Yongyi Song, was within 1 month of being sworn in as a naturalized U.S. citizen, having lived in Pennsylvania for some 10 years, prior to the time that he and his wife Helen took a trip to China last August to study the Cultural Revolution. He is a very distinguished Chinese scholar. In August, he was taken into custody by the People's Republic of China on trumped up charges. His wife similarly was taken into custody. She was released. But he remained in custody and on Christmas Eve was charged with a very serious crime. The family came to me, the college came to me, and with a large number of Senate cosponsors, I filed a resolution seeking the immediate release of Yongyi Song on the grounds that he was being detained improperly, illegally, without regard to basic standards of decency and criminal justice protocol. I had a meeting with the Chinese ambassador, and ultimately Yongyi Song was released. There is good reason to believe that the pressure, the leverage had some effect on what activity was taken by the People's Republic of China. The condition of normal trade relations with the United States is an item which is very highly prized by the People's Republic of China. And it is one which we ought to maintain in reserve to evaluate their conduct on a year-by-year basis. It is my view that when you deal with the question of weapons of mass destruction, and when China arms Pakistan, and when China arms Libya, and when China arms Iran, when China arms North Korea, those are matters of much greater consequence than the dollar profit to be gained by greater trade with China. When people say, ``If we don't sell it, somebody else will,'' I respond to that comment emphatically by saying we ought not to sell it. We ought to take a leadership role in the world to try to persuade our allies not to sell it either because the almighty dollar is not worth the risk we run by giving China a free hand to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. If we are to take a cost-benefit ratio relationship, taking a look at our $300 billion defense budget, and apportioning a part to what we have to do with the 7th Fleet in the Taiwan Strait when the People's Republic of China threatens Taiwan and a test missile drops there in their bullying efforts, considering what we have to do by way of defensive efforts, it is a bad deal in dollars and cents for whatever profit we may gain with our trade with the People's Republic of China. Mr. President, the question of human rights is a very important one. The record in China has been deplorable. We have utilized the trade issue to try to impose leverage on China, to try to persuade them to improve their human rights. It is a complex conclusion as to whether, on that issue alone, the people of China might be better off with expanded trade, which would improve the quality of life and living in China, which might move them along the road to democratization which, in the long run, might have an overall beneficial affect on human rights in China. And on a year-by-year basis, I have supported granting most-favored-nation status. In light of the developments on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, I am not sure that even that ought to be done on a year-by-year basis. When we take a look at the violation of human rights, including religious persecution by the People's Republic of China, it is deplorable. Last September, police instructed 12 underground Catholic Church leaders in Wenzhou to go to a hotel where they were pressured to join the official Catholic Church. On October 18, last year, police disrupted services at two of Guangzhou's most prominent house churches. One of the pastors, Li Dexian, and his wife were detained, and his church was ransacked by the police. On August 24, 1999, 40 house church members were arrested, and the church leaders were sentenced to 1 to 3 years in a reeducation-through-labor camp. Other items are cited, which I will have introduced into the Record at the close of my statement. The issue of religious persecution in China is overwhelming. In 1997, I introduced S. 772, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, and later joined with Senator Nickles in structuring legislation, which became law on October 27, 1997, the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. I make reference to that during the course of these remarks to point out the problems of violation of human rights. It happens again and again and again--repressive action taken by the People's Republic of China. That is a factor which should weigh heavily in our consideration of granting of trade relations to the People's Republic of China. When I visited the Ambassador, talking about the case of the Dickinson librarian, I received a lecture about not meddling in internal Chinese affairs. I responded with a short lecture of my own about human rights and about the appropriate process of decency in dealing with criminal matters as a matter of balance, noting that we in the United States have great respect for the 1.2 billion people in China. The Ambassador quickly corrected me, pointing out that there are 1.250 billion people in the People's Republic of China. I overlooked 50 million, and perhaps the number had grown during the course of our conversation. There is no doubt that China is the upcoming colossus of the world, the dominant power, and that we are going to have to be very, very careful. In conclusion--perhaps the two most popular words in any speech--I believe that we have to give very sober consideration to the totality of our relationship with the People's Republic of China. In commenting about a nation of 1.250 billion people, with their potential, it is no doubt that they are becoming a superpower, if they are not already a superpower. They may become the dominant superpower with that kind of a population. When they are throwing their weight around by selling weapons of mass destruction to the likes of North Korea, Libya, and Iran, and selling missiles to Pakistan, which threatened world peace with the nuclear exchange between Pakistan and Iran, the United States ought to retain all the leverage and pressure that it can. The facts are that we cannot rely upon the Clinton administration to do that. It may be that, institutionally, we cannot rely upon any administration to do that and, institutionally, the Constitution gives oversight authority to the Congress, and the checks and balances in the Constitution require that we maintain leverage and see to it that the national interests of the United States are maintained. That is a constitutional responsibility of the Congress. And it is in that context, from what I have seen on proliferation as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the dereliction I have seen in my chairmanship of the oversight committee of the Department of Justice, that I urge my colleagues to vote against the granting of permanent trade relations to the People's Republic of China. My eight years on the Senate Intelligence Committee including the chairmanship in 1995 and 1996 and my current chairmanship of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Department