Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to comment on Senator Daschle's education funding legislation, S. Res. 187. The resolution states that the funding level for the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education has been reduced to pay for other programs. I would like to set the record straight. The 302(b) allocation that was originally assigned to the Subcommittee was temporarily reduced to permit other subcommittees to mark up their bills. This was done with the intention that as these other bills moved through their conferences, additional dollars would be made available to provide the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee with the necessary resources to increase funding for education, health and labor programs. As last evening's Labor-HHS-Education markup proved, there was never any intention to cut 17 percent from education programs. To the contrary, the subcommittee actually recommended $35.2 billion for education programs, an increase of $2.3 billion over the fiscal year 1999 program level and $537.6 million over the administration's budget request. Instead of reducing Head Start dollars, $5.2 billion was recommended, which increased the program $608.5 million over fiscal year 1999 level and matching the amount requested by the President. After school programs were doubled from $200 to $400 million; aid to disadvantaged children was increased by $320 million over last year which again matched the President's request. Instead of decreasing technology programs, $550 million was recommended to maintain last year's program level. The resolution also states that a $100 million reduction would be cut from the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. The facts are that Safe and Drug Free schools, as part of the youth violence initiative was increased by $45 million to provide $611 million for state grants, school coordinators and programs to promote safe learning environments for this nation's children. To provide a free, appropriate, public education to all children, $6.035 billion was provided to children with disabilities increasing the program $911.5 million over last year's amount and $585.7 million over the President's recommendation. And finally, the subcommittee recommended a $200 increase in the maximum Pell grant to provide $3,325 to help disadvantaged children achieve a college education. In closing, I wish to point out that these increases in education dollars, have been carefully balanced with savings in other areas in the bill and advance funding. The Labor-HHS-Education bill is within the discretionary spending caps set forth in the budget resolution. This fact points out once again that the findings stated in Senate Resolution 187 were not factual which is the reason I voted against it and led the effort to provide a better formula for Federal funding as reflected in the subcommittee bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for successfully managing such a complex appropriations bill as S. 1596. In particular, I want to thank him for recognizing the need for additional funding for veterans health care and increasing that appropriations an additional $1.7 billion over the President's request. Doing this was very difficult in light of budgetary constraints, but it was the right thing to do and I commend him for his foresight and courage.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is an additional matter in which I would like to have an exchange with him involving two amendments I have offered. The first involves the need for funding of a unique construction project at the Lebanon VA Medical Center for the growing problem of the long term care needs of veterans. The second involves funding for a needed national veterans cemetery in the southwestern portion of Pennsylvania. In the interest of time and space, I will not elaborate on these projects both of which have been authorized by the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs in S. 1076 and S. 695 respectively and are outlined in the accompanying reports. You and I discussed them yesterday and I believe we had a meeting of the minds in which I understood that you will seek at least limited funding for both projects during conference. Is this the understanding of Senator Bond as well?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on August 14, I landed in Amsterdam, Holland, and proceeded directly to the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. There, I met with a team of the leading prosecutors/ investigators at the Tribunal including John Ralston, Bob Reid, Graham Blewitt, and J. Clint Williamson. Ralston, Reid, and Blewitt are all Australians who got their start together hunting Nazis who had immigrated to Australia following World War II. They have been at War Crimes Tribunal since 1994. Williamson is an American who used to work for the Department of Justice. Recently the prosecutors obtained a very important indictment against five individuals: Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Serbia, the Serbian Interior Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, and the Chief of Staff of the Yugoslav Army. They have been charged with crimes against humanity in the deportation of more than 700,000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo and mass murder. Their theory of prosecution is that the atrocities in Kosovo were so systematic and widespread that they must have been orchestrated at the highest levels of the Yugoslav/Serbian government and military. No arrests in connection with this indictment have been made to date. When I asked about the prospects of detaining Milosevic and bringing him to trial, my hosts told me that this will happen only when a new government comes to power in Yugoslavia. It is possible that such a government may quickly find that Milosevic is too great a liability and hand him over. I also asked about the prospects of capturing another indicted war criminal, Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs during the fighting in Bosnia. Karadzic is still in Bosnia and to date remains at large. Karadzic is believed to be in the French sector of Bosnia, and the French have shown no interest in arresting him. Unfortunately, the United States has also shown a lack of resolve on this issue. I believe that capturing Karadic and trying him before the War Crimes Tribunal would send a powerful signal to leaders around the world that they are not immune from prosecution, and that prosecution will not be limited merely to the troops on the ground. Had Karadzic been in custody in the Hague awaiting or standing trial, one wonders whether Milosevic would have acted as brazenly as he did in Kosovo. The war crimes team all stressed that there was a great deal of work to do collecting evidence of the war crimes in Kosovo and that this work needed to be done prior to October, when winter weather would prevent further excavations until the Spring. They also told me that the work was particularly challenging because the Serbs had gone to great lengths to hide their crimes, including burning the bodies of their victims, bulldozing houses in which mass murders took place, and dispersing bodies from mass graves. In early summer, the FBI sent a team of forensic experts to help collect evidence of war crimes in Kosovo, and the FBI was preparing to send a second team at the end of August. I had helped to get funding for these FBI missions, and was interested in hearing about what the FBI was doing. The team at the War Crimes Tribunal told me that the FBI had been sent to work at a number of massacre sights where most of the evidence had been destroyed, usually by burning the victims' corpses. Despite the difficulties, the FBI was able to find evidence, including bone fragments, blood stains, shell castings, and petrol cans used to start the fires. They have exhumed victim bodies and conducted autopsies. This evidence will prove invaluable when the individuals under indictment are finally brought to trial. I asked my hosts if they needed any additional resources. Mr. Blewitt told me that resources continued to be a problem--the tribunal was currently borrowing against other areas of its budget in order to fund its Kosovo operations and would run out of money by early October. He mentioned that the $9 million dollars recently pledged by President Clinton would carry them through the end of 1999. After leaving the War Crimes Tribunal, we proceeded to meet with General Wesley Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces. General Clark ran our war effort in Kosovo and continues to manage the day-to-day operations there, and is a valuable source of information about the situation on the ground. I asked the General about the odds of capturing Milosevic and bringing him to trial. The General stated that he was optimistic that one day Milosevic and the others would indeed be captured and brought to justice. I also asked him about the chances of capturing Karadzic. He mentioned that Karadzic is in hiding, surrounded by guards, and goes to great lengths to avoid being located such as avoiding the use of cell phones. Still, I got the impression that if NATO were truly determined to capture him, they could do so. I also asked General Clark about the Apache helicopters that were sent to Kosovo with much fanfare but were never used. He told me that the Pentagon had conducted a risk/benefit analysis and decided that the risk of losing one of these expensive helicopters outweighed the benefit that could be derived by their use. I expressed my view that there is no point in having all of this high priced machinery unless it is going to be used. Our next stop was Kiev, the capitol of Ukraine. We arrived in Ukraine shortly before the celebration of its 8th Independence Day. During this short period, Ukraine has become an important country for U.S. foreign policy. