Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. It concerns lawyer Liu Jian who represented the defendant in a criminal case. He found that none of the 37 witnesses he had lined up appeared to testify because of intimidation from the Government. He found himself, a lawyer, in police custody charged with ``illegally obtaining evidence.'' While in custody, he was subjected to beatings and day-long interrogations without food or rest, and he later found his ability to practice law and his license to practice law in jeopardy. It is obviously impossible to have a judicial system that functions without lawyers. The activities of the People's Republic of China have been absolutely reprehensible in this regard. Our resolution calls for relief for Yongyi Song and also calls for an improvement in the judicial system and the treatment of lawyers by the People's Republic of China. Mr. President, this vital legislation would grant Mr. Yongyi Song U.S. citizenship. Mr. Song has been a resident of the United States for the past ten years, has passed his United States citizenship tests, and had been scheduled to be sworn in as a United States citizen in September 1999. However, Mr. Song, a respected researcher and librarian at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA, was detained on August 7, 1999, in Beijing, China while collecting historical documents on the Chinese cultural revolution of the 1960's. After 5 months of detention, Mr. Song was formally ``arrested'' on Christmas Eve in China, on charges of ``the purchase and illegal provision of intelligence to foreign institutions.'' The People's Republic of China claims Mr. Song violated Chinese criminal law by collecting historical documents. However, the documents in Mr. Song's possession have reportedly been previously published in newspapers, books, and other ``open'' sources. The historical material Mr. Song was gathering in no way threatens the security of the Chinese Government or people. The case of Yongyi Song is an affront to basic human rights, an affront to academic freedom and affront to people around the world. The bill that I am introducing today would waive the oath of allegiance and grant Mr. Song immediate citizenship, as Mr. Song passed the INS naturalization test on June 7, 1999. I believe it is vital that Congress become involved in this case: if Mr. Song were a U.S. citizen, the State Department would be in a stronger position to insist on being able to see him while he is being detained, insist on monitoring any trial that may occur, and insist on Mr. Song's right to counsel. Further, U.S. citizenship would afford Mr. Song a better chance of being expelled by the Chinese government after the trial, rather than being forced to serve a prison sentence should the Chinese Government convict him in Chinese court. Mr. Song was a young man in China during the Cultural Revolution and now, at age 50, he is languishing in a Chinese jail as a result of trying to study it. Considering the extremely high conviction rate in the Chinese judicial system, it is very probable that Mr. Song will be convicted despite my commitment to an all-out fight for his freedom and innocence. This case presents an international challenge to academic freedom and the pursuit of truth. While private relief legislation is a last resort that should be used sparingly by the Congress, the urgency and the compelling nature of this situation is one that demands immediate and definitive action. I urge my colleagues to support me in this fight for justice. the yongyi song resolution Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation that will bring attention to a situation which is occurring in the People's Republic of China. On August 7, 1999, Mr. Yongyi Song, a resident of Carlisle, PA, was detained in Beijing, China while collecting historical documents on the Chinese cultural revolution of the 1966-76. Mr. Song works as a researcher and librarian at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA. He is a noted scholar of Chinese cultural history and has authored two books and several articles on the subject. On Christmas eve Mr. Song was formally arrested on charges of ``the purchase and illegal provision of intelligence to foreign institutions.'' Yet, the documents in Mr. Song's possession have reportedly been previously published in newspapers, books and other ``open'' sources. His case is complicated because although Mr. Song has lived in the United States for the past ten years and has passed his citizenship tests, he has not been sworn in as a U.S. citizen. He was scheduled to take the oath of allegiance on September 23, 1999, but was detained by the PRC before he could return home. The case of Yongyi Song is an affront to basic human rights, an affront to academic freedom and an affront to people around the world. The People's Republic of China claims that Mr. Song violated Chinese criminal law by collecting historical documents, yet the documents in Mr. Song's possession have reportedly been previously published in newspapers, books and other ``open'' sources. At a time when the Chinese Government is looking for legitimacy, trying to get into the World Trade Organization and talking about improving its criminal justice system, this is a sharp about face. This legislation I am about to introduce, a Concurrent Resolution, will express the Sense of the Congress that the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) should immediately release from prison and drop all criminal charges against Yongyi Song. Further, it will encourage the PRC to make reforms to their legal system so that criminal defense lawyers are guaranteed fair and professional treatment and encourage the PRC to conduct fair and open court proceedings. In working with Mr. Song's defense team, I have learned about several problems within the Chinese legal system. First, the difficulties criminal defense lawyers face in representing their clients in the People's Republic of China. Over the past several years China has attempted to reform its legal system yet it has not been successful. Police often refuse to let lawyers meet with their clients and lawyers are often not provided with legally guaranteed information they require to competently represent clients. Many times trials are not open to the public or defendants families so that fair treatment of both lawyer and client cannot be accurately ascertained or proven. Additionally, defense lawyers are subject to harassment and interference and at times even arrest and imprisonment by Chinese authorities while defending clients. For example, in July, 1998 Liu Jian, a criminal defense lawyer from Nanjing, China was imprisoned, subjected to beatings and ``marathon'' interrogations after he represented a local official accused of taking bribes. I urge my colleagues to send a sharp message to the People's Republic of China that they immediately release Yongyi Song from prison and drop all charges against him. Further, we should encourage the PRC to provide fair and professional treatment to criminal defense lawyers and work to ensure that more court proceedings are open to the public. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Jan. 6, 2000] In China's Legal Evolution, the Lawyers Are Handcuffed (By Elisabeth Rosenthal) Nanjing, China.--Liu Jian was an idealistic new lawyer when his Nanjing firm sent him to a rural town 200 miles away to represent a local official accused of taking bribes. Stationed in the town, Binhai, he worked round-the-clock doing what defense lawyers do to prepare for trial: interviewing witnesses, examining documents and--when the police would allow--brainstorming with his client. But when the court convened on July 13, 1998, almost none of the 37 witnesses he had lined up appeared to testify. The prosecutor swore and ranted at Mr. Liu, calling him a criminal. And at trial's end, outside Binhai's courthouse, Mr. Liu found himself in police custody, charged with ``illegally obtaining evidence.'' Although legal experts around the country declared his innocence, Mr. Liu spent a nightmarish five months in detention, subjected at times to beatings and daylong interrogations without food or rest. ``I was released on Dec. 11, and I've tried not to have any contact with the criminal law since,'' said Mr. Liu, a thin, serious man with a downtrodden air, whose son was born and whose mother had a heart attack while he was in jail. ``I've really lost confidence in the system.'' Over the past decade, China has tried to overhaul its legal system, training thousands of new lawyers and passing laws that greatly expand their role in criminal cases--for example, for the first time giving defendants in detention the right to a lawyer and allowing lawyers to conduct pretrial investigations. But results have been mixed, especially in the country's vast rural areas, where the police, prosecutors and judges often chafe under the new rules. And China's young lawyers have been at once a tremendous force for change and also frequent victims: byproducts of a new legal system that is far better established on paper than in practice. ``The law has made great advances, but sometimes thinking has not,'' said Li Baoyue, a criminal lawyer who also teaches at Beijing's University of Politics and Law. ``It is going to be a very difficult road ahead to get these new regulations implemented.'' Although it is rare for criminal lawyers to end up in prison, defense lawyers say, it is common for them to suffer a barrage of problems, insults and lesser slights like these: The police often refuse to let lawyers meet their clients in private or in a timely manner, despite a law giving them access within 48 hours. Lawyers are often not provided with legally guaranteed access to court material, like transcripts of confessions, medical examinations and witness lists. Intimidation of witnesses by the local police and prosecutors often leaves lawyers with few people willing to testify. ``Because of these problems, it's sometimes hard to find a lawyer for criminal cases,'' Professor Li said, adding that the work can be dangerous. ``Many lawyers are scared they could become implicated in the case and lose their livelihood.'' Business law is much more lucrative, and safer Gu Yongzhong, a former criminal law specialist in Beijing who now takes on criminal cases only occasionally said: ``For the amount of time it takes to prepare the case, it doesn't pay. And it's very hard to get a not-guilty verdict.'' Lawyers agree that the obstacles are far greater in the rural areas, where the legal training of judges and the police is often poorest. But some problems are more wide- spread, like the difficulty in meting defendants, lawyers said. Defendants in cases that are politically sensitive are rarely granted their legally guaranteed rights. One lawyer said that he had recently spent two weeks trying to met a client detained by the Beijing Public Security Bureau, which repeatedly deflected requests and turned him away at the gates of the detention center before finally allowing the meeting. ``It usually takes some time to get to see your clients,'' Mr. Gu said. ``The law enforcement agencies are not willing at the start because they are worried it will interfere with their investigation. Although it seems to be getting somewhat better lately.'' Unfortunately, experts say, those first days of detention are when some of the worst police abuses occur--when defendants are subjected to aggressive and sometimes brutal interrogation to obtain confessions. Although Chinese law forbids torture, and confessions obtained by torture cannot be used in court, Chinese officials acknowledge that the practice is still relatively common. The use of ``confession by torture remains unchecked,'' said a recent commentary in the official China Youth Daily. ``It is commonplace for citizens to be arbitrarily summoned, forcibly seized, detained and even detained beyond legal time limits, and for citizens whose freedom has been restricted to be treated inhumanely.'' Transcripts of police interrogations with recalcitrant suspects often show breaks in the questioning marked by the words ``Education takes place,'' defense lawyers say. And when the session resumes--voila!--a confession. ``The use of torture to obtain a confession is something defendants often raise, but it puts us in a very delicate situation since we need facts and evidence to back up these claims,'' said Sun Guoxiang, a prominent defense lawyer in Nanjing who helped defend Mr. Liu. ``But it is very hard to gather evidence because it is almost impossible to get access to clients at these times.'' In Mr. Liu's case, the cultures of law and law enforcement repeatedly clashed, as Mr. Liu reminded his captors of his legal rights. Just a high school graduate, Mr. Liu became a lawyer through an arduous self-study law program affiliated with Nanjing University, while working full time designing furniture. The first professional from a poor rural family, Mr. Liu regarded the law with a touch of awe. ``I thought it was a career where I could help people, that had meaning,'' he said. He was admitted to the bar in 1994, when officials in Beijing were writing the new Criminal Procedure Code, which took effect in October 1997. That code allows lawyers to formulate a defense by conducting independent investigations during what prosecutors call the ``investigative period,'' a stage that can last weeks if not months, when a suspect is in detention but has not yet been formally charged. But the police in Binhai had other ideas. On his first trip to Binhai, Mr. Liu said, he and a colleague from his firm were never allowed to see their client, whose wife had retained the firm. When a meeting was finally permitted on a subsequent visit, they were given time only to ``exchange a few words''--and these with the head of the county anticorruption bureau listening. But a week before the trial, a longer meeting took place-- and Mr. Liu discovered huge discrepancies between the bribery charges brought by the prosecutors and the story told by the defendant, who said he had been tortured into confessing. For the next week, Mr. Liu frantically--and aggressively-- sought out witnesses, many of whom contradicted the police and some of whom said they had been threatened by local officials. ``Our impression wasn't that our client was totally innocent,'' Mr. Liu said, ``but we felt that the prosecution needed to provide better evidence to make the charges stand.''