of Justice oversight have convinced me that the People's Republic of China (PRC) threatens world peace by flagrantly proliferating weapons of mass destruction to countries like Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and Libya. The Clinton Administration has not only deliberately refused to impose mandated sanctions but has also granted unwarranted waivers facilitating technology transfers to enhance the PRC's missile capabilities. As noted in the New York Times article entitled ``Clinton Argues for `Flexibility' Over Sanctions'' on April 28, 1998, President Clinton admitted that U.S. sanction laws have put ``enormous pressure on whoever is in the Executive Branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of whatever is going . . .'' Congress should assert its constitutional oversight and checks and balances on Executive Branch excesses by retaining annual review of trade with China to influence the PRC to honor its non-proliferation obligations and conform to fundamental standards of civility and decency in the community of nations. With regards to the PRC and matters of proliferation, the essential facts are: According to the unclassified extract of the classified National Intelligence Estimate of September 1999, the PRC sold M-11 missiles to Pakistan in November 1992, which are now pointed at India armed with nuclear weapons causing or contributing to the threat of nuclear war between those two countries. The PRC has supplied Iran with ballistic and cruise missiles and technology for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service entitled ``Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Current Policy Issues,'' dated April 13, 2000. PRC has assisted North Korea's missile program by providing specialty steel, accelerometers, gyroscopes, and precision grinding machinery, as also noted in the ``Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Current Policy Issues'' CRS report. The PRC is providing assistance to Libya's long-range missile program by assisting in the building of a hypersonic wind tunnel which is useful for designing missiles, and cooperating in the development of Libya's Al Fatah missile, which has a range of 600 miles, according to the CRS report entitled ``Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Current Policy Issues.'' The PRC's transfer of M-11 missiles to Pakistan falls under Category I of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). According to the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Nonproliferation, Category I of the MTCR applies to ``complete missile systems, as well as major systems . . .'' as noted in the February 8, 2000 Fact Sheet entitled ``Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).'' Where there has been a Category I violation, the 1991 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 101-510) mandates the President to deny, for a period of not less than two years, licenses such as the licenses for the technology transferred to the PRC by Hughes Space and Communications, Inc. and Loral Electronics to the PRC, as specified herein. On December 21, 1992, a Chinese Long March 2E rocket carrying the Hughes-manufactured Optus B2 Satellite crashed shortly after takeoff. Without obtaining the required State Department license, Hughes personnel engaged in a series of discussions with Chinese officials in 1993 and 1994 regarding improvements in the fairing (nose cone) of the Long March 2E rocket which resulted in changes. These events were clearly outlined in Volume II of the Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, also known as the Cox Report. On January 26, 1995, a Chinese Long March 2E rocket carrying the Hughes Apstar 2 satellite exploded approximately 50 seconds after takeoff. A 1998 State Department assessment concluded that, in working with the Chinese to address the cause of the failure, ``Hughes directly supported the Chinese space program in the areas of anomaly analysis/ accident investigation, telemetry analysis, coupled load analysis, hardware design and manufacturing, testing, and weather analysis,'' as noted in the Cox Report. The Cox Committee reviewed the Hughes launches and failure analysis and concluded that further inquiry should be conducted to determine: first, that the kind of information that may have been passed to the PRC beyond what has been revealed by Hughes; second, the application, if any, of coupled loads analysis to improving PRC ballistic missiles; and third, the likelihood that the PRC will in fact incorporate this know-how into their future missile and space programs. Additionally, I was informed in a letter from Wilma Lewis, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia on May 10, 2000, that the Department of Justice, including the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, has undertaken a criminal investigation of the 1995 failed launch as part of an investigation of a 1996 launch failure analysis involving both Loral and Hughes, but no prosecution decisions have been made even though the statute of limitations has expired on the January 26, 1995 launch and crash. As outlined in the Cox Report, on February 15, 1996, the PRC's Long March 3B missile exploded with a communication satellite on board which was built by Loral. Following this explosion, Loral and Hughes transmitted to the PRC their assessments of why the rockets failed which assessment required a prior license from the State Department. As noted in the Cox report, in May, 1997, a classified Department of Defense report concluded that Loral and Hughes significantly enhanced the guidance and control systems of the PRC's nuclear ballistic missiles. Following the DoD Report, the Department of Justice began a criminal investigation of Loral and Hughes. Then, Loral applied for a waiver from the Clinton Administration to launch another satellite from a Chinese rocket. Bernard Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of Loral, contributed approximately $1,500,000 to President Clinton's 1996 campaign. C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman of Hughes, who lobbied the Administration against sanctions and for expansion of satellite exports to China, had a potential conflict of interest from his contemporaneous service as Chairman of the President Clinton's Export Advisory Council. A January 1998 draft memorandum from National Security Samuel R. Berger to the President regarding the Loral waiver included the issue of the PRC transfers to Iran of C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles. The Internal State Department correspondence dated December 3, 1997 noted that: ``In light of our ongoing review of China's transfers to Iran of C-802 missiles, you should be aware that if a determination were made triggering sanctions under the Iran-Iraq Nonproliferation Act, the sanctions might prohibit the export of satellites licensed but not yet exported.'' The final memorandum from Mr. Berger to the President on February 12, 1998 did not include the concerns of the Department of State regarding the PRC's transfers to Iran. As clearly noted in Maureen Tucker's memorandum