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was left with one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world. Our work with Ukraine has eliminated all of these nuclear weapons. In addition, Ukraine is a young country making the difficult transition from totalitarian rule to democracy and from a planned economy to a market economy. If Ukraine succeeds, it can lead the way for Russia and other former Soviet Republics to follow. If Ukraine fails, it could revert to communism and possibly join Russia and others in a union that would once again seek to pursue global power through militarism. The United States has a lot at stake here. During my stay in Ukraine, I met with the top leadership of the country including President Leonid Kuchma, Prime Minister Valeriy Pustovoitenko, Deputy Foreign Minister Oleksandr Chalyi, and Secretary Volodymyr Horbulyn, who is the head of the National Security and Defense Council. These meetings provided valuable information on the challenges facing Ukraine and the role the United States can play to help this country on the difficult path to democracy and free markets. President Kuchma is up for reelection this October. He is generally considered to be a reformer and a man who will continue down the path towards democracy and free markets. His strongest opponents are the Communists and the Socialists, who have opposed Kuchma's market reforms. I was curious to know what my hosts thought would be the major issues in the campaign. Both President Kuchma and Prime Minister Pustovoitenko agreed that one of the most important issues in the campaign would be unpaid pensions and government salaries. The government has missed a number of monthly payments of pensions and salaries this year and last. Naturally, people owed money are likely to vote for the party they believe is most likely to pay it to them. Beyond the specific issue of back pay, the economy in general will also play a pivotal role in the campaign. My hosts told me that they felt threatened on economic issues, because there are many who believe that their lives were better under Communism and would therefore support the Communists. The Prime Minister noted that as an opposition party, the Communists have been criticizing President Kuchma's economic reforms and have blocked more meaningful reform. President Kuchma agreed that it is possible, although unlikely, that the Communists could come to power and return the country to totalitarian rule. Although Kuchma is considered to be a reformer, there have been complaints that the pace of reform is too slow and that his initiatives have been too modest. When asked about the pace of reform, my hosts put the blame largely on the shoulders of the left wing parties. They told me that the Communists, Socialists and some others are blocking the most important reform legislation his government has introduced. They suggested that the pace of reform would pick up after the election, provided President Kuchma wins. Prime Minister Pustovoitenko confirmed that Ukraine has eliminated all of the nuclear arms in the substantial arsenal it inherited from the Soviet Union. Today, of course, countries are competing in the most aggressive way to acquire nuclear arms. Being a member of the nuclear club gives a country great prestige and bargaining power in the world. It is for this reason that I find it truly remarkable that Ukraine had voluntarily given up its nuclear arsenal. I asked my hosts why they would agree to do this voluntarily. President Kuchma mentioned that after the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, which is in Ukraine, Ukrainians understand better than most people the danger posed by nuclear power and simply did not want them. Deputy Foreign Minister Chalyi also gave me an interesting answer. He told me that he and others decided that the best development model for Ukraine to follow was Japan, which disarmed and focused on building its economy. Nuclear arms do not bring prosperity. Given Ukraine's voluntary disarmament, I was interested to know what my hosts thought about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify this treaty. All of the government officials I spoke with felt very strongly that the Test Ban Treaty was an extremely important way to seek to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms and slow this dangerous arms race. Likewise, they all agreed that the failure of the U.S. to ratify this Treaty was a serious impediment to the goal of disarmament. As President Kuchma noted, ratifying the Treaty gives a country the moral right to pressure others to stop their testing and construction of nuclear arms. Prime Minister Pustovoitenko sounded a similar note when he said that the United States must set an example for the world when it comes to disarmament and would be in much stronger position to pressure other countries to stop their tests once they formally committed to stopping their own. Deputy Foreign Minister Chalyi told me a very interesting story in response to my question about the Test Ban Treaty. Mr. Chalyi serves as the Chairman of the South Asia Taskforce, a group of Asian nations and their trading partners including China, Japan, Australia, Argentina and Brazil. He told me that during a visit to Pakistan, he urged his Pakistani counterparts to ratify the Treaty. A Pakistani official responded that he did not see why Pakistan should have to ratify the Treaty when the Americans had not. While in Ukraine, I also had a meeting with representatives of the Ukrainian Jewish Community. Of the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, 1.7 million came from Ukraine. After the War, the Holocaust, and continuing emigration, the Ukrainian Jewish community now numbers approximately 500,000. I feel special concern for this community since both of my parents were Ukrainian Jews. I found these Jewish leaders to be upbeat, even optimistic, about the future of their community. They told me that since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Jewish community has begun to develop rapidly. Rabbis are coming to the country, and many Jewish schools and camps are opening. They told me that there is religious freedom and opportunities for Jews in every sector of society. During the Communist era, I was told, Ukraine was one of the most anti-Semitic republics in the Soviet Union. No Jew could hope to be a leader in politics or industry. In contrast, one of the Jewish leaders we met with was a successful businessman and an advisor to President Kuchma. I was informed that a former Prime Minister of Ukraine was Jewish. Another Rabbi from the Lubavitcher Hasidic movement told me that he has been walking back and forth to synagogue in his town for two years without any incident. This is certainly different from the days when the Cossacks used to ride up and down the streets of my father's town looking for Jews to harass. The only complaint I heard was on the issue of communal property. Jewish property confiscated by the Nazis became government property under the Soviet Union. Now that Communism is gone, representatives of the Jewish community would like to retrieve Jewish communal property-- graveyards, synagogues, schools, etc. Some feel that the government has not moved fast enough on this issue. Others stressed that this is a sensitive topic affecting many ethnic groups in Ukraine and feared that to push too loudly for restitution would lead to anti-Semitism. A number of the leaders I met with, including President Kuchma, asked that the United States repeal the Jackson-Vanik Amendment as it applies to Ukraine. Jackson-Vanik was originally passed during the days of the Iron Curtain as a way of pressuring the Soviet Union to allow Jews and other religious minorities to emigrate. Today in Ukraine, there are open borders and free emigration. The Ukrainians don't understand why they must come to the U.S. every year and ask for a waiver from the Jackson-Vanik sanctions, and they believe that the repeal of the amendment would have great symbolic importance. When I met with the Jewish leaders, I asked them about this issue. They agreed that there is free emigration from Ukraine and seemed open to the idea of repealing Jackson-Vanik. Some raised a concern, however, that today Jackson-Vanik applies to issues beyond emigration, such as the restoration of communal property, and should therefore not be repealed until the communal property issue is settled. The U.S. Congress should review this issue. On my final night in Kiev, I met with a group of American businessmen living in Ukraine to hear their view of the Ukrainian economy and business climate. They all complained about the slow pace of reform, corruption and inefficiency. They contrasted Ukraine with countries such as Poland, which have converted well to capitalism. Ukraine, they argue, is still a state run economy in many important ways. Private firms have made progress in some consumer product fields such as brewing beer and making chocolates. But in major industries, the government-owned companies still dominate. Despite these problems, however, these Americans still believed in the potential of Ukraine and were devoting themselves to the task of developing their economy. From Ukraine we flew to Israel where we had a series of meetings relating to the Mid-East peace process. Our first meeting was with Israeli Prime Minister Barak. I found the Prime Minister to be optimistic about the prospects for peace in the Middle East. He stated that Israel will resume implementation of the Wye Accords as soon as possible. When I asked him about the risks of peace making, Barak explained to me why he is seeking to make peace so quickly. If Israel does not make peace now, he said, then he is certain that there will be another war in the Middle East. While he is confident that Israel will win this war and survive, he knows that Israel will never win an unconditional surrender from her Arab neighbors. So after Israel and her neighbors have buried their dead and repaired their cities, they will sit down to negotiate exactly the same issues that are on the table now. The Prime Minister believes that by making peace now he will avoid this futile loss of life. In addition, Barak believes that Israel is strong enough to take the risks inherent in pursuing peace. He drew a strong contrast between his view of Israel in the Middle East and the view of his predecessor, Binyamin Netanyahu. He noted that Netanyahu once analogized the situation of Israel in the Middle East to that of a carp in a tank of sharks. Barak rejected this analogy and stated that Israel is not a carp, but a ``benign killer whale.'' His message was clear--Israel is strong enough that it does not have to fear making territorial concessions to its neighbors. But the Prime Minister is also a realist and he stressed that Israel will only enjoy peace so long as it is stronger than its neighbors. He stated, I believe correctly, that there is no second chance for the weak in the Middle East. During the peace process, Israel must stay militarily strong and even supplement her strength to compensate for lost military assets, namely land and strategic depth. Towards this end, he stressed the importance of U.S. aid and the need to continue to provide the aid to help convince the Israeli public that the peace process will not jeopardize Israel's security. Under the Wye River accords, the U.S. pledged to provide $1.2 billion in aid to Israel beyond the almost $3 billion it currently receives in annual economic and military assistance. This $1.2 billion is meant to pay for the costs of moving two military bases that are currently located in territory that will be handed over to the Palestinians under Wye. The money will also pay for additional missile defense deployments and research. I told the Prime Minister that while there is support in Congress for such aid, there will be difficulties in procuring