Mr. SPECTER. The thrust of the private relief bill and the concurrent resolution is that they seek relief for Mr. Yongyi Song, who is a librarian at Dickinson College of Carlisle, PA. Mr. Song was detained in Beijing, China, on August 7 of this year and on Christmas Eve was charged with ``the purchase and illegal provision of intelligence to foreign institutions.'' Two days ago, the People's Republic of China announced that Yongyi Song had confessed, which I believe is a representation having absolutely no credibility because Mr. Song has been held in detention for months. Any statements made in that context are inherently coercive, intimidating, and really of no validity at all. The facts are that Yongyi Song is a distinguished and noted scholar who has published extensive works about the Cultural Revolution in China and that he had made a trip to the People's Republic of China earlier this year in order to further his academic research. Then he was taken into custody without cause. The resolution that has been filed calls for the People's Republic of China to release Yongyi Song promptly. It calls for the fair treatment of lawyers in the People's Republic of China so they may practice in a decent manner within their judicial system, and it calls for the People's Republic of China to put into practice the reforms in the judicial system which they have, in fact, adopted on paper but are not putting into effect as a matter of practice. The relationship between the United States Government and the People's Republic of China is a complex one. We have seen repeated incidents by China of flagrant disregard for human rights, and this is another instance. By taking Yongyi Song into custody and holding him in detention without charges, and months later--from August 7 until Christmas Eve--finally filing charges, and then the representation of a confession, which legal experts interpret to mean that they have no case and are doing their best to try to fashion some make-way situation is perhaps the lowest ebb of disregard for human rights and for academic freedom. The resolution will be taken up concurrently in the House of Representatives as well. The bill for naturalization will enable the Government of the United States to take stronger action on behalf of Mr. Song. It will enable our State Department officials, for example, to visit with Yongyi Song, may be instrumental in obtaining the right to counsel, and may be instrumental in obtaining the right to observe any trial which is in process. There has been a marked and serious determination in the activities of the People's Republic of China in their criminal justice system. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks the full text of an article from the New York Times, dated January 6 of this year, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. It concerns lawyer Liu Jian who represented the defendant in a criminal case. He found that none of the 37 witnesses he had lined up appeared to testify because of intimidation from the Government. He found himself, a lawyer, in police custody charged with ``illegally obtaining evidence.'' While in custody, he was subjected to beatings and day-long interrogations without food or rest, and he later found his ability to practice law and his license to practice law in jeopardy. It is obviously impossible to have a judicial system that functions without lawyers. The activities of the People's Republic of China have been absolutely reprehensible in this regard. Our resolution calls for relief for Yongyi Song and also calls for an improvement in the judicial system and the treatment of lawyers by the People's Republic of China. Mr. President, this vital legislation would grant Mr. Yongyi Song U.S. citizenship. Mr. Song has been a resident of the United States for the past ten years, has passed his United States citizenship tests, and had been scheduled to be sworn in as a United States citizen in September 1999. However, Mr. Song, a respected researcher and librarian at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA, was detained on August 7, 1999, in Beijing, China while collecting historical documents on the Chinese cultural revolution of the 1960's. After 5 months of detention, Mr. Song was formally ``arrested'' on Christmas Eve in China, on charges of ``the purchase and illegal provision of intelligence to foreign institutions.'' The People's Republic of China claims Mr. Song violated Chinese criminal law by collecting historical documents. However, the documents in Mr. Song's possession have reportedly been previously published in newspapers, books, and other ``open'' sources. The historical material Mr. Song was gathering in no way threatens the security of the Chinese Government or people. The case of Yongyi Song is an affront to basic human rights, an affront to academic freedom and affront to people around the world. The bill that I am introducing today would waive the oath of allegiance and grant Mr. Song immediate citizenship, as Mr. Song passed the INS naturalization test on June 7, 1999. I believe it is vital that Congress become involved in this case: if Mr. Song were a U.S. citizen, the State Department would be in a stronger position to insist on being able to see him while he is being detained, insist on monitoring any trial that may occur, and insist on Mr. Song's right to counsel. Further, U.S. citizenship would afford Mr. Song a better chance of being expelled by the Chinese government after the trial, rather than being forced to serve a prison sentence should the Chinese Government convict him in Chinese court. Mr. Song was a young man in China during the Cultural Revolution and now, at age 50, he is languishing in a Chinese jail as a result of trying to study it. Considering the extremely high conviction rate in the Chinese judicial system, it is very probable that Mr. Song will be convicted despite my commitment to an all-out fight for his freedom and innocence. This case presents an international challenge to academic freedom and the pursuit of truth. While private relief legislation is a last resort that should be used sparingly by the Congress, the urgency and the compelling nature of this situation is one that demands immediate and definitive action. I urge my colleagues to support me in this fight for justice. the yongyi song resolution Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation that will bring attention to a situation which is occurring in the People's Republic of China. On August 7, 1999, Mr. Yongyi Song, a resident of Carlisle, PA, was detained in Beijing, China while collecting historical documents on the Chinese cultural revolution of the 1966-76. Mr. Song works as a researcher and librarian at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA. He is a noted scholar of Chinese cultural history and has authored two books and several articles on the subject. On Christmas eve Mr. Song was formally arrested on charges of ``the purchase and illegal provision of intelligence to foreign institutions.'' Yet, the documents in Mr. Song's possession have reportedly been previously published in newspapers, books and other ``open'' sources. His case is complicated because although Mr. Song has lived in the United States for the past ten years and has passed his citizenship tests, he has not been sworn in as a U.S. citizen. He was scheduled to take the oath of allegiance on September 23, 1999, but was detained by the PRC before he could return home. The case of Yongyi Song is an affront to basic human rights, an affront to academic freedom and an affront to people around the world. The People's Republic of China claims that Mr. Song violated Chinese criminal law by collecting historical documents, yet the documents in Mr. Song's possession have reportedly been previously published in newspapers, books and other ``open'' sources. At a time when the Chinese Government is looking for legitimacy, trying to get into the World Trade Organization and talking about improving its criminal justice system, this is a sharp about face. This legislation I am about to introduce, a Concurrent Resolution, will express the Sense of the Congress that the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) should immediately release from prison and drop all criminal charges against Yongyi Song. Further, it will encourage the PRC to make reforms to their legal system so that criminal defense lawyers are guaranteed fair and professional treatment and encourage the PRC to conduct fair and open court proceedings. In working with Mr. Song's defense team, I have learned about several problems within the Chinese legal system. First, the difficulties criminal defense lawyers face in representing their clients in the People's Republic of China. Over the past several years China has attempted to reform its legal system yet it has not been successful. Police often refuse to let lawyers meet with their clients and lawyers are often not provided with legally guaranteed information they require to competently represent clients. Many times trials are not open to the public or defendants families so that fair treatment of both lawyer and client cannot be accurately ascertained or proven. Additionally, defense lawyers are subject to harassment and interference and at times even arrest and imprisonment by Chinese authorities while defending clients. For example, in July, 1998 Liu Jian, a criminal defense lawyer from Nanjing, China was imprisoned, subjected to beatings and ``marathon'' interrogations after he represented a local official accused of taking bribes. I urge my colleagues to send a sharp message to the People's Republic of China that they immediately release Yongyi Song from prison and drop all charges against him. Further, we should encourage the PRC to provide fair and professional treatment to criminal defense lawyers and work to ensure that more court proceedings are open to the public. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Jan. 6, 2000] In China's Legal Evolution, the Lawyers Are Handcuffed (By Elisabeth Rosenthal) Nanjing, China.--Liu Jian was an idealistic new lawyer when his Nanjing firm sent him to a rural town 200 miles away to represent a local official accused of taking bribes. Stationed in the town, Binhai, he worked round-the-clock doing what defense lawyers do to prepare for trial: interviewing witnesses, examining documents and--when the police would allow--brainstorming with his client. But when the court convened on July 13, 1998, almost none of the 37 witnesses he had lined up appeared to testify. The prosecutor swore and ranted at Mr. Liu, calling him a criminal. And at trial's end, outside Binhai's courthouse, Mr. Liu found himself in police custody, charged with ``illegally obtaining evidence.'' Although legal experts around the country declared his innocence, Mr. Liu spent a nightmarish five months in detention, subjected at times to beatings and daylong interrogations without food or rest. ``I was released on Dec. 11, and I've tried not to have any contact with the criminal law since,'' said Mr. Liu, a thin, serious man with a downtrodden air, whose son was born and whose mother had a heart attack while he was in jail. ``I've really lost confidence in the system.'' Over the past decade, China has tried to overhaul its legal system, training thousands of new lawyers and passing laws that greatly expand their role in criminal cases--for example, for the first time giving defendants in detention the right to a lawyer and allowing lawyers to conduct pretrial investigations. But results have been mixed, especially in the country's vast rural areas, where the police, prosecutors and judges often chafe under the new rules. And China's young lawyers have been at once a tremendous force for change and also frequent victims: byproducts of a new legal system that is far better established on paper than in practice. ``The law has made great advances, but sometimes thinking has not,'' said Li Baoyue, a criminal lawyer who also teaches at Beijing's University of Politics and Law. ``It is going to be a very difficult road ahead to get these new regulations implemented.'' Although it is rare for criminal lawyers to end up in prison, defense lawyers say, it is common for them to suffer a barrage of problems, insults and lesser slights like these: The police often refuse to let lawyers meet their clients in private or in a timely manner, despite a law giving them access within 48 hours. Lawyers are often not provided with legally guaranteed access to court material, like transcripts of confessions, medical examinations and witness lists. Intimidation of witnesses by the local police and prosecutors often leaves lawyers with few people willing to testify. ``Because of these problems, it's sometimes hard to find a lawyer for criminal cases,'' Professor Li said, adding that the work can be dangerous. ``Many lawyers are scared they could become implicated in the case and lose their livelihood.'' Business law is much more lucrative, and safer Gu Yongzhong, a former criminal law specialist in Beijing who now takes on criminal cases only occasionally said: ``For the amount of time it takes to prepare the case, it doesn't pay. And it's very hard to get a not-guilty verdict.'' Lawyers agree that the obstacles are far greater in the rural areas, where the legal training of judges and the police is often poorest. But some problems are more wide- spread, like the difficulty in meting defendants, lawyers said. Defendants in cases that are politically sensitive are rarely granted their legally guaranteed rights. One lawyer said that he had recently spent two weeks trying to met a client detained by the Beijing Public Security Bureau, which repeatedly deflected requests and turned him away at the gates of the detention center before finally allowing the meeting. ``It usually takes some time to get to see your clients,'' Mr. Gu said. ``The law enforcement agencies are not willing at the start because they are worried it will interfere with their investigation. Although it seems to be getting somewhat better lately.'' Unfortunately, experts say, those first days of detention are when some of the worst police abuses occur--when defendants are subjected to aggressive and sometimes brutal interrogation to obtain confessions. Although Chinese law forbids torture, and confessions obtained by torture cannot be used in court, Chinese officials acknowledge that the practice is still relatively common. The use of ``confession by torture remains unchecked,'' said a recent commentary in the official China Youth Daily. ``It is commonplace for citizens to be arbitrarily summoned, forcibly seized, detained and even detained beyond legal time limits, and for citizens whose freedom has been restricted to be treated inhumanely.'' Transcripts of police interrogations with recalcitrant suspects often show breaks in the questioning marked by the words ``Education takes place,'' defense lawyers say. And when the session resumes--voila!--a confession. ``The use of torture to obtain a confession is something defendants often raise, but it puts us in a very delicate situation since we need facts and evidence to back up these claims,'' said Sun Guoxiang, a prominent defense lawyer in Nanjing who helped defend Mr. Liu. ``But it is very hard to gather evidence because it is almost impossible to get access to clients at these times.'' In Mr. Liu's case, the cultures of law and law enforcement repeatedly clashed, as Mr. Liu reminded his captors of his legal rights. Just a high school graduate, Mr. Liu became a lawyer through an arduous self-study law program affiliated with Nanjing University, while working full time designing furniture. The first professional from a poor rural family, Mr. Liu regarded the law with a touch of awe. ``I thought it was a career where I could help people, that had meaning,'' he said. He was admitted to the bar in 1994, when officials in Beijing were writing the new Criminal Procedure Code, which took effect in October 1997. That code allows lawyers to formulate a defense by conducting independent investigations during what prosecutors call the ``investigative period,'' a stage that can last weeks if not months, when a suspect is in detention but has not yet been formally charged. But the police in Binhai had other ideas. On his first trip to Binhai, Mr. Liu said, he and a colleague from his firm were never allowed to see their client, whose wife had retained the firm. When a meeting was finally permitted on a subsequent visit, they were given time only to ``exchange a few words''--and these with the head of the county anticorruption bureau listening. But a week before the trial, a longer meeting took place-- and Mr. Liu discovered huge discrepancies between the bribery charges brought by the prosecutors and the story told by the defendant, who said he had been tortured into confessing. For the next week, Mr. Liu frantically--and aggressively-- sought out witnesses, many of whom contradicted the police and some of whom said they had been threatened by local officials. ``Our impression wasn't that our client was totally innocent,'' Mr. Liu said, ``but we felt that the prosecution needed to provide better evidence to make the charges stand.