for Samuel Berger, entitled ``Request for Presidential National Interest Waiver for Chinasat-8 Communications Satellite Project,'' of January 30, 1998, the Department of Justice through a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, objected to a presidential grant of that waiver on the grounds that ``a national interest waiver in this case could have a significant adverse impact on any prosecution that might take place based on a pending investigation of export violations by Loral,'' according to the memorandum for the President from Samuel L. Berger, Larry Stein, and Daniel K. Tarullo entitled ``Request for Presidential National Interest Waiver for Chinasat 8 Communications Satellite Project,'' dated February 12, 1998. As I was informed in a letter from Wilma Lewis, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia on May 10, 2000, Main Justice, in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia, has been investigating the Loral/Hughes matters for three years with only two, sometimes one, attorney(s) assigned to the case. On May 4, 2000, the Judiciary Subcommittee requested a briefing from Mr. Berger, and was later advised that he would not be available until June 13th. By letter dated May 11, 2000, the Judiciary Subcommittee requested the briefing before Mr. Berger's scheduled departure from the United States on May 16th so the briefing would occur before the Congressional votes on PNTR. The request was rejected. Without drawing any conclusions at this stage, questions are obviously raised by the long delays in the Department of Justice investigation of Hughes and Loral, including allowing the statute of limitations to run on the January 26, 1995 explosion of the Hughes satellite, the limited resources devoted to the Hughes/Loral investigation and the issue of possible undue influence by Mr. Schwartz or Mr. Armstrong. A further question arises as to whether the delays by the Clinton Administration seek to defer answers on these sensitive issues until after the PNTR Congressional votes. Perhaps the Department of Justice will satisfactorily answer these questions even though the Attorney General rejected the recommendation of Charles G. LaBella, Esquire, for the appointment of Independent Counsel on the President and Mr. Schwartz on Mr. Schwartz's contribution. If not, Congressional oversight should seek answers including Mr. Berger's decision to omit the Department of State concerns on the PRC transfers to Iran of C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles from the final memorandum to the President. Even without answers to those questions, the record is clear that the PRC has been guilty of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the Clinton Administration has not only not acted to stop that proliferation, but has assisted with the grant of the Loral waiver. For those who look to profits from increased trade with the PRC, what is the cost/benefit ratio of building, maintaining and sending the 7th Fleet to the Taiwan Strait with the added profits from increased China trade? As a matter of basic morality, the U.S. should not engage in such a balancing test or even consider rewarding the PRC's aggressive tactics. But to those who look to trade profits, let them draw the balance sheet and apportion the appropriate part of the $300 billion Defense budget to the PRC's threat to Taiwan. While hard to calculate, it very likely costs U.S. taxpayers a great deal more than U.S. consumers would benefit from cheaper Chinese goods. But, more importantly, it is not the right thing to do.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to speak about an incident that has sent shock waves throughout the conscience of our Nation. On April 28th, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, five of my constituents were brutally murdered and one critically injured in what seems to be a hate crime. Reports indicate that the perpetrator actively and methodically sought out his minority victims during the 72-minute rampage. The victims of this brutal rampage were a 63-year- old Jewish woman, a 31-year-old man of Indian descent, a 22-year-old African-American student, a 27-year-old Vietnamese man, and a 34-year- old Chinese-American man. In addition to the five people killed, another 25-year-old man of Indian descent was shot in the neck and critically injured. The alleged killer also fired rounds at two synagogues and spray-painted the word ``Jew'' and two swastikas on the wall of one of them. The alleged murderer was arraigned on five counts of homicide, seven counts of ethnic intimidation, three counts of criminal mischief, two counts each of arson and institutional vandalism and one count each of attempted homicide, firearms violations, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. This senseless rampage that left five people dead and one in critical condition poses some of the most important and vexing law enforcement challenges currently facing our Nation. Such heinous hate-filled acts of violence divide our communities, intimidate our citizens, and poison our collective spirit. While our hearts are grieving for those who have lost loved ones, we must try and find some consolation by using this atrocity to send a strong message that hate crimes will not be tolerated. Such vicious attacks are a form of terrorism that threaten the entire Nation and undermine the ideals on which we were founded. I am a principal sponsor of S. 622, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. I was the District Attorney in Philadelphia for eight years and I did not like Federal encroachment on State jurisdiction--but there are some instances when Federal intervention is necessary. Some of the ugliest instances of violence in our nation have been motivated by hatred based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and disability. It is in the case where it is plain that it was a hate crime situation--in these extremely usual situations, the I believe Federal authority ought to be present where it is necessary. I know that there are those that are concerned about the expansion of Federal jurisdiction, which is something that we should be very careful about. It is with this very concern in mind that this legislation has been narrowly tailored to target a very, very important area--it has been done with a scalpel and not a meat axe. We need to let people out there know that if the crime is bad enough and the local prosecutors won't act that there is a Federal authority to come in where absolutely necessary. Current law, 18 United States Code, Section 245, permits federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by bias based on race, religion, national origin, or color and the assailant intended to prevent the victim from exercising a ``federally protected right.'' These activities are: (A) enrolling in or attending a public school or public college; (B) participating in or enjoying a service, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any state or local government; (C) applying for or enjoying employment; (D) serving in a state court as a grand or petit juror; (E) traveling in or using a