it. Because of the caps established under the '97 Budget Act, there is great difficulty in meeting existing requirements in the FY 2000 budget. Nevertheless, I told the Prime Minister that I believed the U.S. would ultimately provide the promised funds to implement the Wye Accord. After leaving Prime Minister Barak's office, we drove directly to Ramallah, a city in the West Bank which is under the control of the Palestinian Authority. There we met with Chairman Yasser Arafat and a number of his deputies. Mr. Arafat had some complaints about the pace of negotiations with Israel, but he was still optimistic that there would be progress. Some of Arafat's deputes seemed more pessimistic. Towards the end of my talk with Arafat, Saeb Erakat entered the room. Mr. Erakat is the Palestinians' chief negotiator with the Israelis over the terms for resuming implementation of the Wye accord, and he had just returned from a negotiating session with the Israelis. I asked Mr. Erakat how the negotiations went. He refused to go into details, but was clearly frustrated with the lack of progress. He complained that the Israeli settlers had too much influence and were refusing to compromise. The next day the papers reported that the Israeli-Palestinian talks had reached and impasse over the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Under the Wye Accords, the U.S. agreed to provide $400 million in aid to the Palestinians. I asked Arafat how he would use this money. He told me that it would go towards a variety of projects, including building a road from Jenin to Nablus, building a high tech industrial zone, and funding programs to help establish the rule of law in the Palestinian Authority territories. I also asked Chairman Arafat about Syria and the possibility that Syria would cease to harbor Palestinian groups still pursing terrorism against Israel. Mr. Arafat told me that some of these groups may abandon terrorism on their own initiative. He told me that he is conducting negotiations with two reductionist groups--George Habash's Poplar Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Nayef Hawatmeh's Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine about the terms for ending hostilities against Israel and entering the political arena. If these negotiations succeed, the only major Palestinian groups opposed to peace with Israel will be the fundamentalist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Despite rumors about his poor health and the lip tremors that have been evident for some time, Mr. Arafat met me at his office at 8:30 in the evening. When our meeting ended at 9:40 he walked me out the door and then, I'm sure, returned to work. The next morning we drove to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Foreign Minister David Levy. Mr. Levy was born in Morocco and moved to Israel in his teens. He speaks French, Arabic and Hebrew, but no English, so we spoke with the assistance of a translator. Mr. Levy reiterated the Prime Minister's commitment to quickly resume implementation of the Wye Accords. On Syria, he sounded a less optimistic note than Prime Minister Barak had. He stated that Israel cannot accept Syria's precondition for resuming negotiations that Israel accept Syria' interpretation of where negotiations with Prime Minister Rabin left off. Foreign Minister Levy stressed that Barak would be a tougher negotiator. After these meetings with Barak and Levy, I though it would be worthwhile to hear from someone who is opposed to the peace process they are pursing. Perhaps no Israeli politician has been more consistent in his opposition to territorial concessions that former Prime Minister Yitzhark Shamir. So we dropped by Mr. Shamir's office in Tel Aviv for a visit. True to form, Mr. Shamir dismissed Oslo and Wye as dangerous concessions by Israel to her implacable enemies. He said that the Palestinians are real enemies of the State of Israel and that Syria will never be able to change. Shamir added that he would like to see 5 million more Jews move to Israel, but that there would be no room for such an expansion if the proposed territorial concessions take place. After finishing our business in Jerusalem, we drove to Amman for a brief stay in the Jordanian capitol. Each time I visit Amman, I notice that the city has grown and developed substantially since my last visit. We met with he new King of Jordan, King Abdullah, at his palace. I express my condolences to the King on the loss of his father, King Hussein. King Hussein was truly a valuable force for peace in the Middle East, and I am hopeful that King Abdullah will fill the void his father's death left behind. The King was upbeat about the situation in the Middle East. He believed that Ehud Barak was sincere about pursuing peace and making the sacrifices it entailed. He was also optimistic that President Assad would be flexible about negotiating with Israel and would relent on its insistence that the peace talks pick up exactly where he believes they left off with Rabin. He told me that Syria is prepared to accept all of Israel's requests regarding security arrangements in exchange for the Golan. I also asked the King about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the failure of the U.S. to ratify it. He expressed his view that this was an important treaty for the safety of the world and told me that he hoped that the United States would ratify it. From Amman we flew to Alexandria, Egypt, a teeming city on Egypt's Mediterranean Coast. Egypt's leaders often spend the hot summer months by the sea in Alexandria. When I met with President Mubarak in Washington this past June, he told me that he, too, would be in Alexandria for much of the summer. President Mubarak shared the optimism of the other leaders I met that the Israeli-Palestinian track was going in the right direction. He was less sanguine about the Israel-Syria track, but felt that progress with the Palestinians would help bring the Syrians along. He suggested that Syria is looking to receive more from the Israelis than the Egyptians received in their peace treaty to justify the 20-year delay in making peace. President Mubarak also stressed that it is essential that Israel and the Palestinians reach a peace agreement while Yasser Arafat is still alive. Mubarak fears, for good reason, that after Arafat's death there will be a power struggle among various Palestinian factions for control of the Palestinian Authority, and that terrorism against Israel will become a feature of this competition. I asked Mubarak about reports that he wanted to hold a summit on terrorism. He told me that he does intend to hold such a summit, and that he would like the focus of this summit to be terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I think this is an excellent idea and encouraged President Mubarak to proceed with his plans. I asked the President his opinion of the situation in Iran and what the U.S. policy towards Iran should be. Mubarak was not optimistic that Iran would abandon its extremism any time soon. He told me that the Iranians have named a street in Teheran after the man who assassinated President Sadat. When President Mubarak complained about this, the Iranians placed a large mural of the assassin above the street that bears his name. I next asked President Mubarak when he would warm up his relations with Israel. Mubarak blamed the cold peace with Israel on Prime Minister Netanyahu. He told me that prior to Netanyahu, things were warming up and economic cooperation was beginning. When I asked him if Egypt's relations with Israel would warm up now that Netanyahu was out of office, he responded that this would ``take time.'' I reminded President Mubarak that a lot of time has already passed since Egypt and Israel signed their peace treaty. From Alexandria we flew to Skopje, Macedonia, where we met representatives of the U.S. army for a one-day tour of neighboring Kosovo. We were flown by helicopter from Skopje to Prishtina, the major city in Kosovo. On the way, we flew over a number of Kosovar villages and towns. In almost every village, we saw the burnt-out remains of houses that once belonged to the Kosovor Albanians. In Prishtina, we met with Bernard Kouchner, the UN's top official in Kosovor. Mr. Kouchner told us that he has witnessed some positive developments since coming to Kosovor. Most importantly, he noted that the large majority of Albanians who fled Kosovor during the war have already returned home. In addition, the Kosovo Liberation Army appears willing to accept the transition from paramilitary force to civil service. KLA members will be given approximately 2,500 places in the UN-sponsored Kosovor police force. The return of the Kosovor Albanians to Kosovor is creating challenges for the UN. Mr. Kouchner told us that 60,000 homes were destroyed in Kosovor during the war, and that the UN would not be able to provide sufficient housing for all of the returnees prior to winter. The UN is going to have to rely on winterized tents and rehabilitating damaged homes to make up for the shortfall. Mr. Kouchner told us that the major challenge facing the UN in Kosovo is protecting the Serbian community from Albanian retribution attacks. While he felt he was making some progress in this area, Mr. Kouchner noted that there were still a number of attacks taking place on a daily basis, including assault, arson, and murder. I asked Mr. Kouchner how long the UN would have to stay in Kosovor. He estimated that it would take ``several years'' until the UN could leave. From Prishtina we flew by helicopter to Camp Bondsteel, the base for the U.S. contingent in NATO's Kosovo Force. There we were briefed by Brigadier General Peterson and his staff on the Army's mission in Kosovo. Although U.S. forces had only been in the country for 63 days, we saw a small city coming to life with rows of tents and some more permanent structures being built. Although the war may be over, our forces still face great danger in Kosovo. General Peterson told us that up until 6 nights prior to our visit, U.S. forces had taken hostile fire every night since their arrival, mostly in the form of sniper and mortar fire at U.S. positions. Although there have been no fatalities from these attacks, some U.S. soldiers have been injured. Our briefers confirmed that almost all of the Kosovar Albanians who left the U.S. sector during the fighting have since returned. Echoing what the UN's Kouchner told us, the soldiers said that one of the major problems they are now confronting is protecting the Serb population from retribution attacks by Albanians. Since some Albanians have sought to prevent the Serbs from harvesting their crops by targeting Serbian farmers, the U.S. must provide protection to Serbian farmers in the fields. I asked the soldiers how long they thought the U.S. Army would need to be in Kosovo. They refused to hazard a guess. They pointed out that the