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I will comment briefly about two trips I made over the recess. On December 17, 18, and 19, I traveled to Key West, FL, to observe Coast Guard operations and drug interdiction, and then on to Panama to see the immediate impact of the turnover of the canal to the Panamanian Government, and then on to Colombia, where I had an opportunity to visit with President Pastrana. President Pastrana, coincidentally, was in Washington today and met with members of the Appropriations Committee. The text that I will submit contains a number of comments about the trip to both Key West and Panama. I did want to make a comment or two about the pending request by the Government of Colombia for funding in excess of $1 billion to fight the narcotics dealers in Colombia. I am sympathetic with their problems and with the grave difficulties they have encountered. I have seen these difficulties firsthand on three visits to Colombia, the first back in 1988. I have substantial reservations about a U.S. expenditure in excess of $1 billion to reduce the supply of narcotics into the United States. I filed a resolution years ago calling for the use of the military in drug curtailment and narcotic interdiction--but as successful as we have been in interdicting narcotics from Latin America and as successful as we have been in having hectares in Peru, Colombia or Bolivia replaced with other crops, the great demand in the United States and worldwide continues, and thus the supply comes back. The U.S. Government spends approximately $18 billion a year on drug control. Two-thirds of that, or about $12 billion, is directed to activities such as interdiction and to fighting street crime in the United States. I do believe that our effort against drug selling on the streets of American cities and America's farms and rural areas has to continue, as I did when I was district attorney of Philadelphia. But the regrettable fact is that as long as the demand for drugs exists, the supply will continue, and if not from Colombia, from somewhere else. Even as many drug dealers are put in jail, as long as it is profitable, more drug dealers come to the street corners to sell drugs. So I make this cautionary comment about additional heavy investments in trying to stop the supply of drugs until we spend more money on education and more money on rehabilitation. From January 4 until January 13, in the company of six other Senators, I traveled to Morocco, and then on to Naples, and then to Kosovo, and five Senators continued on to Tunisia and then on to Israel. That trip was very significant in finding very strong support and allies from the Governments of Morocco and Tunisia and seeing the operation of the NATO Southern Command and our strong 6th Fleet. In Kosovo, we saw the superb performance of our American military, where they have moved into a land and have constructed a military base overnight and are doing so much to try to maintain the peace in that very troubled country. My floor statement will recite in detail the findings in Kosovo, Morocco, Tunisia, and Italy. A word or two about our trip to Israel where we visited the Golan Heights. We had an opportunity to visit with Israeli officials--with Prime Minister Barak, and with Ariel Sharon who leads the Likud and the opposition. I compliment both the Israelis and the Syrians for moving ahead on the peace process. It is my hope the process will reach fruition. My own view, after having visited Syria on a number of occasions since 1984, and having seen a decisive shift in the attitude of the leadership of the Government of Syria in the intervening 15-16 years, the prospects for an agreement are reasonably good. We heard a great deal of talk about very substantial funding by the United States. I think it is important where an agreement is reached, which is a costly agreement, that the expenses be shared by the western European nations, by Japan, and by the oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf, and that the astronomical figures not be cited broadly, which makes it more complex when the matters reach the Congress for consideration of these important funding matters. Mr. President, I would like to comment further about a recent visit I made to Key West, FL, Panama, and Colombia from December 17-19, 1999, in order to gain a firsthand view on matters of concern to both my constituents in Pennsylvania and all citizens of the United States. I departed Andrews Air Force Base on the morning of December 17, 1999, and arrived at Key West Naval Air Station where I proceeded to the Coast Guard Group Key West. I was met by Captain Rudolph, the commanding officer of Group Key West and was given an operations briefing from Lieutenant Commander Woodring. The briefing detailed the mission of Group Key West in such activities as drug interdiction, migrant operations, and search and rescue. Following the briefing, I boarded the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGS) Monhegan where the Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Benjamin A. Cooper, and his crew, gave me a briefing of their mission. They discussed how their ability to apprehend drug smugglers could be enhanced by virtue of the Coast Guard's new use of armed helicopters, which the Coast Guard considers to be their most potent aid in capturing drug traffickers. I informed the crew of the Monhegan that I had been one of the original cosponsors of S. 2728 in 1990, a measure which clarified and expanded the authority of the armed forces to provide support for civilian law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, this legislation authorized the use of military aircraft for transportation of, and flight training for, civilian law enforcement personnel and for aerial surveillance. According to the crew, the speed of the drug traffickers boats, known as ``go fast boats,'' has hampered their ability to get near the smugglers. The armed helicopters are one of their best weapons in chasing ``go-fast boats,'' in their drug interdiction mission. Following my review of the Monhegan, I was given a tour of the USCG Cutter Thetis by Commander Finch. I found Commander Finch to be an impressive officer who was forthright in this opinions of the military and its various functions. The role of the USCG Cutter Thetis is maritime law enforcement and search and rescue that uses electronic sensors and computerized command and control systems. The crew of the cutter Thetis was warm and friendly and we engaged in conversation over such issues as the role of gays in the Coast Guard, integrated gender training, and women's service aboard ships. I was pleased by the open exchange among the crew, and I was gratified to find that several of them were Pennsylvanians. Upon leaving the cutter Thetis, I proceeded to the Joint Interagency Task Force (JIATF)-East which was formed as the umbrella organization to coordinate interdiction of illicit drugs in the Caribbean Basin. I was met by Rear Admiral Edward J. Barrett, Director of JIATF-East, who gave me a tour and introduced me to his staff who provided me a classified briefing on the threats faced by JIATF-East. Following the briefing, I was accompanied by Admiral Barrett and Captain Frank Klein, Director of Operations, on a tour of the classified Joint Operations Command Center (JOCC). The following day, December 18, 1999, I traveled to Colombia. I arrived in Bogota in the early afternoon and was met by the Deputy Chief of Mission, Barbara Moore and immediately proceeded to the United States Embassy in Bogota for a classified country team briefing on the current political situation in the country. The briefing focused on narcotics trafficking, violence among the FARC and ELN and the current discussions between the Colombian Government and the guerrilla groups. We also discussed Colombia's extradition of narcotic traffickers and the resulting violence from such action. I asked the group about the cultivation of cocoa and poppy crops and the forcible eradication of the supply of narcotics. I was informed that the decreased percentages in cultivation of narcotic crops in Bolivia and Peru were offset by an increase in Colombia. I was told that Bolivia had decreased 28 percent in narcotic crop production and Peru had seen an average decrease of 50 percent in cultivation. I inquired about the current Colombian economy and was told that the economy was at rock bottom and that Colombia was currently enduring the highest unemployment rate in Latin America. However, those present felt that the current policies of President Pastrana were good and sound. I then inquired about the Colombian military and its need for United States assistance. The group felt that the lack of a military dictator in Colombia, unlike other Latin American countries, has a positive effect on the military, which currently consist of 120,000 soldiers. Furthermore, I asked about the United States involvement in training of the Colombian military and I was assured that United States soldiers were not involved in any level of combat between the Colombian guerrilla groups. Following this briefing, I proceeded with Deputy Chief Moore to the Presidential Palace to meet with President Pastrana. I was welcomed into the President's private office. He had just arrived at the palace from his son's 17th birthday party. President Pastrana is an impressive individual with an initial career as a journalist and his service as the mayor of Bogota. He was elected president in March 1998. I informed the President that I had watched his interview on the television show ``60 Minutes'' with Mike Wallace and was impressed with the way he handled himself. I informed him that Mike Wallace had done a ``60 Minutes'' report on prisons in the city of Philadelphia while I served as the city's district attorney. He mentioned that his interview with Mike Wallace was broadcast over C-SPAN and was seen by 60 million people. I commented on how far Mike Wallace and ``60 Minutes'' had come since then. We discussed his statements on his ``60 Minutes'' interview about the U.S. demand for drugs, which I agreed with. President Pastrana stated that while the supply of narcotics from Colombia may decrease the total supply from elsewhere will remain the same if the United States demand remains the same. He felt that the United States has not done enough to decrease the demand for illicit drugs and I agreed with him. I assured him that I was committed to searching for ways through legislation to curb the demand for drugs in the United States. Our conversation moved on to the peace process between the Colombian Government and the guerilla group known as the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombian (FARC). According to President Pastrana, he recently introduced the idea of a peace process as a form of dialogue between both the government and the FARC because he firmly believes that people of Colombia want peace. President Pastrana assured me that both he and the FARC were committed to peace in Colombia but it will take time and compromise. I also inquired about the Colombian Judiciary system and the bombing of the Colombian Supreme Court. President Pastrana explained the problems associated with a judiciary that fears violence after extraditing a drug lord. However, the President explained that he has conveyed to his people and the guerrilla groups that he will continue to extradite convicted drug lords regardless of the threats of violence. President Pastrana and I discussed the situation regarding the ``New Tribes Mission''. He explained that while the government has aggressively searched and investigated this kidnaping, he has been unable to locate the missionaries. The only lead in the case was from a source who told the investigators that he knew that the Americans had been killed, who did it, and that he knew where they were buried. I explained to President Pastrana the great importance of this case, not only to myself, but to the people of Pennsylvania and of course to the families of those kidnaped. President Pastrana assured me that he would do everything in his power to bring these criminals to justice and to bring a conclusion to this case. After the meeting I departed for the Bogota air terminal where I was met by Agent Jose Rodriguez and Manuel ``Cookie'' Aponte, both FBI Special Agents stationed in Colombia. The Special Agents are both currently working on the New Tribes Mission cases and they explained that the source that had been referred to by President Pastrana had indeed come forward in October of this year and was considered to be a FARC defector. Special agent Rodriguez explained that the source had stated that he knew where the Americans were buried and could identify the exact location. When the source was taken by investigators to the area that he had earlier identified, he informed them it was the wrong location. However, he was able to lead the team to another location down river. When the investigative team located the place he described, no bodies were recovered, Special Agent Rodriguez explained that the bodies could have been washed away because of the proximity to the river. I asked the Special Agents what was currently being done and how close they felt they were to a resolution to this case. Special Agent Rodriguez said that they needed to give a polygraph to the source in order to ascertain if he knows who kidnaped the Americans, if they were alive or have been killed, and if so, who is responsible. According to the agents, they were waiting for a response from the source and they will continue to work to bring about a resolution to this case. When I arrived in Panama in the evening of the December 18, 1999, I was met by Mr. Robert J. Bolhm and Mr. Frederick A. Becker, the Minister Consejero for the United States Embassy to Panama. I then attend a country team meeting with representatives of the Department of Defense. I asked this group several questions in regard to the transition of the Panama Canal and national security. I expressed my concern, and that of my constituents in Pennsylvania, about the use of ports along the Panama Canal that are operated by a Chinese owned company, Hutchison Whampoa. I was informed that the operation of a port area by one of its companies does not present a national security risk, and assured me that our national security interests were fully protected. I then inquired about the drug issue and asked if there was any light at the end of the tunnel. Representatives from DEA shared my concerns about drug trafficking and agreed with my previous statements about the need to stem the U.S. demand for narcotics. Finally, I asked the group about the structure of the Panama Canal Authority, Panama Canal Commission, The Maritime Authority, and the Port Authority and their effects on the United States. Mr. Becker felt that the two biggest problems facing the management structure of the canal were possible corruption within the leadership and general maintenance of the canal. On the morning of December 19, 1999, I visited the Panama Canal and was met by Joseph W. Cornelison, the Deputy Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission. I was given a briefing and posed several questions to him. I first asked about the involvement of the Chinese company of Hutchison International Port Holdings, which operates two ports in the region, I relayed the concerns that my constituents in Pennsylvania have about U.S. national security and was assured by the Deputy Administrator that these ports operate similarly to warehouses and are merely for loading and unloading cargo. Furthermore, he explained that of the six ports which existed along the canal, only two were operated by Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong based company. I then asked the Deputy Administrator what guidelines are being used in regards to U.S. involvement in the protection of the canal. He explained that under the scope of the neutrality treaty, there would be joint U.S. and Panamanian involvement in order to allow the United States to protect its national security interests. I then asked if there were ever talks in the 1970's of the United States selling the Panama Canal to Panama. The Deputy Administrator said that he was not aware of any such discussions. I also inquired about the structure of the canal and its governing body. The Deputy Administrator confirmed that there were 11 members of the Panama Canal Commission and that they served in staggered terms. However, the Panama Canal Authority replaced the Commission on January 1, 2000; its members were appointed by the President of Panama and confirmed by the legislature. My questions then moved to that of finances and economic competition for the canal. The Deputy Administrator explained that the canal was profit driven from fees that are charged for usage based on weight of cargo. The Deputy Administrator explained that in FY99 the canal broke even financially. Finally, I was given a tour of the Panama Canal and shown some of the lock systems. The Deputy Administrator showed me examples of the older functioning system and their newer system. He further explained that the canal would use $200 million in maintenance and modernization in the future. Mr. President this concludes the summary of my trip to Key West Florida, Colombia, and Panama. Mr. President, over the recess, from January 4 through January 13, I accompanied Senator Stevens and several other of my colleagues on an overseas trip with our primary focus on matters relating to appropriations. Our first stop was Rabat, Morocco. Morocco is one of the United States' oldest allies, first recognizing our fledgling nation in 1787 by entering into a treaty of friendship. Initially we received a country team briefing from our very capable Ambassador Ed Gabriel and his staff. Ambassador Gabriel showed us a copy of a letter he has in his office from George Washington, thanking the King of Morocco for his support of our nascent American nation. President Washington's letter stated that although the United States was still struggling and had little to offer to the great Kingdom of Morocco, he hoped that in the future America would grow and prosper so that some day the United States could assist Morocco. Following the country team briefing, we met with Moroccan Foreign Minister Mohamed Benaissa. Prior to his appointment as Foreign Minister, Mr. Benaissa was posted in Washington, DC, as the Moroccan Ambassador. The