facility of interstate commerce; and (F) enjoying the goods or services of certain places of public accommodation. The statute's dual requirement that the government has to prove that the defendant committed an offense not only because of the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin, but also because of the victim's participation in one of six narrowly defined ``federally protected activities'' substantially limits the potential for federal prosecution of hate crimes, even when the crime is particularly heinous. The Hate Crime Prevention Act will make it easier for the Federal government to successfully prosecute ate crimes by amending current law to eliminate the dual requirement and by expanding the list groups entitled to protection under Federal law to include women, homosexuals and the disabled. Under this bill, hate crimes that cause death or bodily injury can be investigated federally, regardless of whether the victim was exercising a federally protected right. In cases involving violent hate crimes based on the victims gender, sexual orientation, or disability, the bill would make it a Federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury to any person, or attempt to do so through use of a firearm or explosive device, whenever the incident affected or involved interstate commerce. No longer would Federal criminal civil rights jurisdiction hinge upon whether a racial murder occurs on a public sidewalk versus a private parking lot. No longer would the Federal government be without the power to work with State and local officials in the investigation and prosecution of a racist who targets and assaults an African American. Criminals will no longer be able to evade Federal prosecution simply because their victims were not enrolling in a public school, using a place of public accommodation, or participating in any of the six federally protected activities at the time they were assaulted. Mr. President, this is a bill that is narrowly tailored to reach only the most egregious forms of hate crimes. It is important to note that this bill does not impact issues such as job discrimination, political speech or graffiti. America is the great melting pot. People of different races, religion, and creed join together from all around the globe seeking freedom--religious freedom, political freedom and economic freedom. But unfortunately in our society today there are those who harbor animus towards others because of the color of their skin or the church they attend. Few crimes tear more deeply at the fabric of our Nation than crimes motivated by such hatred. We must continue to work towards freeing our Nation from such violence, discrimination, hatred, and bigotry through education and public awareness. However, while we work towards this goal we must ensure that each and every American is protected from crimes based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would reinstate and extend the deadline for construction of a Pennsylvania hydroelectric power project. This extension is necessary because the Potter Township Power Authority (Project No. 7041) will lose their license from the Federal Regulatory Commission under Section 13 of the Power Act. On many occasions, the Congress has granted similar noncontroversial extensions to licensees for projects in other states. This legislation would provide additional time for the municipal licensees to conclude their negotiations with the potential power purchasers. In introducing this legislation, I am not expressing any personal views on whether the projects should go forward or on how the projects should be funded; that is clearly the responsibility of the municipal licensees and the residents of the township. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would reinstate and extend the deadline for construction of a Pennsylvania hydroelectric power project. This extension is necessary because the Potter Township Power Authority (Project No. 7041) will lose their license from the Federal Regulatory Commission under Section 13 of the Power Act. On many occasions, the Congress has granted similar noncontroversial extensions to licensees for projects in other states. This legislation would provide additional time for the municipal licensees to conclude their negotiations with the potential power purchasers. In introducing this legislation, I am not expressing any personal views on whether the projects should go forward or on how the projects should be funded; that is clearly the responsibility of the municipal licensees and the residents of the township. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce five bills that will suspend import tariffs for three years on five chemicals used in the manufacturing of crop protection agents, Triazamate, Dichloro- toluene, Aminomethylpentyne, Fenbuconazole, and Methoxyfenozide. These chemicals are imported by Rohm and Haas Company, a multinational manufacturer of specialty chemicals headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Tariffs on these products are not needed to protect American industry since these chemicals are not manufactured in the United States. Moreover, these chemicals have no other commercial end uses other than in the manufacture of pesticides used in agricultural applications. The revenue which would be forgone as a result of the proposed suspension of duty on these chemicals is minimal and has been estimated at less than $227,000 per chemical over the entire period of the suspension. These end products, used on farms around the globe, are considered important tools in the advancement of agriculture. They protect crops such as fruits, nuts, vegetables, grain and cotton, against fungal infections, weeds, agricultural mites, and insects. By providing adequate protection for these crops, farmers are able to market healthy produce and grains, while commanding the best prices for their goods. Established over 90 years ago, Rohm and Haas Company has grown to become one of the world's largest manufacturers of specialty chemicals. With 21,000 employees worldwide, the Company continues to maintain a significant presence throughout Pennsylvania, with research facilities in Newtown, Reading, and Spring House. Additionally, Rohm and Haas Company provides grants which support many community organizations active in the delivery of health and human services, education, and civic and community improvement. In consideration of the positive impact Rohm and Haas Company has on the global and local communities, I urge my colleagues to support these bills which will suspend the duties on the import of these chemicals.