region is less complex than Bosnia, since there are only two nationalities fighting each other in Kosovo, as opposed to three in Bosnia. On the other hand, they told me that by time the U.S. entered Bosnia, the Bosnians were exhausted from fighting and ready to lay down their arms. It is not clear that the parties in Kosovo have exhausted their will to fight. Next we flew to the Kosovar village of Vlastica to view the sight of a massacre that took place during the war. As we entered the village, a large crowd of Albanian villagers came out to greet us. These people were clearly grateful for what the U.S. had done for them, and they were excited to hear that we wanted to help them rebuild and wanted to bring the war criminals to justice. As we walked through the village, we passed a number of burned-out houses. Even the village mosque had been burned. We stopped at the charred remains of a home where 13 Albanians had been killed in one night. There, we met a 13-year-old girl named Vlora Shaboni. Vlora used to live in the house with her family, and she was at home the night the Serb soldiers came. She told us that the Serbs broke down the door and ordered everyone in the house to line up with their hands above their heads. Then they shot everyone with automatic weapons. To hide the evidence of this massacre, the Serbs set the house on fire and bulldozed the remains. That night, Vlora saw the Serbs kill her mother and her brother. Vlora herself was shot in her face and the bullet lodged in her jaw, but she remained conscious and was able to escape before the house burned down. Vlora told me that she did not know her attackers but that she would be able to recognize them if she ever saw them again. Vlora told her story with an anxious tremble in her voice and the frightened, downcast eyes. I don't know where she found the strength to talk about what happened that night at all. The burnt remains of the victims of this massacre were left in the house, and have been recovered by a Canadian forensic team. That evidence, together with the statements of Vlora and others, will help the War Crimes prosecutors in The Hague prove their theory that Serbia's leaders orchestrated the systematic and widespread destruction of Albanian life in Kosovo. From Skopje we flew to Naples, Italy, to visit the headquarters of Allied Forces Southern Europe, or ``AFSouth,'' which is NATO's southern command. There we were briefed by Lieutenant General Jack Nix, Jr., the Chief of Staff of AFSouth, and members of his staff. AFSouth is responsible for the region surrounding the Mediterranean and Black Seas. This region includes a number of hot spots such as the Middle East and the Balkans. AFSouth has been responsible for operations in both Bosnia and Kosovo. We were briefed on the details of the air war in Kosovo. The allied bombing campaign was effective in Kosovo, and only 12% of bombing targets escaped without some damage. Still, our hosts agreed that there were problems with the air campaign. Most importantly, they noted that our forces were largely incapable of mounting the air campaign during bad weather. This experience convinced these soldiers that the U.S. must develop all-weather munitions that will free our forces from these weather-related limitations. I asked if any broader military lessons could be learned from the Kosovo campaign. I noted that during the debate over whether to authorize the air campaign, some military experts had argued that a war can never be won by air power alone. Did Kosovo prove these experts wrong? My hosts responded that, in fact, our forces did not win in Kosovo by air power alone. Ground forces played a pivotal role in the conflict--they just weren't NATO ground forces. Towards the end of the conflict, the Kosovo Liberation Army began major ground operations against Serbian positions. These operations pinned down large numbers of Serb troops in concentrated groups. These concentrations made the Serbian forces vulnerable to Allied air attacks for the first time in the war, and they sustained large numbers of casualties during this period. Had the KLA not undertaken this campaign, Serbian forces would have remained spread out and largely invulnerable to air attack. During the air campaign, AFSouth was in charge of Operation Allied Harbor, which provided shelter to the hundreds of thousands of refugees who fled Kosovo. My hosts told me that during the height of the crisis, AFSouth actually exhausted the world's supply of tents in its effort to provide shelter for all the refugees. Now AFSouth is overseeing the repatriation of the Kosovar refugees to Kosovo. Our briefers confirmed what we heard in Kosovo--that most of the Kosovar Albanians who fled Kosovo during the war have already returned home. All of the refugees camps in Albania have been shut down. Among the small percentage of refugees who have not returned to Kosovo are the 20,000 who were brought to the United States and will most likely choose to remain here. On August 26, I returned from Rome to Philadelphia.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to thank the Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for having included language in the Senate report urging the Federal Highway Administrator to work with Drexel University to focus on the link between intelligent transportation systems and transportation infrastructure. As the Chairman knows, for the next several years the United States will be making massive investments in its transportation infrastructure, and, in view of the limited resources available for these investments, there has never been a greater need to be certain that these expenditures are wisely prioritized and based on sound assessments of the structural integrity of the existing infrastructure. In recent years, we have all been gratified to witness the revival of many of our major cities, but, while desperately needed, investments in the urban transportation infrastructure are especially costly. Thankfully, we are finding that technology is coming to our aid as we seek to address the issue of transportation infrastructure investments in an urban environment. One especially gratifying example of the application of information technology--``smart'' technology--to the management and maintenance of transportation infrastructure can be found in Drexel University's Intelligent Transportation Institute. In the passage of TEA-21 last year Congress specifically recognized the outstanding work of the Institute and included a special section of that bill--Section 5118--which authorized $10 million to ``conduct research, training, technology transfer, construction, maintenance, and other activities to advance infrastructure research.'' I would ask whether the Senator agrees with me that work such as that conducted at the Drexel Institute is essential for determining the actual structural integrity of urban transportation infrastructure-- such as multimillion dollar bridges--monitoring their ``health'' in real-time, and determining cost-effective and innovative maintenance and operational strategies.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to state my views on the Bryan amendment regarding the Timber Sales Management program within the National Forest Service. I am concerned about environmental protection and safeguarding our Nation's Forests, providing that there is an appropriate balance for economic development and job opportunities. My state of Pennsylvania has one of the best run National Forests in the country. The Allegheny National Forest has some of the most valuable timber in the world, particularly its black cherry, which is used internationally for fine furniture and veneers. As an above cost forest, the Allegheny returns approximately $10 million to the Treasury annually and generates $44 million in total income and an estimated 732 jobs. The rural Pennsylvania counties that surround the Allegheny National Forest substantially rely on these revenues to fund their local school systems. The Bryan amendment would provide the Timber Sales Management Program with the level of funding requested by the Administration. This is the program that funds the important work that is done to ensure that all timber cutting in our National Forests is done in an environmentally appropriate manner. The program is vital to restoring, improving and maintaining the health of our National Forests and it ensures that forests fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Further, the amendment would take the $32 million dollars that was added to this program by the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and would use the money to continue road maintenance and to conduct biological surveys of the National Forests. I am convinced that we must continue to manage our National Forest system in a fiscal and environmental responsible manner. On final consideration, I believe this amendment strikes a fair balance between the efficient use of our National Forests and the funding of environmental programs that are vital to enhance the public's use and enjoyment of our national forests for many years to come.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I have just announced a significant program on youth violence prevention, which I think is worthy of a comment or two on the Senate floor before we adjourn. Next week, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education will have a markup. Senator Harkin is ranking minority member of that subcommittee, and I chair it. We have worked through a program on a youth violence prevention initiative where we are allocating $850.8 million; $330 million is new money and the balance is a reallocation of funds within the Departments which will be directed toward preventing the scourge of youth violence of which we have seen so much in Littleton, CO, and so many other places. The programs which we will be providing will involve counseling, literacy grants, afterschool programs, drug-free schools, alcohol therapy rehabilitation, mental health services, job training, character education, and metal detectors to prevent guns from being taken into schools. This program will be directed by the Surgeon General, recognizing this as a national health crisis as articulated as long ago as 1982 by Dr. C. Everett Koop who was then the Surgeon General. When these terrible occurrences happen at places like Littleton, there is a lot of hand wringing and a lot of finger pointing, but we have yet to have a sustained coordinated effort on a long-term basis to deal with the underlying causes and come to grips with those causes. Senator Harkin and I convened three lengthy meetings among the professionals of the three Departments: the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services. The experts who sat together said that was the first time they had been convened in that kind of a session. After the first session, they went back to