Foreign Minister stated that the only problem with United States-Moroccan relations was that there was no problem. The Foreign Minister was enthusiastic about the Eizenstat Initiative named for Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat. This initiative, proposed in 1998, is intended to support sustainable economic growth and development in North Africa by encouraging investment and trade with the United States and by reducing internal barriers to trade in the region. The primary internal obstacle Morocco must address before the country can make any serious economic progress is illiteracy. It was reported that roughly 50 percent of Moroccans are illiterate. My colleague, Senator Hollings, stated that when he visited Morocco in 1972 with Senator Mansfield he was quoted the same statistic by the government. Mr. President, it has been said that ``knowledge is power.'' Since a large segment of the Moroccan population cannot read they subsequently cannot access any basic, let alone, advanced, education or training. In a world that is increasingly shrinking because of the advent of electronic commerce and the Internet, Moroccan's must improve on one of the most basic of skills--the ability to read--before they are further eclipsed by others in the fast paced global economy. After our meeting with the Foreign Minister, we visited the mausoleum of Mohamed V and Hassan II and honored the memory of those kings by placing a wreath at their tombs. Later that evening we dined at the Ambassador's home with the Foreign Minister, as well as Mr. Jalal Essaid, President of the Chamber of Councilors, the upper body of the Moroccan Parliament and Mr. Abdelwahad Radi, President of the Chamber of Representatives, the lower body in the Parliament. The next day we visited with Morocco's King Mohamed VI who ascended to the throne recently with the passing of his father Hassan II. Over the course of his life, King Hassan II had established himself as a moderate leader who was willing to work for peace in the region. King Hassan II played a key role in fostering the Egyptian-Israel contacts that led to President Answar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem in 1977. In 1993, after the signing of the Declaration of Principles between Israel and the Palestinians here in Washington, King Hassan hosted Prime Minister Rabin in Morocco as a demonstration of support for the agreement. The next morning we traveled from Morocco to Naples, Italy. NATO is divided into two commands and our initial stop was at one of those commands, NATO's AFSOUTH Headquarters, where we received a current operations overview. We were hosted at AFSOUTH by Lieutenant General Efthymios Petinis of the Greek Army, Deputy Commander-in-Chief for NATO Southern Command, by Lieutenant General Carlo Cabigiosu of the Italian Army, Chief of Staff NATO Southern Command, and Lieutenant General Mike Short of the United States Air Force, Commander Air Forces for NATO Southern Command. General Short's briefing was of specific interest to our group as he reviewed with us the decreased level of U.S. air assets committed to NATO which are engaged in the ongoing situation in Kosovo. General Short informed us that during the height of the air war in Kosovo hundreds of U.S. aircraft were on station flying missions, and now only 6 U.S. Air Force F-16 fighters, which were permanently stationed in Italy, were supporting the current NATO mission over Kosovo. For our next meeting we traveled by helicopter to Gaeta, home of the U.S. Navy's Sixth Fleet. We were met by Vice Admiral Murphy, Commander U.S. Sixth Fleet who gave us a brief tour of the naval facilities at Gaeta and then provided a demonstration of a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (T-LAM) target work-up and strike. Admiral Murphy briefed us on the wide range of missions the 16 ships and 7,200 sailors and marines are called upon to undertake in the region from a Tomahawk strike in Kosovo to an Ambassadorial evacuation and Embassy protection in Albania and Macedonia. We discussed the situation regarding Vieques Island with Admiral Murphy. He told our group that the lack of training was having a deleterious affect on combat readiness and that the current battle group deployed in the Mediterranean had to get under way without the traditional combined arms live fire exercises and gunnery. We discussed possible alternatives to Vieques. However, Admiral Murphy stated that none of the current options satisfy the Navy's critical need to live fire and conduct operations like the Vieques range does. Admiral Murphy also discussed the proposed International Criminal Court and the impact it would have on the Sailors and Marines under his charge. Both Admiral Murphy and his aide, Captain Jan Colin, responded negatively. Admiral Murphy recounted a recent situation which such a body might be called to act upon. He explained that after ordering a carefully planned and executed Tomahawk strike of the Serbian MUP police headquarters, the initial reconnaissance photographs pictures burning civilian homes and stores around the MUP building but no damage to the MUP building itself. Admiral Murphy stated that at that point, despite meticulous target planning and diligent execution to insure no collateral damage, he believed something had gone awry. He stated that he feared the missile somehow missed the target and that he would now have to answer for the errant missile despite everyone's best efforts to minimize collateral damage. A short time later however, additional reconnaissance photographs became available which showed the MUP police themselves actually setting fire to the civilian buildings around their headquarters. Subsequent photos then confirmed that the MUP building had been destroyed by the Tomahawk. Captain Jan Colin, a Navy pilot, recounted his experience flying a bombing mission into Libya in 1986 to strike suspected international terrorist training camps. Captain Colin said that the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, Admiral Kelso, had subsequently been indicted for war crimes by the Libyan government for ordering the strike. The handful of military officers assembled for our briefing said that in their opinions the United States, as the only remaining military superpower operating in the world, was resented around the globe. They said that even if the resentment was not overt, it was lurking just below the surface. They felt that the International Criminal Court would be too willing to participate in second guessing American military decisions abroad and the rest of the world might too readily accept charges of American wrongdoing, justified or not, as a result of the perceived American arrogance. The next morning we departed for Skopje, Macedonia. We were met at the Skopje airport by General Montgomery Meigs, Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army and Brigadier General Ricardo Sanchez, Commander U.S. Task Force Falcon headquartered at Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo. We were scheduled to travel by helicopter to camp Bondsteel however, because of the snow and fog, we could not fly and instead traveled by vehicle for roughly two hours to reach our destination. I had previously visited Camp Bondsteel this past August and the physical transformation was impressive. Hundreds of tents had been replaced by buildings and the soldiers now had barracks, a mess hall, a phone center and physical fitness facility. General Sanchez presented our group with an operational overview of the responsibilities of the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) in the Multinational Brigade East area of operations, which is roughly 19 miles wide by 50 miles long. General Sanchez told us that his unit's mission was to provide and maintain a safe and secure environment and to assist in the responsible transition to appropriate civil organizations enabling KFOR forces to withdraw from Kosovo. He told us that soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division perform roughly 1700 security patrols in the area during a typical week, staff 48 checkpoints and guard 62 key facilities 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Approximately 5,430 soldiers of the 8,240 total KFOR soldiers in Kosovo are Americans, and many of those outstanding young men and woman are from Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, on December 16, 1999, a few weeks before our arrival, one of those young soldiers from Pennsylvania made the ultimate sacrifice giving his life in the line of duty. Staff Sergeant Joe Suponcic of Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, one of America's famous Green Beret's, was stationed at Camp Bondsteel. Sergeant Suponcic was on a reconnaissance patrol in the Russian sector of Kosovo when his HUMVEE struck a land mine resulting in his death. I spoke with his Commander, Major Jim McAllister, a fellow Green Beret who asked me to share with you what kind of soldier Sergeant Suponcic was. Major McAllister told me that Sergeant Suponcic was a great young American, who was ``motivated, he loved life, his family and the Army.'' His fellow soldiers called him ``Super'', not just as an abbreviated version of his name Suponcic, but because he was a ``Super'' soldier who was ``ecstatic'' to be a Sergeant in the elite special forces. Major McAllister told me the local villagers in and around Kamonica and Kololec, the area in which Sergeant Suponcic worked, loved him and had nick-named him ``Joey Blue Eyes.'' When they heard of his death, they brought flowers, gifts and condolences to the camp. After we returned to America, I spoke with his mother to give my condolences to the Suponcics personally and to share with them what I had learned in Kosovo. Mrs. Suponcic was gracious and told me of her son's burial at Arlington National Cemetery on December 29, 1999. America owes the Suponcics a great debt. His Mother Patricia and Father Edmund, his brother Brian and his sister Andrea should be proud of their son and brother. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln's words to a widow who was believed to have lost five sons in the Civil War: How weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile the Suponcics from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to them the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic. During my visit to Camp Bondsteel I also had the opportunity to have lunch and visit with some of the troops from Pennsylvania who currently call Kosovo home: Second Lieutenant Amanda Belfron from Philadelphia; Sergeant Glen Fryer of Jersey Shore, who was a high school classmate of Staff Sergeant Suponcic; Warrant Officer Christopher Frey of Pittsburgh; Sergeant Keith Faust of Nazbrath; Warrant Officer Andrea Carlesi Ellonsburg of Ford City; Major McGinley of Conshohocken; Lieutenant Colonel Duane Gapinski of Bernsville; and Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Stramara of Schulykill Haven. All of those soldiers impressed me with their dedication to duty and positive outlook on the tough mission they perform. It is refreshing to be reminded of the high caliber of individuals serving on the vanguard of freedom in our Armed Forces and I salute their service to our nation. We departed Camp Bondsteel and headed to the former Serb town of Urosevac where we were met by Lieutenant Colonel Mike Ellerbe, the Battalion Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division's, 3rd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment--The Blue Devils. Colonel Ellerbe's unit was assigned to provide security for the remaining Serbian population in this now Albanian dominated town. Prior to the conflict, Urosevac, a town of some 60,000, had a Serbian population of roughly 6,000. Now there are 24 Serbians living in 9 homes being protected 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by roughly 1,000 Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division. Our stated objective in the town, I am told, is to insure the safety of the few remaining Serbs and protect their property so that other former Serbian villagers will return. They are provided an armed escort by U.S. soldiers to the Serbian border so that they can shop and, upon completion, are escorted back home. Their homes are protected around the clock by U.S. soldiers from being set ablaze by local Albanians. While there are many issues that can be debated regarding our presence in Kosovo, I do not believe anyone would argue with me if I say that based upon what I saw in Kosovo the United States will not be leaving anytime soon. The next day we traveled to Tunisia which, like Morocco, is a long standing ally of the United States signing it's first treaty in 1789. Our first stop in Tunisia was the U.S. North African Cemetery and Memorial in Carthage. The American military forces led by then-General Eisenhower played a critical role in Operation Torch, the campaign that succeeded in evicting General Rommel from Tunisia in May of 1943 and ending the German occupation of North Africa. At the Cemetery there is a very large mosaic map of the region depicting the major battles that took place in North Africa. Senators Fritz Hollings and Ted Stevens, both World War II veterans of North Africa, used the map to share with our group their stories of service in uniform on the continent. The Cemetery is the final resting place for 2,841 of our country's military dead. At the Cemetery there is also a beautiful memorial commemorating the 3,724 soldiers, sailors and airmen who gave their lives in Africa during World War II but whose remains were never recovered. My colleagues and I placed a wreath at the cemetery in honor of all those memorialized there. The inscription at the cemetery entrance eloquently echoes my feelings on my visit that morning: ``Here we and all who shall hereafter live in freedom will be reminded that to these men and their comrades we owe a debt to be paid with grateful remembrance of their sacrifice and with the high resolve that the cause for which they died shall live.'' After paying our respects at the cemetery, we had a working lunch and country team brief where we discussed the current economic, educational and political state in Tunisia. Ambassador Robin Raphael and I discussed the political situation in Libya. It was the Ambassador's impression that U.S. policy regarding the Khadafi Regime was in fact working, albeit slowly, and that she believed that if things continued to progress, Libya may well again join the community of nations. Later that evening Ambassador Raphael hosted a reception at her home where we met with various representatives from Tunisian business and government. Our second day in Tunisia started by meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs Habib Ben Yahia who is the former Tunisian Ambassador to the United States. The Foreign Minister, a very capable representative of the Tunisian Government, discussed with us Tunisia's upcoming assignment on the United Nations Security Council. The Foreign Minister shared with us his recent discussion with Saddam Hussein where he encouraged Saddam to cooperate more fully with the United Nations and it's weapons inspections program. The Foreign Minister recounted that Saddam's future cooperation was doubtful as Saddam was convinced that the West, via the U.N., was determined to destabilize and ``Balkanize'' the nation of Iraq. Following our meeting with the Foreign Minister we boarded Tunisian Air Force helicopters and were transported to the Tunisian air base of Sidi Ahmed at Bizerte where we received briefings and demonstrations of the operational capabilities of the 15th Air Groups F-5's. Following the visit to the air base we moved to the nearby naval base where we toured and were briefed aboard a naval oceanographic vessel that had been transferred by the U.S. to the Tunisian Navy. The military personnel at both the air and naval facilities we visited demonstrated a high degree of professionalism and competence. At the conclusion of our visit to Bizerte, we once again boarded Tunisian Air Force helicopters and returned to Tunis to meet with the Minister of Defense. Mr. Mohamed Jegham, the Minister of Defense, told us that while Tunisia had good relations with the other countries in the region, the continuing regional problems in Algeria and the Western Sahara were cause for some concern. The Defense Minister told us that Libya was not a problem for Tunisia because of Tunisias' long relationship with the country and with Colonel Khadafi. Following our meeting at the Defense Ministry we met with Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. The President told us how he would like to attract more investors and business from