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce five bills that will suspend import tariffs for three years on five chemicals used in the manufacturing of crop protection agents, Triazamate, Dichloro- toluene, Aminomethylpentyne, Fenbuconazole, and Methoxyfenozide. These chemicals are imported by Rohm and Haas Company, a multinational manufacturer of specialty chemicals headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Tariffs on these products are not needed to protect American industry since these chemicals are not manufactured in the United States. Moreover, these chemicals have no other commercial end uses other than in the manufacture of pesticides used in agricultural applications. The revenue which would be forgone as a result of the proposed suspension of duty on these chemicals is minimal and has been estimated at less than $227,000 per chemical over the entire period of the suspension. These end products, used on farms around the globe, are considered important tools in the advancement of agriculture. They protect crops such as fruits, nuts, vegetables, grain and cotton, against fungal infections, weeds, agricultural mites, and insects. By providing adequate protection for these crops, farmers are able to market healthy produce and grains, while commanding the best prices for their goods. Established over 90 years ago, Rohm and Haas Company has grown to become one of the world's largest manufacturers of specialty chemicals. With 21,000 employees worldwide, the Company continues to maintain a significant presence throughout Pennsylvania, with research facilities in Newtown, Reading, and Spring House. Additionally, Rohm and Haas Company provides grants which support many community organizations active in the delivery of health and human services, education, and civic and community improvement. In consideration of the positive impact Rohm and Haas Company has on the global and local communities, I urge my colleagues to support these bills which will suspend the duties on the import of these chemicals.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for yielding me a few moments this morning.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, those letters set forth in some greater detail the way those hearings can be expedited. When the Million Man March occurred in 1998 in New York City, the Federal court ruled on August 26, and the court of appeals took it up on September 1 and issued a 9-page opinion the same day. In the Pentagon papers case, only 18 days elapsed from the publication of the papers until the case went through the district court, the court of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. I renew my suggestion to the Department of Justice to expedite those proceedings. Ultimately, Elian will be returned with his father to wherever they choose to go. I hope they will stay in the United States, but that is a matter for the Gonzalezes to determine. Juan Miguel Gonzalez is the father, having parental responsibility for the child, but these are issues as to the use of this extraordinary force and what should be institutionalized in the Department of Justice, which I think the Congress should look into in oversight hearings, not to attach any blame but to improve procedures and approaches for the future. Again I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, April 21, 2000. Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Reno: I am deeply concerned about reports in today's media that you may initiate action through Federal law enforcement agencies to take Elian Gonzales from the residence of his relatives in Miami and return him to his father. My concern arises from the experience at Ruby Ridge, a subject on which I chaired Judiciary Subcommittee hearings and also on the Waco incident, on which I am now chairing a Judiciary Subcommittee on Department of Justice oversight. In advance of any such action there are a number of alternatives which could be pursued. For example, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit could be asked to expedite the appeals process. There are many precedents for prompt, expedited Circuit Court action such as that taken by the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on the Million Man March case in 1998. There, the District Court, by order dated August 26, 1998, allowed the March for September 5 and the Circuit Court heard arguments on September 1, 1998 and issued a written opinion the same day. Another option would be to ask the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to hear the case en banc which could be accomplished very promptly. Yet another option is to ask the Supreme Court of the United States to take the case and hear it on an expedited basis which that Court has the authority to do at any time. The Pentagon Papers were published on June 12, 1971. The District Court issued a decision on June 19, the 2nd Circuit heard the case on June 22 and decided the case on June 23. The Supreme Court heard arguments on June 26 and decided the case on June 30, 1971. In a case involving the Iranian hostages, the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court for the United States for certification before judgment on June 10, 1981. The Supreme Court granted the request on June 11, ordered briefs within one week, heard arguments on June 24 and decided the case on July 2, 1981. There is good reason to believe that the order of the 11th Circuit three-judge panel will be reversed for a number of reasons. One glaring error is that there is no basis for asylum for Elian Gonzales since that relief is granted when the individual faces persecution or some prospective ill treatment upon his return, which is certainly not the case with young Elian. If returned to Cuba, he will be the subject of adulation, not mistreatment. Before resorting to action to take Elian from his Miami relatives, I urge you to seek a judicial order from the United States District Court authorizing such action by the Department of Justice. While perhaps not technically necessary, such an order might well be persuasive enough for the Miami relatives to turn Elian over voluntarily. Such an order may also be persuasive so that others would not impede Department of Justice action to take Elian from his Miami relatives. I am sending a copy of this letter to the President, and I am sending you a copy of a letter I am writing to him. Sincerely, Arlen Specter.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on the case involving young Elian Gonzalez. At 11 o'clock this morning, Senator Lott has scheduled a closed-door proceeding with Attorney General Reno, and there are a number of important outstanding questions which, in my view, should be addressed. At the outset, let me make it plain that I believe and have believed that young 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez should have been reunited with his father at the earliest possible time. I believe that as a legal matter there is no real justification for any asylum proceeding to keep young Elian Gonzalez in the United States. The purpose of asylum is to protect an alien from going back to a country where he or she will be persecuted. That certainly is not the case with Elian Gonzalez. He would be adulated. Nonetheless, I believe there are some very serious issues which have arisen that the Congress ought to address, and the most prominent of those is the manner in which Elian Gonzalez was taken into custody. In my opinion, there were less intrusive ways in which that could have been accomplished. The Immigration and Naturalization Service said that they proceeded at 5 a.m. because they did not want to have any interference from the crowd. The avoidance of interference from the crowd could have been accomplished at high noon if the crowd were to have been moved back several blocks, which is customary where people have a right to demonstrate, people have a right to express themselves, but they do not have the right to do it right at the location where there may be other interests which have to be preserved. Had the crowd been several blocks away, there would have been no difficulty in taking whatever action was deemed appropriate without the risk of having a problem with the crowd. Once the Immigration and Naturalization Service agents were directed to move in to take custody of young Elian, they had been armed to protect themselves. But the action necessitating their being armed had very great potential for violence. It was a potential powder keg. Fortunately, there were no serious injuries. But there could have been. And it is my view that there ought to be a look by the Congress at ways to improve these procedures in the future. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Garner v. Tennessee, issued a ruling involving a Tennessee statute which involved law enforcement officers using deadly force against a fleeing felon even if that felon was unarmed. The Supreme Court of the United States held that this statute was unconstitutional because deadly force may not be used unless it is to save lives or avoid grievous bodily injury. Now, the problem with what was done by the INS in moving in with drawn weapons at 5 a.m. was that it could have triggered a chain reaction which could have led to violence. And there was really no necessity. They were not dealing with the customary INS case where they have a suspected terrorist or a violent criminal. This is not a John Dillinger who has to be taken into custody. That matter could have waited another day. When I read the morning papers last Friday that the Department of Justice was considering moving in to take young Elian Gonzalez, I wrote to both the Attorney General and the President and expressed the view that there were a number of less intrusive alternatives which could have been undertaken. And I pressed hard at that time for them to have a court order. When the President said the Federal court ordered Elian Gonzalez taken into custody, that is not correct. The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit specifically refused to decide and declined to issue an order requested by the Department of Justice to have the uncle turn over Elian to INS so he could be turned over to the father. The district court did not deal with the custody issue either, but only decided that if there were to be an application for asylum, the proper person to make that was the father and not the uncle. On this state of the record, there is a very serious legal issue as to what authority the INS had to take Elian into custody. They certainly were not going to take him into custody to deport him because there was an order of the circuit court prohibiting that until the circuit court had decided the case. There is, in my opinion, a need for Congress to take a look at another issue. The Department of Justice, regrettably, does not have a good record at Ruby Ridge or at Waco. I chaired the subcommittee hearings on Ruby Ridge which led to a change in the FBI rules on use of deadly force and currently am chairing a special task force of a subcommittee looking into Waco. In the context of what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco and what happened with the potential powder keg in Miami last Saturday morning, it is my view the Congress ought to consider institutionalizing some permanent unit within the Department of Justice. The raid, which was conducted at 5 a.m., has the potential--and it is hard to determine--of leaving very deep scars on young Elian Gonzalez. When it occurred, the question came into my mind as to why the father was not at the scene, if not present at the house, but close to the scene to assist in soothing young Elian. I think the entire matter could have been avoided had the crowd been cleared, had there been a court order, had the Government taken up the representation of the uncle's lawyer that Elian would be peacefully turned over. In the interim, it is my hope that the proceedings in Federal court will be expedited. I ask unanimous consent that the letters I wrote to Attorney General Reno and President Clinton be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Vermont for that statement. I want to be sure I have his commitment he will not bring back a conference report to this floor which would water down in any way the bill which came out of his committee yesterday.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my friend from Vermont, and I thank my colleague from West Virginia, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have a very brief colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Vermont from the Committee on Labor, Health, Education and Pensions. It had been anticipated there would be a unanimous consent request to move forward on legislation on organ transplants which came out of the Labor Committee yesterday on a unanimous vote. I had been deeply involved in that matter when the issue came before the conference on the appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. We had crafted, after a great deal of controversy, a resolution where the Secretary of Health and Human Services came especially to an evening session and we worked out what I thought were the final details on the settlement. But as I think George Shultz said, nothing is ever settled in Washington and the matter has seen a new birth. The issue came before the Labor Committee and they have crafted a new proposal. I had intended to object. It now appears that others will object and the matter will not come forward. I thought it useful to have a colloquy with Senator Jeffords where I would not raise an objection on his assurance that out of the conference the bill of the Labor Committee would not be watered down any more. That is a minimal consideration for fairness in organ transplants. In my judgment, no bill would be better than any bill which is less than the one which is out of committee. My own personal view is that the compromise crafted in my subcommittee on appropriations on that bill is a superior approach, but I did see the wave moving toward what happened in the Labor Committee yesterday. Therefore, I will not raise an objection on the assurance from the chairman that that bill will not be reduced, modified, or weakened in any way in conference.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in honor of their reunion to be held this month, I am pleased to call the Senate's attention to honor the crew of U.S.S. J. William Ditter who served during World War II. I commend the dedication and courage of that crew of the minelayer named in honor of former Pennsylvania Congressman J. William Ditter. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 5, 1888, J. William Ditter received his law degree from Temple University in 1913 and was admitted to the bar the same year. As a school teacher and baseball coach at Northeast High School from 1912 until 1925, one of Coach Ditter's team members was Jimmy Dykes, who later went on to become Connie Mack's star third baseman during the Philadelphia Athletics' glory years in the nineteen-thirties. Less famous, but equally important were the hundreds of young men and women who studied at Northeast High under ``Doc'' Ditter's tutelage. They constantly sought his advice and retained their affection for him in the years that followed. In 1925, Mr. Ditter moved to Montgomery County, where he practiced law and became an active member of his church and community. In 1932, Montgomery County was made a separate Congressional district and Mr. Ditter was elected to serve as its first Representative. As a member of the House of Representatives, he quickly became known for his tireless work, dedication to our country, and consummate skill in debate. Congressman Ditter took a prominent role in defeating President Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to pack the Supreme Court in order to insure that New Deal legislation would not be declared unconstitutional. As the Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Naval Affairs, he led the fight to establish a two- ocean Navy. The success of the Navy in World War II, including the ship which was named after him, was due in part to the leadership and dedication of Congressman J. William Ditter. In recognition of his leadership, Bill Ditter was selected to be the Chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, a post he held until his death in 1943. While in Congress, Mr. Ditter explained his positions on public affairs by writing a weekly newspaper column, Trend of Events. During his years in Congress, he was much in demand as a public speaker, not only in Montgomery County but throughout the state and nation. Congressman Ditter's political career was cut short by his untimely death in a Navy plane crash near Columbia, Pennsylvania. He was returning from Boston where he had been on a trip to participate in the commissioning of the Navy's new carrier, U.S.S. Wasp. Among the many dignitaries who attended his funeral were former President Herbert C. Hoover, a close, personal friend and my colleague Senator McCain's grandfather Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., Commander of Carrier Task Force 38. Congressman Ditter was buried with military honors at Whitemarsh Memorial Cemetery. In light of his distinguished service to our nation, the Navy named a destroyer-mine layer in his honor, U.S.S. J. William Ditter (DM 31). U.S.S. J. William Ditter was a fitting tribute to Congressman Ditter. The Sumner class destroyer, which was converted to a high speed mine layer, was christened by Mrs. J. William Ditter on July 4, 1944. It was commissioned on October 28, 1944, and served as a unit of Division 9, Mine Squadron 3. Congressman Ditter's dedication and service to his country was mirrored by the actions of the men on U.S.S. J. William Ditter. The ``Fighting J. Willy'', as the crew called the mine layer, destroyed many Japanese suicide aircraft and boats during its years of service. The end of April marks the fifty-fifth anniversary of the brave actions of the crew in the early days of the operations in Okinawa. U.S.S. J. William Ditter greatly contributed to the success of the first landings on April 1, 1945 by escorting transport ships carrying American invasion forces. On April 12, U.S.S. J. William Ditter joined the radar picket line to protect ships against attacking Japanese aircraft. On April 26, U.S.S. J. William Ditter drove off an attacking enemy aircraft, and on April 27, the crew helped to down two enemy aircraft. On April 28, the crew shot down an attacking suicide aircraft and combined its fire with another ship in order to shoot down two other hostile aircraft. On April 29, the crew detected and attacked an enemy submarine. By May 28, 1945, U.S.S. J. William Ditter had shot down eight Japanese aircraft and assisted in destroying three others. On June 6, 1945, in the radar picket line of Task Force 51.5 patrolling southeast of Nakagusukua Wan, U.S.S. J. William Ditter shot down four. However, one suicide plane hit U.S.S. J. William Ditter, inflicting heavy damage and numerous casualties. Ten men were killed and twenty-seven were wounded on that fateful day. Although the ship was repaired enough to make it home to the United States, it was decommissioned and struck from the Navy's fleet when the war ended. Despite the short term of service, U.S.S. J. William Ditter had a distinguished war record, keeping in honor with the person for whom the ship was named--Congressman J. William Ditter. The crew deserves special recognition for their service, and I am pleased to be able to commend them on the floor of the United States Senate. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of the names of the crew members who served on U.S.S. J. William Ditter. As an addendum, I think it is appropriate to note the distinguished public service of Congressman Ditter's son, J. William Ditter, Jr., who is a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where I knew him as a practicing attorney in that court. There being no objections, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Crew of the U.S.S. ``J. William Ditter'' Anthony R. Amoroso, Robert Amoroso, James D. Anderson, Harold W. Andrews, James Carlton Annis, Bernard Appelbaum, Armin Argullin, Hans Arnbel, Thomas E. Ates, Lester Bailey, Hayden B. Baker, Harold G. Baker, Robert A. Baker, John L. Balog, Archie Y. Barhardt, Jack L. Bates, Lester E. Bausch, Bruce J. Baxter, Jr., George William Baxter, Robert W. Beale, Bertram D. Bekemeyer, Stefan Belajsak, Loyd D. Benton, Harold L. Berger, Frederick Binder, Coy Blair, Jr., Martin Block, Jr., James O. Blow, Ronald Clarence Blucher, Tyrus Augustus Bohler, Joshua G. Bosley, Jr., Oscar S. Bowden, Joseph E. Brackett, Charles F. Bradley, Grady H. Bradley, William I. Bradley, Cameron C. Breedlove, John E. Brennan, Wallace C. Brought, Jr., Robert Joseph Bruckbauer, John M. Bryan, Ranson G. Buff, Chester Durward Bullard, Henry A. Bunch, Jacob L. Burkett, William T. Burns, Charles E. Burriss, Joseph F. Burrows, Lester Earl Busby, Jake L. Bynum, Ralph W. Byrd, John P. Byrne, Carl R. Cagle, Jr., Herman Leonard Cain, George Henry Cambria, John R. Carpenter, Melvin Edward Carpenter, Elijah C. Carter, Joseph S. Caruso, Ronald F. Cashin, John W. Caulk, Jr., John G. Chambers, Howard C. Childers, Kenneth H. Chitty, John C. Church, Luke E. Church, Charles H. Clark, James Franklin Clark, Harvey G. Clendenin, James P. Clouse, Kermit T. Cocherham, Walter Fielden Cochran, Otis Elbert Cochran, Frank W. Collins, John I. Colvin, Jack L. Connelly, Eugene C. Cook, Garland V. Cook, Aubrey Bernard Cousins, Alfred R. Cox, James H. Craig, Alton V. Cranfield, Jr., Bruce Alvin Crauswell, Russell B. Crawford, James V. Creasman, John William Crown, Howard J. Cummings, Theodore L. Cunard, Jr., Andrew Joseph Cuneo, John R. Curry, Ralph Ray Curtis, Walter Czarnecki, Doyle O. Daniell, Robert A. Darrah, Franklin Armfield Daughton, Cecil