the drawing boards, and did so again after the second session and again after the third session and, in conjunction with our subcommittee staff, have worked out an extensive program which is comprehended in 11 pages of our proposed markup next week. Included in this program is funding for the Surgeon General to pull together all the available information on the impact of movies, television, and video game violence and to undertake whatever other studies are necessary with appropriate methodology, with many in those industries claiming that the existing studies do not really deal in a methodological way that is accurate. Next Tuesday, there will be a hearing of our subcommittee where the Secretaries of the three Departments, plus the Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder will participate where we will be moving forward with the specifics on this program. This program has been coordinated with the President through his Office of Domestic Policy. We think it could provide a very significant step in dealing with youth violence prevention--a very major problem in America today. This goes to the underlying causes. I ask unanimous consent that the 11-page text of our program be printed in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affair, I am pleased to report to the Senate on the features of S. 1076, the ``Veterans Benefits Act of 1999,'' as amended. This is a very important bill, and I direct the Senate's attention to some of its more salient features. As is explained in detail in the Committee Report which accompanies this legislation, S. 1076 would improve and enhance the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to address a variety of the needs of the Nation's veterans. It would enhance VA's ability to provide long term care services to aging veterans, and housing, training and other services to homeless veterans. It would extend VA programs to provide outreach and medical monitoring services to Persian Gulf War veterans and their families. It would improve and expand VA's authority to enter into ``enhanced use leases''--leases which permit VA to more effectively manage its large and costly infrastructure--and it would authorize needed construction projects. Further, S. 1076 would improve benefits provided to institutionalized veterans, to the survivors of former prisoners of war, and to certain Filipino veterans. Finally, it would clarify and codify standards governing burial in Arlington National Cemetery and provide statutory authority needed to permit the timely construction in Washington of a World War II Memorial. One matter that has not yet been resolved prior to the reporting of this bill--how proposed pilot programs to provide long term care and assisted living services to veterans ought to be structured--merits explanation now. The Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, Senator Rockefeller, and I have now resolved that matter and our agreement is reflected in an amendment to the bill that we offer jointly today. As amended, S. 1076 would instruct VA to initiate pilot programs to provide veterans long term care and assisted living services. The long term care pilot programs mandated by this legislation would require that VA--without interrupting current services--provide and report on long term care services offered in separate VA ``designated health care regions'' (Veterans Integrated Service Networks or ``VISNs'' under VA's current organizational structure) using three models: an ``in house'' model; a community-based cooperative model; and a model representing a hybrid of the VA-staffed and community-based approaches. We hope to demonstrate that VA can offer the Nation a meaningful methodology for managing comprehensive care to an aging clientele, and identify the model or models by which such care can be provided most cost-effectively. The second pilot program mandated by this legislation would direct VA to develop an appropriate model for furnishing assisted living services to veterans, as recommended by the Federal Advisory Committee on Long Term Care. This pilot program would empower VA to provide services to aged and disabled veterans in their homes or in other residential settings to assist them with their activities of daily living--and to assist them in avoiding or deferring more costly hospital or nursing home care. The Ranking Member and I hope to thrust VA into the forefront of this growing and challenging field of health care and foster the development of new and cost-effective solutions to challenges which all aging Americans face. I urge the immediate passage of this bill as amended. And I thank the Senate for its attention to the needs of the Nation's veterans.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I am pleased to vote for the confirmation of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to be United States Ambassador to the United Nations and even more pleased to see the Senate vote on this important nomination in advance of the August recess so that Ambassador Holbrooke can start on his important assignment. Ambassador Holbrooke brings unique qualifications to this position. He began his government career in 1962 joining the Foreign Service after graduating from Brown University. Among the many posts he has held are Special Presidential Envoy for Cyprus in 1997, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Peace Corps Director in Morocco and U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Ambassador Holbrooke was the chief negotiator for the Dayton Peace Accord in Bosnia. I had occasion to evaluate Ambassador Holbrooke's work in some detail when I served as Chairman of the Intelligence committee which undertook a detailed investigation of the sale of Iranian arms to Bosnia. Ambassador Holbrooke was involved in a complex, highly sensitive matter and he discharged his duties with professionalism. In undertaking the complex negotiations on Bosnia, Ambassador Holbrooke again performed a great service for the United States. His last minute negotiations with Yugoslavia's President Milosevic, while unsuccessful, showed his unique talents which will be put to good use for our national interest in his new capacity as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my view, the underlying issues on the conference report on the tax cut bill present a close question. There is much to be said for the basic proposition of returning a portion of the surplus to the taxpayers so that they, instead of Congress, can decide where to spend the money. The competing view is that the projected surplus over a 10-year period is highly speculative and that great care must be exercised to be sure Social Security and Medicare are solvent. The projected surplus also requires adherence to caps or limitations on spending which both the Congress and the President now admit to be unrealistic. The projected surplus also does not take into consideration emergencies, such as the multibillion-dollar Agriculture appropriations bill which passed the Senate last night. In addition, there is substantial merit to using any surplus to pay down the national debt, thus reducing the $293 billion in annual interest charges on the $5.6 trillion debt. On balance, on a close question, I believe the Nation's interest will be best served by rejecting the $792 billion tax cut, leaving open the possibility at a later time of a more modest $500 billion tax cut as proposed by a group of centrists. In reality, the vote on the conference report may well be meaningless in light of the President's repeated statements that he will veto the bill. This bill is probably just another step in the complex negotiations involving pending appropriations bills, including mine as my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. I voted against the tax bill when it was before the Senate last week, and I am opposed to the tax bill tonight. At the urging of the majority leader, Senator Lott, I have agreed to consider a live pair with my colleague, Senator Mike Crapo, who is in Idaho for his daughter's wedding. As of early this morning when I talked to Senator Crapo, there were no commercial flights which would return him to Washington in time to vote. If he returned by charter aircraft, he would miss his daughter's wedding ceremony and disrupt the family's wedding celebration. I have decided to agree to that live pair, which means that during the rollcall, if it is necessary, if it turns out Senator Crapo's vote is indispensable, I will say that if Senator Crapo were here, he would vote aye for the bill and I would vote nay against the bill. His absent aye vote would be paired then with my nay vote which would not be cast. I am concerned, candidly, that this live pair being inside the beltway would be widely misunderstood, but I believe it is preferable to compelling Senator Crapo's return to Washington or to have the will of the Senate exclude the vote of Senator Crapo who could not be here unless he returned by charter jet and missed his daughter's wedding. As I say, I voted against this bill last week, and I am opposed to it today. I intend to vote no unless the live pair with Senator Crapo is indispensable for the reasons I have just outlined. I thank the Chairman and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington, The Chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for adding $1.4 million to the Department of Energy's competitively awarded, cost- shared ITM Syngas program, specifically the ``Engineering Development of Ceramic Membrane Reactor Systems for Converting Natural Gas to Hydrogen and Synthesis Gas for Liquid Transportation Fuels'' project. This important high-risk, high-impact gas-to-liquids research and development project will convert domestic remote and off-shore natural gas to synthesis gas, resulting in lower cost production and cleaner alternative fuels. This program also promises to create new markets for U.S. domestic resources and extend the useful life of the Alaskan North Slope oil fields and the trans-Alaskan pipeline system. The ITM Syngas research and development effort is a complex, high risk undertaking by the Department of Energy and its industry, national laboratory and university partners. As with any complex technological undertaking, the Department of Energy and its ITM Syngas team have had to increase the scope of the initial phase of the program and add a university partner to ensure the project's long-term success. This $1.4 million is in addition to the budget request for fiscal year 2000 of $2.5 million that is in the Fossil Energy, Gas, Emerging Processing Technology Applications and the Energy Supply, Hydrogen Research program. The total DOE funding for the ITM Syngas program in fiscal year 2000 is $3.9 million. The addition of $1.4 million in fiscal year 2000 will allow approximately $600,000 to be allocated to the first phase of this project to fund activities that could not have been anticipated when the program commenced last year. The remaining $800,000 will allow the second phase of the ITM Syngas to be accelerated, allowing future costs to be avoided. This program brings together the Department of Energy, U.S. industry--large and small--our national laboratories and research universities. Again, I want to thank the Senator from Washington for his efforts to ensure that from the earliest phases of this important research and development effort, ITM Syngas is a success.