the United States. As in Morocco, the Eizenstat Initiative was a point for discussion and because of his country's stability, security and educational achievements, the President contended that Tunisia was the perfect location for foreign businesses looking to locate in Africa. On the topic of Middle East peace, President Ben Ali concluded it was his sense that all parties to the negotiations were hopeful. President Ben Ali, who has close ties to PLO Chairman Arafat because of Arafat's residence in Tunis for 12 years, was of the opinion that the peace process needed to conclude soon as the aging Arafat and Syrian President Assad were perhaps the primary forces uniting and solidifying both their peoples resolve in this matter. Following our meeting with the President we met with Tunisian Parliamentarians at the Chamber of Deputies after which, the Minister of Foreign Affairs hosted us for a working dinner. The next morning we departed for Incirlik Air Base, Turkey to discuss the situation in Turkey and to review to U.S. participation in Operation Northern Watch. Incirlik is home to the U.S. Air Force's 39th Wing, which is comprised of roughly 1400 U.S. Air Force personnel. We were met at the airfield by Brigadier General Bob Dulaney, U.S. Air Force Commander of the Combined Air Forces at Incirlik. General Dulaney and his staff provided us with an overview of the types of missions that our outstanding pilots and aircrews were flying during Operation Northern Watch. We were able to get a close look at the British Jaguar, a tactical reconnaissance aircraft, as well as an American EA-6B, an electronic warefare aircraft and an American F-16, an aircraft used in an air-to-air and air-ground combat role. The allied pilots of Operation Northern Watch fly in the no-fly zone which was created in 1991 after the Gulf War to protect Iraqi Kurds. Iraq has never accepted the validity of either the Northern no-fly zone or of the Southern no-fly zone, which was designed to protect Shiite Muslims in the South. Allied jets patrolled the zones virtually unmolested by Iraqi defenses for more than seven years. However, that soon ended after the four day air offensive of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, which was designed to punish the Iraqi government for refusing to allow continued U.N. inspections of the Iraqi nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. Iraq thereafter declared the flights of Northern and Southern Watch as violations of its sovereign air space. Now, virtually every patrol flown by allied pilots is challenged by Iraqi anti aircraft artillery or surface-to-air missile fire. Our next stop after Incirlik was Israel. When we left the U.S., Prime Minister Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister were in Shepardstown, West Virginia, discussing possible peace in the region. Upon our arrival in Jerusalem we attended a working dinner hosted by Mr. Dan Meridor, a member of the Knesset and the Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. The next morning we had a working breakfast with Aaron Miller, deputy to Ambassador Dennis Ross, who provided us with an update on the discussions in Shepardstown between Israel and Syria. After breakfast we boarded an Israeli Air Force helicopter at the Knesset and flew to Palmachim Air Base to review the progress of the Israeli Arrow Missile Project which is designed to combat theater ballistic missiles, such as the Scuds fired at Israel by Iraq during Operation Desert Storm. We were joined by Major General Uzi Dayan, the Israeli Defense Force Deputy Chief of Staff and cousin of late Moshe Dayan, and once again boarded the helicopter for a flight to the Ben Tal overlook in the Golan Heights. At the Ben Tal overlook, General Dayan pointed out the places and towns in the valleys below where he fought the Syrians in 1973 and explained to us the obvious strategic importance of the Golan. Our second stop in the Golan found us at Nimrod's Castle, where we were able to get a better view of the Jordan, Ammund, Wabadai and Haman Rivers the four tributaries which flow into the Sea of Galilee and supply Israel with 40% of it's water. Our final stop in the Golan was Carlucci Point named for former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci. We were met and briefed by the Commander of the Northern Command, Major General Gaby Ashkenazi. From our vantage point General Ashkenzai pointed out Southern Lebanon and a nearby Israeli town, which, because it's large size and close proximity to the Lebanese border, is the frequent target of Hezbollah Katyusha rocket attacks. We departed the Golan via helicopter and headed back to Jerusalem for a meeting with Prime Minister Barak. The Prime Minister was in good spirits. He had just returned from Washington and the negotiations with the Syrians only the night before. Prime Minister Barak reported that the negotiations with the Syrians were progressing slowly. The primary concerns of Israel during these talks, he explained, were security, early warning, normalization of relations with Syria and water. Prime Minister Barak shared that the United States had prepared a document which outlined the concerns of both Syria and Israel. He told us the document was a useful tool as it put the otherwise abstract negotiations in concrete terms. The Prime Minister thought that while there was some movement in certain areas of the Syrian position, as nothing was final until the whole process was final, the movement may have been simply a negotiating tactic. Prime Minister Barak was hopeful that there would soon be peace discussions with Lebanon. He felt that such talks would encourage the people of Israel concerning Syria's position and allow them to hope for a comprehensive regional peace. As members of the Appropriations Committee, we discussed the cost of peace with Syria with the Prime Minister. My colleagues and I cautioned him that the media was questioning us regarding the reports that the price for such peace was going to be in the $10-60 billion range. We discussed the difficulty of finding consensus in Congress to fund the Wye River Agreement and advised the Prime Minister to keep the Congress informed as the process progressed. Prime Minister Barak told our group that it was his hope that other countries, such as Japan and various other G-7 nations, would contribute to whatever sum eventually emerged. The Prime Minister said that the Camp David Accord laid the cornerstone for peace in the region, the Wye River Agreements built upon that foundation, and he was now hopeful that the discussions with Syria would produce the keystone which could be put in place to allow the full weight of regional peace to come to rest. Discussing other security issues in the region, the Prime Minister told us that he is ``deeply disturbed'' by both Iran and Iraq's drive to acquire nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Barak told us that he believed that unless UNSCOM inspections begin again, Iraq would have nuclear weapons within 5-7 years and that Iran was similarly positioned. The next morning our delegation had a working breakfast with Mr. Avraham Shohat, the Minister of Finance. Our discussion once again focused on the cost of any peace with Syria. The Finance Minister, like Prime Minister Barak, was hopeful that other countries would contribute in addition to the United States. We departed later that morning from Israel and returned to Andrews Air Force Base later that evening after nine long, but informative days abroad. I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleague from Iowa for yielding the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, how much time remains of my 15 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the procedure on the bill is, under rule XIV, to hold the bill at the desk. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask for a second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I send a bill to the desk regarding citizenship for Mr. Yongyi Song and ask for its first reading.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Absolutely, HCFA should do what it has initially proposed several years ago and defer to State law on this issue.

Mr. SPECTER. I agree with my distinguished colleague, the ranking subcommittee member. States should have the authority to regulate CRNA's in the same manner as States regulate other health care providers. There is a wealth of information already in existence that supports the view that the issue of supervision should be left to the States, just as HCFA has proposed.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as it appears unlikely the House and Senate conferees will come to agreement this year on a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation which will provide equitable treatment for families of passengers involved in international aviation disasters. This measure is identical to legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress, and similar to provisions contained in both the House and Senate FAA bills. As my colleagues know, the devastating crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 on July 17, 1996 took the lives of 230 individuals. Perhaps the community hardest hit by this tragedy was Montoursville, PA, which lost 16 students and 5 adult chaperones from Montoursville High School who were participating in a long-awaited French Club trip to France. Last Congress it was brought to my attention by constituents, who include parents of the Montoursville children lost on TWA 800, that their ability to seek redress in court is hampered by a 1920 shipping law known as the Death on the High Seas Act, which was originally intended to cover the widows of seafarers, not the relatives of jumbo- jet passengers embarking on international air travel. Under the Warsaw Convention of 1929, airlines are limited in the amount they must pay to families of passengers who died on an international flight. However, domestic air crashes are covered by U.S. law, which allow for greater damages if negligent conduct is proven in court. The Warsaw Convention limit on liability can be waived if the passengers' families show that there was intentional misconduct which led to the crash. This is where the Death on the High Seas Act comes into play. This law states that where the death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas more than 1 marine league which is 3 miles from U.S. shores, a personal representative of a decedent can sue for pecuniary loss sustained by the decedent's wife, child, husband, parent, or dependent relative. The Act, however, does not allow families of the victims of TWA 800 or other aviation incidents such as the Swissair Flight 111 crash and the recent EgyptAir 990 tragedy to obtain other types of damages, such as recovery for loss of society or punitive damages, no matter how great the wrongful act or neglect by an airline or airplane manufacturer. My legislation would amend Federal law to provide that the Death on the High Seas Act shall not affect any remedy existing at common law or under State law with respect to any injury or death arising out of an aviation incident occurring after January 1, 1995. In effect, it would clarify that federal aviation law does not limit remedies in the same manner as maritime law, and permits international flights to be governed by the same laws as domestic flights. My legislation is not about blaming an airline or airplane manufacturer. It is not about miltimillion dollar damage awards. It is about ensuring access to justice and clarifying the rights of families of victims of plane crashes. The need for this legislation is suggested by the Supreme Court decision Zicherman v. Korean Airlines, 116 S. Ct. 629 (1996), in which a unanimous Court held that the Death on the High Seas Act of 1920 applies to determine damages in airline accidents that occur more than 3 miles from shore. By contrast, the Court has ruled that State tort law applies to determine damages in accidents that occur in waters 3 miles or less from our shores. Yamaha v. Calhoun, (1996 WL 5518) I believe it is inequitable to make such a distinction at the 3 mile limit in civil aviation cases where the underlying statute predates international air travel. I would note that the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security noted in its final report that ``certain statutes and international treaties, established over 50 years ago, historically have not provided equitable treatment for families of passengers involved in international aviation disasters. Specifically, the Death on the High Seas Act of 1920 and the Warsaw Convention of 1929, although designed to aid families of victims of maritime and aviation disasters, have inhibited the ability of family members of international aviation disasters from obtaining fair compensation.'' I would further note that in an October, 1996 brief filed at the Department of Transportation by the Air Transport Association, the trade association of U.S. airlines, there is an acknowledgment that the Supreme Court in Zicherman did not apparently consider 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40120(a) and (c), which preserve the application of State and common law remedies in tort cases and also prohibit the application of Federal shipping laws to aviation. My legislation amends 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40120(c) to clarify that nothing in the Death on the High Seas Act restricts the availability of remedies in suits arising out of aviation disasters. In September, 1998, during consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill, I offered a compromise amendment with a limit on damages in order to move ahead to obtain some possible compensation for victims' families beyond pecuniary damages. I did so because had an amendment to the Death on the High Seas Act been enacted which would have had unlimited damages, there was the announced intent to filibuster the bill. While my amendment was accepted by a voice vote in the Senate, the underlying FAA bill was not enacted into law. This year the Senate passed a new FAA reauthorization bill which included the compromise provision agreed to last year. As the bill conferees appear unlikely to reach agreement with the House this year, I am re-introducing the original version of my bill because I fundamentally oppose any cap on damages and am hopeful that this legislation can be enacted independently of the FAA bill to provide the fullest amount of relief to the families of aviation disaster victims. At a time when so many Americans live, work, and travel abroad, taking part in the global economy or seeing the cultural riches of foreign lands, they and their families should know that the American civil justice system will be accessible to the fullest extent if the unthinkable occurs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to working with them to ensure its ultimate enactment during the second session of the 106th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999. On Veterans Day, many of the members honored America's veterans and acknowledged our debt to them for their service. This legislation gives the Senate an opportunity to do something tangible to honor our veterans. The Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999 contains 74 substantive provisions; I refer the Members to the conference report text for a complete description. Let me highlight just a few provisions now. Long-term care for veterans is one of the most pressing issues facing America--and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A half century ago, the 16 million youthful veterans of World War II looked forward to building new civilian lives. Today, only about 6 million survive, and their average age is 75. Health care is their primary concern, the long-term care is a critical component of their health care needs. Simply put, what World War II veterans need from VA is long-term care. Soon, so too will the 4 million Korean war veterans, now in their mid- sixties, and the 8 million Vietnam veterans, now in their fifties, who follow them. Under current law, VA is not required to provide long-term care to any veteran. Such care is purely discretionary to VA; it is supplied on a space available basis only. Under this ``discretionary'' authority-- as inadequate as it has been--VA has made a substantial contribution to the long term care needs of veterans--by directly providing (at an annual cost of $1.1 billion) nursing home care to an average of approximately 13,000 veterans per day; by paying for nursing home care received by approximately 6,500 veterans per day in private nursing homes (at as annual cost of $316.8 million); by subsidizing (at an