C. Davis, Edward T. Davis, Wilbur A. Davis, Charlie A. Deal, Edward J. Derricott, Charles H. Di Francesco, Battaile Stevenson Dickenson, Ed Lawrence Dickerson, Earl W. Dillon, Philip Dinerstein, Edward P. Domme, Kenneth F. Dommel, Kenneth Cedric Dowell, Elwyn T. Drew, Roland A. Du Sault, Marvin Leroy Dukes, Carl G. Dunn, Francis R. Dymck, Lloyd E. Eagleson, Frank S. Echternach, William L. Eckrote, Charles K. Edmonds, John C. Effner, Keith A. Emerson, Frederick J. Ernst, James E. Erwin, John E. Evans, Ludwig M. Eymann, Theodore Fabey, Warren Harding Fanning, Francis R. Farney, Edward C. Faytak, John Fernandez, Joseph F. Ferriols, Nathan Feuerstwin, Harold R. Fisher, James E. Fleenor, Charly L. Flynn, Urben G. Foley, James Gordon Foley, Melvin L. Ford, Otis Leonard Forehand, Ellis Joseph Foster, Vernon Alfred Frederickson, James L. Freeman, Edward J. Freet, Jr., Dudley V. Frye, Loy J. Gammel, Peter Gardner, R. Giachelti, Travis C. Gilchrist, Robert M. Glover, Sherman L. Goggins, George E. Gold, Lawrence J. Gordon, Eugene Franklin Graves, Louis W. Graves, James J. Greenwood, Elbert Gregory, Alderman Lewis Griffis, Stephen Grigos, Norman A. Gross, James Hasil Grubbs, Jr., William Franklin Gurkin, Jr., Anthony M. Gurnari, Harvey E. Hall, Lawrence Ray Hamilton, Kelse J. Hamlin, Vaughn L. Hanson, Lester L. Hardy, Leo C. Harris, Jr., Lester Harris, Thad Harris, Herman D. Hartman, Jr., Arthur H. Hawkins, John B. Hawthorne, Edward J. Haywood, John W. Heafner, Hugh Plonk Heauner, Herbert Kenneth Heim, Donald E. Heiner, Herbert K. Helm, William R. Helms, Sr., Robert A. Herman, Howard L. Herthel, Joe Shafter Higginbotham, Clarence E. Higgs, Richard L. Hinton, Dewey T. Hobgood, Francis J. Hoey, William E. Hoffman, Thomas Alexander Holden, Lester Manford Holladay, Harold Arthur Hollstrom, John L. Holt, Jr., Marvin J. Holtz, Harold G. Holzworth, John Henry Honour, Jr., Clyde E. Hooper, Marvin G. Hoover, Clay T. Houchin, John M. House, Leslie C. Hovis, Jr., James Samuel Hughes, Stanley J. Humphrey, Robert Angelo Iafrate, James Bernard Ingley, James Michael Irwin, Robert Lee Jacobs, Albin Maynard James, James Oscar Jarvis, Lee N. Johnson, Robert R. Johnson, Wilbur N. Johnson, Carl Chesley Johnson, Ralph Ross Johnston, James E. Jones, Walton Hailey Jones, Norman Emmett Jump, Arthur Louis Junker, Henry William Kaiser, James L. Keever, John Y. Keith, Jr., Charles Fenwick Kendall, Raymond F. Kennedy, Galin Kerr, John E. Kirkpatrick, Andrew F. Klacskiewics, Berry L. Knight, James Knowles, Arnold Stuart Knudsen, Arthur J. Koch, Theodore Koch, Hazel L. Kolb, Edward J. Kolenski, George E. Kondas, Joseph G. Krakow, Walter A. Laarser, Kenneth S. Lancaster, Joseph Landers, Charlie M. Langley, William D. Langley, Laurance John Langley, Norman L. Langlois, J. Larney, Nick T. Laudas, Albert F. Lechewicz, Curtis F. Lee, Allan Marley Lee, Sabatino Donato Leo, Albert A. Leuesque, Walter Leuthold, John W. Lewis, Arthur L. Linker, Robert P. Llewellyn, Warren E. Lloyd, Vincent J. Luei, Robert W. Lultrell, Jr., William N. Lynch, William Wallace Lynch, Paul S. Manzone, Elliot G. Mapp, Tony Marcello, Creighton William Marshall, Billy B. Martin, Terrance M. Mason, Russell E. Mattson, Vincent D. McCall, Lloyd A. McCraney, William J. McCrudden, William R. McKay, Jr., George W. McQueen, Joseph A. Mezzanotti, Warren Calvin Milard, Daniel Millard, Joseph A. Minieri, Peter F. Monahan, Martin Mondzak, Richard L. Montgomery, William B. Morgan, Bennie W. Morris, Sr., Henry A. Mueller, John K. Murray, Frank H. Nearing, Norman D. Nipping, Wilbur O. Niven, Lee S. Nordigan, Paul Peace Norris, Donald V. Northrop, Donald W. O'Shaughnessy, Milton P. Orr, Joseph F. Ott, Jr., John Edward Pacheco, Melvin Painter, Paul Gregory Paltakos, Chester Ray Park, Frank A. Patalane, James O'Neal Peatross, Abner Hartfield Perry, Henry R. Peter, Chester G. Polad, Reginald Smith Porter, John G. Porto, Woodrow W. Potter, Albert W. Price, Roy Prince, Nathan Prizer, Theodore F. Profant, Paul C. Raddatz, Jr., Louis H. Rauschenberg, Eugene A. Reese, Albert Reid, Jr., Lucas Reyes, Guy H. Rhodes, Arthur H. Rich, Zerney W. Roberts, Sr., Marvin E. Robinson, Joseph Rus, Claude C. Samples, Anthony Santamaria, Thomas F. Sarafield, Arthur A. Saunders, Elmer G. Schleif, Donald L. Schnurr, William Schoene, Jr., Joseph Schrippe, George Schroeder, Kenneth R. Schwarz, Harry L. Segal, Roland O. Sewing, Earl F. Shank, Earnest L. Shelley, Thomas Wayne Shexhan, James L. Sikes, Paul S. Smith, Hugh Berkley Snyder, Paul Samuel South, Frank A. Spiller, John W. Sprouse, Andrew A. Staske, Brune S. Stee, Alexander A. Steiner, Frank D. Stewart, Randolph T. Stickhouse, Charlie W. Strader, Jacob Straf, Anthon T. Stricklend, Michael J. Strusinski, Joe H. Summerlin, Benar L. Thompson, William Leslie Tiffany, Ben Lyman Titus, Henry Gustav Toepfer, Wykliff N. Tolari, Jack E. Tompkins, James Henry Torian, Warren E. Traak, Clinton A. Trick, Fernando B. Tucker, James L. Turner, Mark C. Turner, William M. Turscanyi, Earl C. Umlsuf, Joseph Valenti, Jess Marnell Van Cleave, George Richard Venerable, William E. Vogel, John P. Walsh, William D. Warner, Helmuth J. Weber, Herbert Roy Weber, Frank William Whitfield, Billy B. Williams, George Willie Wilson, Robert W. Winke, Frederick A. Wirth, Joseph Wozny, James R. Yates, and Carl L. Young.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is true that the budget for three major departments is a large budget. But it is not possible to find $2.7 billion in the budget as proposed, when we have other education programs, where we have other health programs, where we have other labor programs on worker safety. The choice really is up to the Senate; that is, whether they will authorize the $2.7 billion increase, which is what NIH needs to fulfill the commitment already made by the Senate on the unanimous 98-0 vote. A vote in favor of this second-degree amendment is a vote against NIH funding for $2.7 billion. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Harkin.

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

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to add $1.6 billion for NIH funding to fulfill the commitment made by the Senate on the unanimous 98-0 vote to double NIH funding over 5 years. The National Institutes of Health are the crown jewel of the Federal Government. In fact, they are the only jewel of the Federal Government. There will be a second-degree amendment offered that will seek to establish a priority for this money, to take it from somewhere else, which is meaningless. The only way to fund NIH in accordance with the commitment of the Senate is to adopt this amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Harkin, Mack, Dodd, Snowe, Collins, Bingaman, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Breaux, Boxer, Johnson, Graham of Florida, Feinstein, Wellstone, Kennedy, and Durbin. We have gotten a detailed appraisal from NIH as to what they have done with the money. It is being wisely used. It is the most important capital investment for America for the future.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2994.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.