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I was surprised by the three decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 1999 which drastically reduced the Constitutional power of Congress and even more surprised by the lack of reaction by Members of the House and Senate to this usurpation of Congressional authority. [College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid 1999 U.S. LEXIS 4375, Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank 1999 U.S. LEXIS 4376 and Allen v. Maine, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 4374.] Even though ignored by the Congress, these decisions have been roundly criticized by the academicians. Stanford University historian Jack Rakove, author of ``Original Meanings'', a Pulitzer Prize winning account of the drafting of the Constitution, characterizes Justice Kennedy's historical argument in Alden v. Maine as ``strained, even silly''. Professor Rebecca Eisenberg of the University of Michigan Law School, in commenting on Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board versus College Savings Bank, said: ``The decision makes no sense'', asserting that it arises from ``a bizzarre states' rights agenda that really has nothing to do with intellectual property.'' Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe commented: ``In the absence of even a textual hint in the Constitution, the Court discerned from the constitutional `either' that states are immune from individual lawsuits.'' (These decisions are) ``scary''. ``They treat states' rights in a truly exaggerated way, harking back to what the country looked like before the civil war and, in many ways, even before the adoption of the Constitution.'' In addition to treating the Congress with disdain, the five person majority in all three cases demonstrated judicial activism and exhibited what can only be viewed as a political agenda in drastically departing from long-standing law. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger described these cases as: ``one of the three or four major shifts in constitutionalism we've seen in two centuries.'' A commentary in The Economist on July 3, 1999 emphasized the Court's radical departure from existing law stating: The Court's majority has embarked on a venture as detached from any constitutional moorings as was the liberal Warren Court of the 1960's in its most activity mood. In its two opinions in College Savings Bank versus Florida Prepaid and Florida Prepaid versus College Savings Bank, the Court held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents states from being sued in Federal court for infringing intellectual property rights. In reaching these decisions, the Court discussed and dismissed two laws passed by Congress for the specific purpose of subjecting the states to suits in Federal Court: the Patent Remedy Act and the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act. These decisions leave us with an absurd and untenable state of affairs. Through their state-owned universities and hospitals, states participate in the intellectual property marketplace as equals with private companies. The University of Florida, for example, owns more than 200 patents. Furthermore, state entities such as universities are major consumers of intellectual property and often violate intellectual property laws when, for example, they copy textbooks without proper authorization. But now, Florida and all other states will enjoy an enormous advantage over their private sector competitors--they will be immune from being sued for intellectual property infringement. Since patent and copyright infringement are exclusively Federal causes of action, and trademark infringement is largely Federal, the inability to sue in Federal court is, practically speaking, a bar to any redress at all. The right of states to sovereign immunity from most Federal lawsuits is guaranteed in the Eleventh Amendment to the constitution, which provides that: The Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign state. It has long been recognized, however, that this immunity from suit is not absolute. As the Supreme Court noted in one of the Florida Prepaid opinions, the Court has recognized two circumstances in which an individual may sue a state: First, Congress may authorize such a suit in the exercise of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment--an Amendment enacted after the Eleventh Amendment and specifically designed to alter the federal-state balance. Secondly, a state may waive its sovereign immunity by consenting to suite.--College Savings Bank versus Florida Prepaid at 7. Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment is contained in Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that ``The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'' One of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section One, provides that no State shall, ``deprive any person of . . . property . . . without due process of law.'' Accordingly, Congress has the power to pass laws to enforce the rights of citizens not to be deprived of their property--including their intellectual property--without due process of law. Employing this power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Patent Remedy Act and the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act in 1992. As its preamble states, Congress passed the Patent Remedy Act to ``clarify that States . . . are subject to suit in Federal court by any person for infringement of patents and plant variety protections.'' Congress passed the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act to subject the States to suits brought under Sec. 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 for false and misleading advertising. In Florida Prepaid versus College Savings Bank, the Court held in a 5 to 4 opinion that Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity from patent infringement suits when it passed the Patent Remedy Act. In an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court reasoned that in order determine whether a Congressional enactment validly abrogates the States' sovereign immunity, two questions must be answered, ``first, whether Congress has unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate the immunity . . . and second whether Congress has acted pursuant to a valid exercise of power.'' The Court acknowledged that in enacting the Patent Remedy Act, Congress made its intention to abrogate the States' immunity unmistakably clear in the language of the statute. The Court then held, however, that Congress had not acted pursuant to a valid exercise of power when it passed the Patent Remedy Act. The Court wrote that Congress' enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment is ``remedial'' in nature. Therefore, ``for Congress to invoke Section 5 it must identify conduct transgressing the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions, and must tailor its legislative scheme to remedying or preventing such conduct.'' Florida Prepaid versus College Savings Bank at 20. The court found that Congress failed to identify a pattern of patent infringement by the States, let alone a pattern of constitutional violations. The Court specifically noted that a deprivation of property without due process could occur only where the State provides inadequate remedies to injured patent owners. The Court then observed that: Congress, however, barely considered the availability of state remedies for patent infringement and hence whether the States' conduct might have amounted to a constitutional violation under the Fourteenth Amendment * * *. Congress itself said nothing about the existence or adequacy of state remedies in the statute or in the Senate Report, and made only a few fleeting references to state remedies in the House Report, essentially repeating the testimony of the witnesses.--Florida Prepaid versus College Savings Bank at 27-28. Accordingly, the Court concluded that: The legislative record thus suggests that the Patent Remedy Act does not respond to a history of widespread and persisting deprivation of constitutional rights of the sort Congress has faced in enacting proper prophylactic Section 5 legislation. Instead, Congress appears to have enacted this legislation in response to a handful of instances of state patent infringement that do not necessarily violate the Constitution.) Florida Prepaid versus College Savings Bank at 31-32. Not only is the result of this opinion troubling--that states will enjoy immunity from suit--but so is the reasoning which supports this result. Here we have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court choosing to ignore an act of Congress because he has concluded that Congress passed the legislation with insufficient justification. In essence, the Chief Justice is telling us we did a poor job developing our record before passing the Patent Remedy Act. As we all know, however, many of us support legislation for reasons that don't make it into the written record. The record is an important, but imperfect, summary of or views. This is why past Courts have been reluctant to dismiss Congressional motives in this fashion. In College Savings Bank versus Florida Prepaid, the Supreme Court decided in a 5 to 4 opinion that Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (the ``TRCA'') was not a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, noted that Congress passed the TRCA to remedy and prevent state deprivations of two types of property rights: (1) a right to be free from a business competitor's false advertising about its own product, and (2) a more generalized right to be secure in one's business interests. The Court contrasted these rights with the hallmarks of a protected property interest, namely the right to exclude others. Justice Scalia reached the surprising conclusion that protection against false advertising secured by Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act does not implicate property rights protected by the due process clause so that Congress could not rely on its remedies under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to abrogate state sovereign immunity. If conducting a legitimate business operation with protection from false advertising is not a ``property right'', it is hard to conceive of what is business property. That Scalia rationale shows the extent to which the Court has gone to invalidate Congressional enactments. The Court then discussed whether Florida's sovereign immunity, though not abrogated, was voluntarily waived. Here, the Court expressly overruled its prior decision in Parden v. Terminal R. Co. 377 U.S. 184 (1964) and held that there was no voluntary waiver. In Parden, the Court had created the doctrine of constructive waiver, which held that a state could be found to have waived its immunity to suit by engaging in certain activities, such as voluntary participation in the conduct Congress has sought to regulate. Since Congress has sought to regulate interstate commerce, then a state which participated in interstate commerce by registering and licensing patents would be held to have voluntarily waived its immunity to a patent infringement suit. By overruling Parden, however, the Court held that a voluntary waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressed. Florida made no such express waiver of its sovereign immunity. In other relatively recent cases, the Court has gone out of its way, almost on a personal basis, to chastise and undercut Congress. The case of Sable v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989) provides a striking example of this trend. In Sable, the Court struck down a ban on ``indecent'' interstate telephone communications passed by Congress in 1988. In rejecting this provision, the Court focused on whether there were constitutionally acceptable less restrictive means, short of a total ban, to achieve its goal of protecting minors. The Court then declared, in unusually dismissive and critical language, that Congress had not sufficiently considered this issue: * * * aside from conclusory statements during the debates by proponents of the bill . . . that under the FCC regulations minors could still have access to dial-a-porn messages, the congressional record presented to us contains no evidence as to how effective or ineffective the FCC's most recent regulations were or might prove to be. The bill that was enacted . . . was introduced on the floor. . . . No Congressman or Senator purported to present a considered judgement with respect to how often or to what extent minors could or would circumvent the rules and have access to dial-a-porn messages. If a member of the Congress made a judgement, by what authority does the Supreme Court superimpose its view that it wasn't a ``considered judgement''? A fair reading of the statements from the floor debate on this issue undercuts the Court's disparaging characterization of this debate. For example, Representative Tom Bliley of Virginia gave a rather detailed and persuasive discussion of how he concluded that a legislative ban was necessary. Mr. Bliley noted that in 1983, Congress first passed legislation which required the FCC to report regulations describing methods by which dial-a-porn providers could screen out underage callers. Mr. Bliley then walks us through the repeated failure of the FCC to pass regulations which could withstand judicial scrutiny. Finally, Mr. Bliley notes that: . . . it has become clear that there was not a technological solution that would adequately and effectively protect our children from the effect of this material. We looked for effective alternatives to a ban--there were none. The Court repeats its critique of Congressional action in the case of Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). Here the Court struck down the Communications Decency Act, which prohibited transmission to minors of ``indecent'' or ``patently offensive'' communications. In this opinion, the Court again discusses whether less restrictive means were available and again concludes that Congress had not sufficiently addressed the issue. The opinion notes that: The Communications Decency Act contains provisions that were either added in executive committee after the hearings [on the Telecom Act] were concluded or as amendments offered during floor debate on the legislation. . . . No hearings were held on the provisions that became the law. The Court in Reno later notes that, ``The lack of legislative attention to the statute at issue in Sable suggests another parallel with this case.'' Once again, if Congress passes a law, by what authority does the Supreme Court conclude that we did not devote sufficient legislative attention to the law? In the Reno opinion itself the Court noted that some Members of the House of Representatives opposed the Communications Decency Act because they thought that less restrictive screening devices would work. These members offered an amendment intended as a substitute for the Communications Decency Act, but instead saw their provision accepted as an additional section of the Act. In light of this record, how can the Court say that Congress did not consider less restrictive means? A recent trend in Supreme Court decisions, highlighted by these three cases, shows an activist court with a political agenda determined to restructure political power in America away from Congress and to the states. What is Congress to do? We could exercise greater care in the confirmation process, but that is hardly the answer. Supreme Court nominees in Senate confirmation hearings routinely promise to respect Congressional authority and not to make new law. Once on the Court, many of the justices ignore those commitments. The decision in Florida Prepaid versus College Savings Bank leaves a slight opening for Congress to legislate again under Article 5 of the 14th Amendment to narrowly tailor a legislative approach to satisfy the Court. Given the intensity of the Court's agenda and its inventive and extreme rationales for declaring Congressional actions unconstitutional, it is highly doubtful that anything the Congress does will satisfy the Court in its current campaign. Congress may have to initiate a constitutional amendment to re- establish its legitimate authority. Before these three cases, it was unthinkable that Congress' authority over trademarks, patents and copyrights would have been undercut by a doctrine of state sovereign immunity. How could that be in the face of the provisions of Article 1, Section 8 granting the Congress express authority over trademarks, patents and copyrights by its enumerated power: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries These important issues merit immediate and extensive consideration by the Congress. Perhaps a constitutional amendment is the only way to reinstate the balance between the authority of the Congress and the usurpation by the Supreme Court.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, in introducing the National Fund for Health Research Act of 1999. This creative proposal, which would create a dedicated health research fund in the U.S. Treasury to supplement the current federal research funding mechanisms, was first developed by Senator Harkin and our former Senate colleague, Senator Mark Hatfield. I think their idea is a sound one and ought to be adopted, and I am pleased to join Senator Harkin in introducing this legislation as I did during the 105th Congress. I have also included this proposal as a provision of my comprehensive health care reform legislation, the Health Care Assurance Act of 1999 (S. 24), introduced on January 19, 1999. I have said many times that I firmly believe that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the crown jewel of the Federal government, and substantial investment is crucial to allow the continuation of the breakthrough research into the next decade. In 1981, NIH funding was less than $3.6 billion. For the past three years, NIH funding has increased by 6.8 percent in fiscal year 1997, 7.1 percent in fiscal year 1998, and 15 percent in fiscal year 1999, for a total of $15.7 billion. Senator Harkin and I are continuing to fight to double the NIH budget, a sentiment which was unanimously supported in the United States Senate during the 105th Congress. I was dismayed, however, upon examining President Clinton's $15.9 billion budget request for the NIH for fiscal year 2000--only a little over two percent growth, far less than the 15 percent needed to double NIH. At the President's requested level, new and competing NIH research project grants would drop by 1,554--from 9,171 in fiscal year 1999 to 7,617 in fiscal year 2000. This outlook on future grant awards is wholly inadequate to meet the country's most important challenges to improve the health and quality of life for millions of Americans. To call the President's plan short-sighted would be an understatement. In practical terms, two percent amounts to spending less than $24 for every American who suffers from coronary heart disease. Two percent means slowing the race to cure breast cancer or discover a vaccine to prevent the spread of AIDS. And it means that some of the most promising new breakthroughs in science, like stem cell research, may be postponed for years. Breaking the code for complex problems takes a steady and sustained commitment of people and money. The National Fund for Health Research Act which we are introducing today would continue Senator Harkin's and my unwavering commitment to increasing the nation's investment in biomedical research. The legislation would create a special fund for health research to supplement funding achieved through the regular appropriations process--possibly by as much as $6 billion annually. Our legislation would require health insurers to transfer to the U.S. Treasury an amount equal to 1 percent of all health premiums they receive. To ensure that the additional funds generated do not simply replace regularly appropriated NIH funds, monies from the health research fund would only be released if the total amount appropriated for the NIH in that year equaled or exceeded the prior year appropriations. We must all recognize that expanding our base of scientific knowledge inevitably leads to better health, lower health care costs, and an improved quality of life for all Americans. I believe that the creation of a fund for health research would bring us closer to those critical goals. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the National Fund for Health Research Act, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, in introducing the National Fund for Health Research Act of 1999. This creative proposal, which would create a dedicated health research fund in the U.S. Treasury to supplement the current federal research funding mechanisms, was first developed by Senator Harkin and our former Senate colleague, Senator Mark Hatfield. I think their idea is a sound one and ought to be adopted, and I am pleased to join Senator Harkin in introducing this legislation as I did during the 105th Congress. I have also included this proposal as a provision of my comprehensive health care reform legislation, the Health Care Assurance Act of 1999 (S. 24), introduced on January 19, 1999. I have said many times that I firmly believe that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the crown jewel of the Federal government, and substantial investment is crucial to allow the continuation of the breakthrough research into the next decade. In 1981, NIH funding was less than $3.6 billion. For the past three years, NIH funding has increased by 6.8 percent in fiscal year 1997, 7.1 percent in fiscal year 1998, and 15 percent in fiscal year 1999, for a total of $15.7 billion. Senator Harkin and I are continuing to fight to double the NIH budget, a sentiment which was unanimously supported in the United States Senate during the 105th Congress. I was dismayed, however, upon examining President Clinton's $15.9 billion budget request for the NIH for fiscal year 2000--only a little over two percent growth, far less than the 15 percent needed to double NIH. At the President's requested level, new and competing NIH research project grants would drop by 1,554--from 9,171 in fiscal year 1999 to 7,617 in fiscal year 2000. This outlook on future grant awards is wholly inadequate to meet the country's most important challenges to improve the health and quality of life for millions of Americans. To call the President's plan short-sighted would be an understatement. In practical terms, two percent amounts to spending less than $24 for every American who suffers from coronary heart disease. Two percent means slowing the race to cure breast cancer or discover a vaccine to prevent the spread of AIDS. And it means that some of the most promising new breakthroughs in science, like stem cell research, may be postponed for years. Breaking the code for complex problems takes a steady and sustained commitment of people and money. The National Fund for Health Research Act which we are introducing today would continue Senator Harkin's and my unwavering commitment to increasing the nation's investment in biomedical research. The legislation would create a special fund for health research to supplement funding achieved through the regular appropriations process--possibly by as much as $6 billion annually. Our legislation would require health insurers to transfer to the U.S. Treasury an amount equal to 1 percent of all health premiums they receive. To ensure that the additional funds generated do not simply replace regularly appropriated NIH funds, monies from the health research fund would only be released if the total amount appropriated for the NIH in that year equaled or exceeded the prior year appropriations. We must all recognize that expanding our base of scientific knowledge inevitably leads to better health, lower health care costs, and an improved quality of life for all Americans. I believe that the creation of a fund for health research would bring us closer to those critical goals. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the National Fund for Health Research Act, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a bill reauthorizing the John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program. This Congressional fellowship program, created in 1992, is a fitting tribute to my late colleague and dear friend, United States Senator John Heinz. Senator Heinz dedicated his life and much of his Congressional career to improving the lives of senior citizens. He believed that Congress has a special responsibility to serve as a guardian for those who cannot protect themselves. This fellowship program, which focuses on aging issues, honors the life and continues the legacy of Senator John Heinz. During his 20 years in the Congress, John Heinz compiled an enviable record of accomplishments. While he was successful in many areas, he built a national reputation for his strong commitment to improving the quality of life of our nation's elderly. Pennsylvania, with nearly 2 million citizens aged 65 or older--over 15% of the population--houses the second largest elderly population nationwide. As John traveled throughout the state, he listened to the concerns of this important constituency and came back to Washington to address their needs through policy and legislation. Senator Heinz led the fight against age discrimination by championing legislation to eliminate the requirement that older Americans must retire at age 65, and by ensuring full retirement pay for older workers employed by factories forced to close. During his Chairmanship of the Senate Special Committee on Aging from 1981-1986 and his tenure as Ranking Minority Member from 1987-1991, Senator Heinz used his position to improve health care accessibility and affordability for senior citizens and to reduce fraud and abuse within Federal health care programs. Congress enacted his legislation to provide Medicare recipients a lower cost alternative to fee-for-service medicine, as well as his legislation to add a hospice benefit to the Medicare program. John also recognized the great need for nursing home reforms. He was successful in passing legislation mandating that safety measures be implemented in nursing homes and ensuring that nursing home residents cannot be bound and tied to their beds or wheelchairs. Mr. President, the John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program will help continue the efforts of Senator Heinz to give our nation's elderly the quality of life they deserve. The program encourages the identification and training of new leadership in aging policy by awarding fellowships to qualified candidates to serve in a Senate office or with a Senate Committee staff. The goal of this program is to advance the development of the public policy in issues affecting senior citizens. Administered by the Heinz Family Foundation in conjunction with the Secretary of the Senate, the program allows fellows to bring their firsthand experience in aging issues to the work of Congress. Heinz fellows who are advocates for aging issues spend a year to help us learn about the effects of Federal policies on our elderly citizens, those who are social workers help us find better ways to protect our nation's elderly from abuse and neglect, and those who are health care providers help us to build a strong health care system that addresses the unique needs of our seniors. As fellows, senior citizen advocates and aging policy experts not only have the opportunity to use their expertise to facilitate national debate about issues concerning senior citizens, they also prepare themselves to make future contributions to their local communities. The Heinz fellowship enables us to train new leaders in senior citizen advocacy and aging policy. The fellows return to their respective careers with a new understanding about how to work effectively with government, so they may better fulfill their goals as senior citizen advocates. The John Heinz Fellowship Program has been a valuable tool for Congress and our communities since its establishment in 1992. The continuation of this vital program will signal a sustained commitment to our nation's elderly. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this resolution, and urge its swift adoption. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SPECTER. This amendment calls for the creation of a dairy compact that would extend beyond the New England States, which currently have a dairy compact, and would include a number of other States, such as Pennsylvania, New York, and others. The purpose of this dairy compact is to stabilize the price of milk. The price of milk has fluctuated enormously. In December of last year, it was as high as $17.34 per hundredweight; in June of this year, it went down to $11.42 per hundredweight. There is currently a dairy compact in effect for the Northeastern States--not including Pennsylvania or New York--which will expire in October of this year. The compact will provide some stability in the industry and will guarantee consumers an uninterrupted supply of milk. There has been some concern expressed about the cost to the consumers. When the Northeast Compact went into effect, the prices for milk within the compact region were 5 cents lower than retail prices in the rest of the Nation. This bill would authorize member States to enter into a voluntary agreement to create a minimum price for milk in the compact region that takes into account the regional differences in the costs of production. In addition to providing the stability, it will ensure, with an appropriate safety net, that milk can be produced and be available for very important programs like WIC--Women, Infants, and Children--and the availability generally. Pennsylvania passed legislation that will enable Pennsylvania to enter into this compact if it is authorized by the Congress. Some 40 Senators have cosponsored similar legislation, and Governor Ridge signed legislation that would permit my State of Pennsylvania to enter into the compact. Mr. President, as I outlined earlier, when seeking a unanimous consent agreement, I do not intend to press this issue to a vote. I do not intend to do so because of the rule of the Senate that bars legislation on an appropriations bill--a recently revived rule. But I am putting it in the Record today and outlining its basic purpose, with the intent to bring it up in the conference with the House to try to get this enacted into law. I am pleased now to yield to the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I take sharp exception to the argument of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, where the assertion is made that we fell far short of cloture. We had 53 Senators who voted in favor of cloture. We are moving up the line toward the requisite 60 number. I might point out that on the campaign finance reform bill after some substantial years of effort there are 52 votes. I am one of the 52. I believe the campaign finance bill is going to get to 60 just as I think the chances are excellent that we may well get to 60 on this cloture vote. But the important point is that 53 Senators signified their desire to support strong dairy prices. That is much more significant in terms of being two votes over the majority. It is hard to get 51 Senators in this body to agree to anything. It is harder yet to get 52, and harder still to get 53. There is a widespread recognition in this body, including the 40 Senators who have cosponsored this legislation. I believe there is a lot of support signified by 53 votes for cloture. We will have an opportunity to move ahead with this bill when it gets to conference. We will let the conference work its will and it may return to the floor. There are very good reasons for this bill. I understand there are regional differences, and what may benefit the farmers of Pennsylvania may detract to some extent from the farmers in other States. In our Government, in our democracy, we work these things out as best we can. I hope we can find some common ground. If we can't, let the Congress work its will. Amendment No. 1512, Withdrawn