annual cost approximately $200 million per year) nursing home care provided to approximately 14,000 veterans per day in State veterans' homes; and by providing non-institutional alternatives to nursing home care to an average of 11,000 veterans at any given time at an annual cost of $154 million. Notwithstanding these significant contributions by VA, there is increasing evidence that the discretionary nature of VA's long-term care mission has created an incentive for VA to divert resources to other missions and reduce its capacity to provide long-term care. This bill responds to that negative trend by requiring VA to maintain long term capacity at least the 1998 level. In addition, this legislation would, for the first time, require--not authorize--VA to provide nursing home care to veterans who need it to treat service-connected conditions, and to severely service-disabled veterans who need it to cope with other conditions. Nursing home care is the most expensive form of long-term care and, from the veterans' standpoint, the form of care which is to be avoided if possible, or delayed until it is inevitable. This bill will assure that non-institutional alternatives to nursing home care--home- based primary care, home health aide visits, adult day health care, and similar services--will be available to veterans who need such services by requiring that VA include them in the package of medical services to which each veteran who enrolls for VA care is entitled. The provision of such services, as an alternative to much more expensive inpatient nursing home care, will save money and improve aging veterans' lives. This legislation also directs VA to operate pilot programs to identify the best--and most cost-effective--ways to meet veterans' long term needs. Armed with the data generated by these pilot programs, Congress will reevaluate VA nursing home and non-institutional long term care after three years and determine how best to proceed at the four-year ``sunset'' point of this legislation. I might add that the conferees were all in agreement that, when we get to the point where we consider renewal of this legislation, we will be looking for ways to improve it, not to repeal it. There is one additional key feature of this legislation that merits mention: this bill will plug a substantial hole in VA health care coverage by allowing VA to fund the emergency care needs of all enrolled veterans who do not have other health care coverage to fund such care. The President has stated that all Americans should have access to emergency care. This bill assures that veterans who rely on VA for care will. I am particularly pleased that this bill will extend, expand, and improve VA's authority to provide counseling to the victims of sexual trauma while on active duty. It will also extend and improve services for homeless veterans; it will liberalize eligibility for survivors' benefits for widows of totally disabled ex-POWs; it will expand benefits available to veterans exposed to radiation while in service; and--importantly--it will ensure that the World War II Veterans' Memorial is constructed in a timely manner by facilitating fund raising for that monument. This legislation does many positive things, particularly for our older veterans. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, however, must also respond to the needs of veterans who are leaving the service today. Educational assistance is the most important benefit that our Nation provides to young veterans. Earlier this year, the Senate passed legislation which would have substantially improved benefits under the Montgomery GI bill. Unfortunately, budgetary pressures compelled the conferees to set these provisions aside for now. I know, however, that the House supports improvements in Montgomery GI bill benefits, and we will take that issue up again in the second session. This legislation reflects the hard work and dedication of many members of the Senate and the other body. I particularly acknowledge the contribution of the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Rockefeller, and our Committee's longest- serving member and a member of the conference committee, Senator Thurmond. The conference committee could not have reached a successful conclusion without them, or without the energy and commitment of the chairman of the House Committee, Bob Stump and his ranking member, Lane Evans. I thank them. And I urge the Senate to approve this conference report.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, the Senator is correct. The purpose of this section is to reform the priorities under which state home grant applications are considered so that much needed renovation and maintenance projects will receive more appropriate consideration for funding than under the current system. I am pleased that we were able to craft a transition provision that balanced the desire to ensure that all states had an opportunity to participate under the old rules, with the desire to implement the new rules as quickly as possible.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, the Senator is correct. The purpose of this section is to reform the priorities under which state home grant applications are considered so that much needed renovation and maintenance projects will receive more appropriate consideration for funding than under the current system. I am pleased that we were able to craft a transition provision that balanced the desire to ensure that all states had an opportunity to participate under the old rules, with the desire to implement the new rules as quickly as possible.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the pending appropriations bill which includes funding for the three Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Labor, the subcommittee which I chair for the Appropriations Committee. The legislative process has proceeded to this point in an extraordinary way. It had been my hope and plan that the bill for my subcommittee would have been taken up by the Congress, passed, and presented to the President in advance of the close of the fiscal year, September 30, but that has not occurred. It had been my hope and plan to present it to the President before the end of the fiscal year so he could have signed it or vetoed it and, had he chosen to veto it, there could have been a public debate on the priorities in the bill and also the key point of having local control on the decision of $1.3 billion, which has been allocated for additional teachers for the reduction of classroom size. Unfortunately, it has been the practice in the Congress in recent years to pass the bills after the close of the fiscal year and in a context where we are going to yield to the President's wishes, subject to a veto, because it may result in the closing down of the Government. Winston Churchill had it right when he said that democracy is a terrible form of government except compared to everything else. I think that would apply to representative democracy as well. Somehow we muddle through. We are in the final stage of the muddling process now. To describe the process to people who are not familiar with the inside of the Senate is very challenging. I was discussing with my son last night the plan to have the Senate convene at 12:01 a.m., November 20, Saturday morning, to take up a cloture motion on the appropriations bill, and then to vote at 1:01 a.m. It was necessary to have the conversation because I had to defer lunch with my 4-year-old granddaughter, Perri, and picking up my 6-year-old granddaughter, Silvi, from school, all of which is fine, but there has to be some reason for that. We have Senators exercising their rights which, to be repetitious, they have a right to do, such as to have bills read for several hours, which does not change the ultimate outcome, or to have cloture votes with these extraordinary scheduling problems. I learned a long time ago that the Senate is a lot smarter than I am and the rules of the Senate are in place for a purpose. As one of our distinguished colleagues said yesterday in a closed caucus, Senators ought not be discouraged from exercising their rights because when they take to the floor and debate, have a filibuster, and have extended discussions for the purpose of acquainting the country with what is going on, perhaps it may arouse some public reaction to perhaps change what the Senate might be doing. So, in essence, I am delighted to see the Senate rules observed and rights to Senators activated. For whatever delay there is, so be it. It is my hope that next year the appropriations bill for my subcommittee on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education will be completed at an early date. I have talked to our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, and I have had some encouragement that my bill may be taken up first next year, so that priorities can be established in regular course by the subcommittee, the full committee, and the Senate--the same on the House side--then conferenced and presented to the President for his signature or for his veto. If he chooses to veto the bill, so be it. The bill which was voted out of the Senate by a vote of 73-25 had been very carefully crafted on a bipartisan basis with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin. I learned a long time ago that if you want to get anything done in Washington in the Senate and the Congress, it has to be bipartisan. Senator Harkin and I worked through our bill. We had a very attractive bill. We had emphasized $300 million more than the President's figure on education, establishing the priorities which we thought were in order. We had provided very substantial increases to the National Institutes of Health because of the great work done there in looking for cures and being on the verge of cures for very many major maladies. We are within 5 years striking distance, so the experts say, on Parkinson's and have made great progress on Alzheimer's and heart disease and cancer-- prostate cancer, breast cancer and cervical cancer. We picked a figure of $93.7 billion because we thought that would attract very substantial bipartisan support, that being $300 million higher in education than the President had, that it would qualify for a President's signature. Regrettably, the House of Representatives did not pass the bill. In conference, the bill was substantially altered, being joined with the bill for the District of Columbia. It had an across-the-board cut of almost 1 percent. The bill was ultimately vetoed. Then it came back for reconsideration. On reconsideration, the White House administration wanted to add some $2.3 billion more. I knew that would cause a major strain on the Republican side of the aisle, and there was a great deal of pressure to yield to the President because of the bad experience we had in December 1995 and early 1996 when the Government was closed down and the Republican-controlled Congress took the blame. The result is that the Congress is now gun shy to fight with the President, gun shy because, with his threatened veto, the Congress has a strong tendency to back down, perhaps not on every point--the family planning issue and the U.N. dues was a notable exception--but backing down on almost every point. The result has been that we are developing an imperial presidency because we have a gun-shy or timid Congress. That is very unfortunate. The issue came into sharp focus on the matter of classroom size reduction and additional teachers, with the President's program to add 100,000 teachers. I think it is a very good program. I support it. But I do not support it if the local school district says that there are other needs at the local level which are more important to the school district than additional teachers and classroom size. When we crafted our bill, we said we would acknowledge the President's ideas as the first priority, but if the local school district made a decision after a fact finding study that they wanted to use the money for something else, then let them use the money for something else. We held tough to that position. Without going into all the details, finally we were undercut. The rug was pulled out, and there was a concession to the President on that point, with a bone being thrown to the Congress so that 25 percent could be used for teacher training. But that is not the kind of flexibility that is best public policy. The best public policy is, OK, class size reduction and additional teachers are important and they are the first priority, but if a local school district says our local needs are different, then let's not put them in a Washington, DC, bureaucratic straitjacket. That is the result of what has happened. It is my hope that next year we can take this bill up early. This issue will still be with us next year and President Clinton will still be with us next year. When Senator Harkin and I and other Republicans and Democrats, on a bipartisan basis, establish our priorities, let's legislate. As the Constitution says, the power of the purse is with the Congress--the appropriation power--so let us present the bill to the President. If he vetoes it, let's take the case to the public. I think we can certainly win on the issue of local control versus the Washington bureaucratic straitjacket. To do that, the bill has to be presented to the President before the end of the fiscal year. It has to be presented to the President in September--hopefully early September. That is the plan for next year. I would like to see the process modified where we do not have the White House officials in the legislative process as part of the negotiations. The Constitution says that Congress submits a bill to the President and he signs it or vetoes it. But that system has been aborted, observed in the breach more often than in the rule by having OMB officials, the Director of OMB, sitting down with the appropriators to decide what the President will accept before the Congress makes a decision and submits a bill to the President. That is not the constitutional way and we ought to change it. So against that backdrop with substantial concerns about what has been done, I do intend to vote for this appropriations package. I do so because the good points outweigh the bad points, perhaps close, but the benefits do outweigh the negatives. We come through in this bill with an increase in the National Institutes of Health funding by $2.3 billion, for a total of $17.9 billion. Senator Harkin and I have taken the lead with an increase, 2 years ago, of almost $1 billion, last year $2 billion, and this year $2.3 billion. Some objections have been lodged, but nobody with sufficient bravado to try to take it out of the bill. Enormous advances have been made on dreaded diseases. They are within 5 years of curing Parkinson's, so say the experts, with major research advances in Alzheimer's, cancer, heart ailments, and a whole range of various other ailments. With the Federal budget of $1.8 trillion, $17.9 billion is not chopped liver, but it is not too much. This bill also has an increase in special education by $913 million, bringing the total to more than $6 billion on what is essentially a Federal obligation, and it frees State and local funds for other purposes. The Head Start increase is $608 million, to more than $5.2 billion. Afterschool learning centers more than doubled for a total of $453 million. The substance abuse and mental health program increases by $163 million over fiscal year 1999, for more than $2.6 billion. AIDS funding increased by $185 million over last year to almost $1.6 billion. There is first-time funding of $75 million for the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Act, which are appropriations that are long past due. We worked out an accommodation on the issue of organ allocation and, regrettably, at the last minute on a backdoor arrangement, a different provision has been added to another bill that will be voted upon by the Congress. Organ allocation has been very contentious. Last year we agreed, under considerable reluctance, to a 1-year deferral. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, promulgated regulations on October 1, and then came the cry for an additional delay. Some wanted it at 90 days. Finally, in a rather unusual way in my capacity as chairman of the conference, I invited Secretary Shalala to come to the conference on Wednesday, November 10. She was on her way home. We reached her in her car and she turned around from Georgetown and headed back to Capitol Hill. For more than an hour and a half we had a meeting with the House chairman, Bill Young, who very much wanted a 90-day delay and the ranking Democrat on Appropriations, Congressman Obey from Wisconsin, who also argued strongly for a delay. I urged that we not have the delay, as did Congressman John Porter, chairman of the House subcommittee. Finally, we hammered out an agreement for 42 days--21 days for additional comments and 21 more days for a response to those comments. I had thought that closed the matter out and reported back to the leadership. The general rule is to leave these issues with the subcommittee chairmen, and we have hammered it out. I found out late yesterday that there is another bill with a 90-day extension. It is not possible to put a hold on the other measure, which is a conference report. There could be some delay, such as a reading of the bill, a vote for cloture, but the result would be the same. Let me say this to those who have increased the delay: It increases our tenacity to get these regulations into effect. There is some thinking that there will be an authorization bill that is going to validate the regulations. I am not one for predictions, but I am prepared to make one here. There won't be 60 votes for cloture. If that should be wrong, there certainly won't be 67 votes to override a Presidential veto. George Shultz, when he was Secretary of State, once made a prophetic comment that ``nothing is ever settled in Washington.'' That very thing is true in Washington; he hit that right on the head. Nothing is ever settled in Washington. I thought the delay on the organ transplant issue had been resolved, but it wasn't settled. George Shultz may be wrong; we may settle it with finality when this 90-day period expires. In summary, the Congress will finally get the job done on this appropriations bill and finally move ahead on the bill from my subcommittee on funding the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor and Education. I have given a brief thumbnail description as to what the pluses and minuses are. I will vote for it because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. But it is my hope that we will learn from the experiences this year and do a much better job next year. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I would.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the time had been set at 5 o'clock for the beginning of the votes. There are a number of us who have commitments to depart, and have had for some time. Ordinarily it would not be a matter of concern to this Senator, but if we are to complete the arrangements which have been made with a great many Senators, I understand from the Parliamentarian that under the prevailing order, debate will resume on this matter but at the conclusion of the votes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce a bill which will overturn what has come to be known as the ``Feres doctrine.'' In the 1950 case of Feres v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that the United States Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to military personnel where the injuries are sustained ``incident to service.'' Under the Feres doctrine, therefore, a soldier would not be able to seek compensation from the government for injuries sustained due to government negligence unless the soldier happened to be on leave or furlough at the time he or she sustained the injuries. Over the years, we have seen the Feres doctrine produce anomalous results which reflect neither the will of the Congress nor basic common sense. For instance, under Feres, a soldier who is the victim of medical malpractice at an army hospital cannot sue the government for compensation. Likewise, his family cannot sue for compensation if the soldier dies from the malpractice. But a civilian who suffers from the same malpractice would be entitled to file suit against the government. Likewise, if a soldier driving home from work on an army base is hit by a negligently driven army truck, he is barred from suing the government for compensation. If the soldier dies in the accident, his family will be barred from suing for compensation. Meanwhile, a civilian hit by the same truck would have a cause of action against the United States. Unfortunately, the individuals hurt by the Feres doctrine are the men and women of our armed forces--people whom we should protect and reward, not punish. The recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in O'Neil v. United States illustrates the troubling results produced by the Feres doctrine. In O'Neil, the family of slain Naval officer Kerryn O'Neil was barred from pursuing a wrongful death claim against the government under the Feres doctrine. O'Neil was murdered by her former fiance, George Smith, a Navy ensign. The two met at the U.S. Naval Academy and were stationed at the same Naval base in California. After Ms. O'Neil broke off their engagement, Mr. Smith began to stalk her. One night while Ms. O'Neil was sitting in her on-base apartment watching a movie with a friend, Smith came to her building and killed her, her friend, and then himself. After the murders, Kerryn O'Neil's family learned that Mr. Smith had scored in the 99.99th percentile for aggressive/destructive behavior in Navy psychological tests. Under Naval procedures, these results should have been forwarded to the Department of Psychiatry at the Naval Hospital for a full psychological evaluation. Had their claim not been barred, the O'Neils would have argued that the Navy was negligent in failing to follow up on these extreme test results. I do not know whether the O'Neil's deserved to be compensated under the Act--this depends on the specific facts and the case law in this area. But it does seem clear to me that the O'Neils should not have been barred from pursuing their claim because their daughter's fatal injuries were sustained ``incident to service.'' Of course, there are situations in which soldiers should not be allowed to sue the government in tort. For example, in a combat situation, countless judgment calls are made which result in death or injuries to soldiers. We cannot have lawyers and juries second guessing the decisions made by field commanders and combatants in the heat of battle. But such considerations do not necessitate that military personnel should lose the right to sue the government in any context. The bill I introduce today will reverse the court-created Feres doctrine and return the law to the way it was originally intended by Congress. My bill is very short and simple. It amends the Federal Tort Claims Act to specifically provide that the Act applies to military personnel on active duty the same as it applies to anyone else. My bill further specifies that military personnel will be limited by the exceptions to government liability already included in the Act, including the bar on liability for injuries sustained by military personnel in combat and the bar on liability for claims which arise in a foreign country. In short, my bill will ensure that members of our armed forces will be entitled to damages they deserve when injured through the negligence or wrongful actions of the Federal government or its agents, except for certain limited cases contemplated by Congress when it originally passed the Act. Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946 to give the general consent of the government to be sued in tort, subject to several specific restrictions. Under the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States cannot be sued without such specific consent. The Act provides that the government will be held liable ``in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under the circumstances.'' Thus, the Act makes the United States liable for the torts of its employees and agents to the extent that private employers are liable under state law for the torts of their employees and agents. The Act contains many exceptions to government liability, but it does not contain an explicit exception for injuries sustained by military personnel incident to service. In fact, one of the Act's exceptions prevents ``any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard during time of war.'' By including this exception, Congress clearly contemplated the special case of military personnel and decided that certain limits must be placed on government liability in this context. But by drawing this exception narrowly and limiting it to combat situations, Congress rejected any broad exception for injuries sustained ``incident to service.'' The Supreme Court did far more than interpret our statute when it significantly broadened the limited combat exception provided by Congress. This bill leaves intact the government's exemption for injuries sustained in combat. The Feres doctrine has been the subject of harsh criticism by some of the leading jurists in the nation. In the 1987 case of United States v. Johnson, a 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court held that the Feres doctrine bars suits on behalf of military personnel injured incident to service even in cases of torts committed by employees of civilian agencies. Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent in Johnson, in which he was joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens. Scalia wrote that Feres was ``wrongly decided and heartily deserves the widespread, almost universal criticism it has received.'' Judge Edward Becker, the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has also spoken out strongly against the Feres doctrine. He has noted that ``the scholarly criticism of the doctrine is legion'' and has urged the Supreme Court to grant cert. to reconsider Feres. Judge Becker has written to me that given the failure of the Court to overturn Feres thus far, I should introduce legislation doing so. Even in the Feres opinion itself, the Supreme Court expressed an uncharacteristic doubt about its decision. The justices recognized that they may be misinterpreting the Federal Tort Claims Act. They called upon Congress to correct their mistake if this were the case. The Court wrote: There are few guiding materials for our task of statutory construction. No committee reports or floor debates disclose what effect the statute was designed to have on the problem before us, or that it even was in mind. Under these circumstances, no conclusion can be above challenge, but if we misinterpret the Act, at least Congress possesses a ready remedy. Congress does possess a ready remedy, and I call upon my colleagues to exercise it. The bill I introduce today will eliminate the judicially created Feres doctrine and revive the original framework of the Federal Tort Claims Act. There is no reason to deny compensation to the men and women of our armed services who are injured or killed in domestic accidents or violence outside the heat of combat. I hope that when we resume our business next year my colleagues will join me in supporting and passing this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce a bill which will overturn what has come to be known as the ``Feres doctrine.'' In the 1950 case of Feres v. U.S., the Supreme Court held that the United States Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to military personnel where the injuries are sustained ``incident to service.'' Under the Feres doctrine, therefore, a soldier would not be able to seek compensation from the government for injuries sustained due to government negligence unless the soldier happened to be on leave or furlough at the time he or she sustained the injuries. Over the years, we have seen the Feres doctrine produce anomalous results which reflect neither the will of the Congress nor basic common sense. For instance, under Feres, a soldier who is the victim of medical malpractice at an army hospital cannot sue the government for compensation. Likewise, his family cannot sue for compensation if the soldier dies from the malpractice. But a civilian who suffers from the same malpractice would be entitled to file suit against the government. Likewise, if a soldier driving home from work on an army base is hit by a negligently driven army truck, he is barred from suing the government for compensation. If the soldier dies in the accident, his family will be barred from suing for compensation. Meanwhile, a civilian hit by the same truck would have a cause of action against the United States. Unfortunately, the individuals hurt by the Feres doctrine are the men and women of our armed forces--people whom we should protect and reward, not punish. The recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in O'Neil v. United States illustrates the troubling results produced by the Feres doctrine. In O'Neil, the family of slain Naval officer Kerryn O'Neil was barred from pursuing a wrongful death claim against the government under the Feres doctrine. O'Neil was murdered by her former fiance, George Smith, a Navy ensign. The two met at the U.S. Naval Academy and were stationed at the same Naval base in California. After Ms. O'Neil broke off their engagement, Mr. Smith began to stalk her. One night while Ms. O'Neil was sitting in her on-base apartment watching a movie with a friend, Smith came to her building and killed her, her friend, and then himself. After the murders, Kerryn O'Neil's family learned that Mr. Smith had scored in the 99.99th percentile for aggressive/destructive behavior in Navy psychological tests. Under Naval procedures, these results should have been forwarded to the Department of Psychiatry at the Naval Hospital for a full psychological evaluation. Had their claim not been barred, the O'Neils would have argued that the Navy was negligent in failing to follow up on these extreme test results. I do not know whether the O'Neil's deserved to be compensated under the Act--this depends on the specific facts and the case law in this area. But it does seem clear to me that the O'Neils should not have been barred from pursuing their claim because their daughter's fatal injuries were sustained ``incident to service.'' Of course, there are situations in which soldiers should not be allowed to sue the government in tort. For example, in a combat situation, countless judgment calls are made which result in death or injuries to soldiers. We cannot have lawyers and juries second guessing the decisions made by field commanders and combatants in the heat of battle. But such considerations do not necessitate that military personnel should lose the right to sue the government in any context. The bill I introduce today will reverse the court-created Feres doctrine and return the law to the way it was originally intended by Congress. My bill is very short and simple. It amends the Federal Tort Claims Act to specifically provide that the Act applies to military personnel on active duty the same as it applies to anyone else. My bill further specifies that military personnel will be limited by the exceptions to government liability already included in the Act, including the bar on liability for injuries sustained by military personnel in combat and the bar on liability for claims which arise in a foreign country. In short, my bill will ensure that members of our armed forces will be entitled to damages they deserve when injured through the negligence or wrongful actions of the Federal government or its agents, except for certain limited cases contemplated by Congress when it originally passed the Act. Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946 to give the general consent of the government to be sued in tort, subject to several specific restrictions. Under the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States cannot be sued without such specific consent. The Act provides that the government will be held liable ``in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under the circumstances.'' Thus, the Act makes the United States liable for the torts of its employees and agents to the extent that private employers are liable under state law for the torts of their employees and agents. The Act contains many exceptions to government liability, but it does not contain an explicit exception for injuries sustained by military personnel incident to service. In fact, one of the Act's exceptions prevents ``any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard during time of war.'' By including this exception, Congress clearly contemplated the special case of military personnel and decided that certain limits must be placed on government liability in this context. But by drawing this exception narrowly and limiting it to combat situations, Congress rejected any broad exception for injuries sustained ``incident to service.'' The Supreme Court did far more than interpret our statute when it significantly broadened the limited combat exception provided by Congress. This bill leaves intact the government's exemption for injuries sustained in combat. The Feres doctrine has been the subject of harsh criticism by some of the leading jurists in the nation. In the 1987 case of United States v. Johnson, a 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court held that the Feres doctrine bars suits on behalf of military personnel injured incident to service even in cases of torts committed by employees of civilian agencies. Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent in Johnson, in which he was joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens. Scalia wrote that Feres was ``wrongly decided and heartily deserves the widespread, almost universal criticism it has received.'' Judge Edward Becker, the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has also spoken out strongly against the Feres doctrine. He has noted that ``the scholarly criticism of the doctrine is legion'' and has urged the Supreme Court to grant cert. to reconsider Feres. Judge Becker has written to me that given the failure of the Court to overturn Feres thus far, I should introduce legislation doing so. Even in the Feres opinion itself, the Supreme Court expressed an uncharacteristic doubt about its decision. The justices recognized that they may be misinterpreting the Federal Tort Claims Act. They called upon Congress to correct their mistake if this were the case. The Court wrote: There are few guiding materials for our task of statutory construction. No committee reports or floor debates disclose what effect the statute was designed to have on the problem before us, or that it even was in mind. Under these circumstances, no conclusion can be above challenge, but if we misinterpret the Act, at least Congress possesses a ready remedy. Congress does possess a ready remedy, and I call upon my colleagues to exercise it. The bill I introduce today will eliminate the judicially created Feres doctrine and revive the original framework of the Federal Tort Claims Act. There is no reason to deny compensation to the men and women of our armed services who are injured or killed in domestic accidents or violence outside the heat of combat. I hope that when we resume our business next year my colleagues will join me in supporting and passing this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, in introducing the Medicaid Attendant Care Services and Supports Act of 1999. This creative proposal addresses a glaring gap in Federal health coverage, and assists one of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, persons with disabilities. I would also note that a similar version on this bill was included in the Health Care Assurance Act of 1999 (S. 24), which I introduced on January 19, 1999. In an effort to improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those with long-term disabilities, this vital legislation would allow for reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, in lieu of institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require such services based on functional need, without regard to the individual's age or the nature of the disability. The most recent data available tell us that 5.9 million individuals receive care for disabilities under the Medicaid program. The number of disabled who are not currently enrolled in the program who would apply for this improved benefit is not easily counted, but would likely be substantial given the preference of home and community-based care over institutional care. Under this proposal, States may apply for grants for assistance in implementing ``systems change'' initiatives, in order to eliminate the institutional bias in their current policies and for needs assessment activities. Further, if a state can show that the aggregate amounts of Federal expenditures on people living in the community exceeds what would have been spent on the same people had they been in nursing homes, the state can limit the program, perhaps by not letting any more people apply; no limiting mechanism is mandated under this bill. And finally, States would be required to maintain expenditures for attendant care services under other Medicaid community-based programs, thereby preventing the states from shifting patients into the new benefit proposed under this bill. Let me speak briefly about why such a change in Medicaid law is so desperately needed. Only a few short months ago, the Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999), that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires States, under some circumstances, to provide community-based treatment to persons with mental disabilities rather than placing them in institutions. This decision and several lower court decisions have pointed to the need for a structured Medicaid attendant-care services benefit in order to meet obligations under the ADA. Disability advocates strongly support this legislation, arguing that the lack of Medicaid communty-based services options is discriminatory and unhealthful for disabled individuals. Virtually every major disability advocacy group supports this bill, including ADAPT, the Arc, the National Council on Independent Living, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. Senator Harkin and I recognize that such a shift in the Medicaid program is a huge undertaking--but feel that it is a vitally important one. We are introducing this legislation today in an attempt to move ahead with the consideration of crucial disability legislation and to provide a starting point for debate. Mr. President, the time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge the congressional leadership, including the appropriate committee chairmen, to move forward in considering this legislation, and take the significant next step forward in achieving the objective of providing individuals with disabilities the freedom to live in their own communities.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to discuss two important provisions that were added to the bankruptcy reform bill by unanimous consent. The first provides that bankruptcy attorneys who represent debtors will be liable for paying certain attorneys' fees only if their own actions are ``frivolous''--the bill had originally required these attorneys to pay fees for merely losing the argument on a motion to remove a case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13. The second of these provisions empowers judges to waive the bankruptcy filing fee for individuals who cannot afford to pay it, even in installments. I have fought for these two provisions, together with Senator Feingold, since this bill first came before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress, and I believe their inclusion in the bill is a significant improvement that will ensure sufficient access to justice for all who seek relief in our bankruptcy courts. As originally drafted, the bankruptcy bill provided that if a debtor files in Chapter 7, and a bankruptcy trustee prevails on a motion to remove the debtor to Chapter 13 because the debtor is found to have the ability to pay at least 25% of his debts, then the debtor's attorney must pay the reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the trustee in filing and arguing the removal motion. This was an inappropriate provision. We would have had attorneys being penalized not because they were bad actors, but because they engaged in zealous advocacy on behalf of clients and happened to lose the argument. This would have had an enormous chilling effect on debtors' attorneys. In all cases where the outcome was less than certain, lawyers would have been inclined to file their clients in Chapter 13, even if they truly believe that the clients belong in Chapter 7, in order to avoid the penalty. When the bill came before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress, I offered an amendment together with Senator Feingold to provide that the debtors' attorneys should pay these fees only if their actions in filing in Chapter 7 were ``frivolous.'' Our amendment was defeated by a roll call vote of 9-9. We then offered our amendment on the Senate floor, where it was tabled by a vote of 57-42. As the result of our efforts last Congress, the attorneys' fees standard was improved when the bill was re-introduced this Congress. The current version of the bill provides that lawyers must pay these fees only if their actions in filing in Chapter 7 were not ``substantially justified.'' Still, I believe that this standard is too broad and will still chill attorneys from zealous advocacy. As in every other area of the law, lawyers must be punished only if their actions are ``frivolous'' or in bad faith. I am glad that this is the standard that is now in the bill. A second problem with the bankruptcy bill as originally drafted was that it did not permit bankruptcy judges to waive the bankruptcy filing fee for indigent individuals. Individuals who petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy must pay a filing fee of approximately $175. There are many individuals who are so indigent by time they decide to seek the relief of bankruptcy, however, that they cannot even afford this relatively small fee. As a result, some individuals are actually too poor to go bankrupt. This is an absurd result. In such limited cases, we must empower a judge to decide that the filing fee can waived. Many individuals opposed to waiving the filing fee have argued that doing so would open the door to an enormous increase in the number of individuals taking advantage of the bankruptcy system. The idea is that ``free'' bankruptcies will lead to a bankruptcy bonanza. Unfortunately, these individuals have failed to look at the record. In the appropriations bill for FY `94, Congress authorized a pilot in forma pauperis program in six federal judicial districts, including Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for three years. These pilots demonstrated that the program worked as intended, and did not significantly change the number or nature of bankruptcy filings. In the six pilot districts, waivers were requested in only 3.4% of all non-business Chapter 7 cases, and waivers were granted in only 2.9% of all non-business Chapter 7 cases. This number was small enough that it did not lead to a significant increase in the number of overall Chapter 7 filings or a significant loss in revenue to the courts. When the bankruptcy bill was before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress, I offered an amendment to permit the waiver of filing fees together with Senator Feingold. Our amendment was defeated in Committee by a vote of 9-9. When we introduced our amendment on the floor of the Senate, however, the motion to table the amendment was rejected by a vote of 47-52, and the amendment was accepted into the bill. I am glad that this Congress our waiver provision has been included without the necessity of a vote. Taken together, these two provisions ensure that all who are in need will have access to our bankruptcy courts and will enjoy the benefits of zealous advocacy on their behalf that is the cornerstone of our legal system. They are valuable improvements, and I commend Senators Grassley, Leahy, Torricelli and Feingold for their inclusion in the bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, in introducing the Medicaid Attendant Care Services and Supports Act of 1999. This creative proposal addresses a glaring gap in Federal health coverage, and assists one of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, persons with disabilities. I would also note that a similar version on this bill was included in the Health Care Assurance Act of 1999 (S. 24), which I introduced on January 19, 1999. In an effort to improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those with long-term disabilities, this vital legislation would allow for reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, in lieu of institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require such services based on functional need, without regard to the individual's age or the nature of the disability. The most recent data available tell us that 5.9 million individuals receive care for disabilities under the Medicaid program. The number of disabled who are not currently enrolled in the program who would apply for this improved benefit is not easily counted, but would likely be substantial given the preference of home and community-based care over institutional care. Under this proposal, States may apply for grants for assistance in implementing ``systems change'' initiatives, in order to eliminate the institutional bias in their current policies and for needs assessment activities. Further, if a state can show that the aggregate amounts of Federal expenditures on people living in the community exceeds what would have been spent on the same people had they been in nursing homes, the state can limit the program, perhaps by not letting any more people apply; no limiting mechanism is mandated under this bill. And finally, States would be required to maintain expenditures for attendant care services under other Medicaid community-based programs, thereby preventing the states from shifting patients into the new benefit proposed under this bill. Let me speak briefly about why such a change in Medicaid law is so desperately needed. Only a few short months ago, the Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999), that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires States, under some circumstances, to provide community-based treatment to persons with mental disabilities rather than placing them in institutions. This decision and several lower court decisions have pointed to the need for a structured Medicaid attendant-care services benefit in order to meet obligations under the ADA. Disability advocates strongly support this legislation, arguing that the lack of Medicaid communty-based services options is discriminatory and unhealthful for disabled individuals. Virtually every major disability advocacy group supports this bill, including ADAPT, the Arc, the National Council on Independent Living, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. Senator Harkin and I recognize that such a shift in the Medicaid program is a huge undertaking--but feel that it is a vitally important one. We are introducing this legislation today in an attempt to move ahead with the consideration of crucial disability legislation and to provide a starting point for debate. Mr. President, the time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge the congressional leadership, including the appropriate committee chairmen, to move forward in considering this legislation, and take the significant next step forward in achieving the objective of providing individuals with disabilities the freedom to live in their own communities.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. On behalf of our distinguished majority leader, I have been asked to make the following announcements. Today the Senate will resume consideration of the bankruptcy reform legislation with 1 hour of debate on the pending minimum wage amendments. Following the debate, the Senate will proceed to two rollcall votes at approximately 10:30 a.m. There are numerous pending amendments, and others are expected to be offered and debated during today's session. Therefore, Senators may anticipate votes throughout the day. Progress is being made on the appropriations issues, and it is hoped that those remaining issues can be resolved prior to the Veterans Day recess.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I have concluded. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. No, I will not yield here, but I will in just a minute. What we have seen is the President's ultimatum. He says this issue on schoolteachers is nonnegotiable. That is hardly the way you get into a negotiation session. Then his Chief of Staff, John Podesta, said on Sunday that if the Congress wants to get out of town they are going to have to accede to the President's demands on teachers, to do it his way. I think that is not appropriate. Congress has the power of the purse under the Constitution. It is our fundamental responsibility on appropriations. We are prepared to negotiate, but we are not prepared to deal with nonnegotiable demands. We are not prepared to deal with ultimatums. We are going back into a session--I don't know whether I should call it a negotiating session or not, because the President talks about nonnegotiable demands. Frankly, I am prepared to meet that with a nonnegotiable demand, not giving up on our prerogative to make a determination as to how the money is to be spent and getting local control over a Presidential straitjacket. Now I would be delighted to yield to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts.