Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. We reserve the remainder of the time, and in accordance with our procedure of alternating between the parties, Senator Levin has been on the floor but has found it necessary to absent himself for a moment. I yield to Senator Lieberman.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I inquire how much time has elapsed.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, during the Memorial Day recess, I spent two days in Havana, Cuba, from June 1 to 3. I met with numerous Cuban officials, including a marathon six-and-a-half hour session with President Fidel Castro, with Cuban human rights dissidents, with religious leaders, with several foreign ambassadors and with our U.S. team. I am convinced there are a number of steps we can take, pursuant to our existing U.S. policy, to create closer people-to-people relations with Cuba. Sharing medical research, especially on immunizations, would be appropriate, between the National Institutes of Health and the Cuban Ministry of Health. Former Gen. Barry McCaffrey, head of U.S. drug policy, had suggested to me that we should work closer with the Cuban government on drug interdiction, and I think he is right. Relations between our two countries, only 90 miles apart, are almost non-existent. We have an embargo and a boycott. We have no exchange of ambassadors, and the limited coordination between our governments does not extend beyond very limited cooperation on drug interdiction. I believe it is worthwhile to share with my colleagues some of my findings and impressions from my trip. The issue of the embargo is complex, and I am not yet ready to advocate a position. But there are other issues, such as the benefits of increasing contact and cooperation, which merit comment at this time. Upon arrival in Havana about 2 pm June 1, we were met by Jorge Lexcano Perez, President of the Commission on International Relation, and Jose Manuel Barrios, Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' U.S. Department. Primarily, all parties agreed that both nations would profit from better relations between the two. I met next for more than an hour with our country team at the U.S. Embassy. We discussed the steps needed to normalize relations between our two nations and the dynamics of Cuba's government and economy, including the booming black market. We discussed the social climate, including religious freedom and human rights concerns. I met next with Dr. Jose Miller, President of Casa de la Comunidad Hebrea de Cuba (The Jewish Community House of Cuba) and leader of Cuba's Jewish community, and with Adela Dworin, Dr. Miller's Vice President. Dr. Miller maintained that freedom of religion has been ``no problem'' in Cuba for both Jews and Christians since the fall of the Berlin Wall eight years ago. Cardinal Jaime Ortega, in a later meeting, also stressed that Cuba has seen an improvement in religious freedom during the past decade. Both said the greater openness came from a recognition on President Castro's part that a religious reconciliation was necessary. President Castro, Dr. Miller noted, has attended Hanukkah services at his synagogue. Dr. Miller and Ms. Dworin estimated that Cuba's Jewish population has shrunk to 1,500 from about 15,000 in 1959, and that they must bring in a rabbi to hold high holiday services. We held our final meeting June 1 with Dr. Pedro Lopez Saura at The Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, an impressive biotech facility that has apparently pioneered a vaccination for Meningitis B. Meningitis B, which also plagues the United States, is a severe infectious disease that may lead to permanent neurological damage and even to death in acute cases. Meningitis strikes about 2,600 people annually, more than half under five years old. Meningitis B accounts for 50-55 percent of all U.S. cases. While NIH, our federal medical research arm, has a budget 1,000 times the size of The Cuban center's, the Cuban facility has apparently outstripped American efforts in a couple of narrow areas, including Meningitis B vaccine and interferon work. I found Dr. Lopez, who has trained in Cuba, Belgium, East Germany and Finland, very impressive. I suggested that Dr. Lopez visit NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus, who has already visited the Cuban facility, for an exchange that could benefit both nations. We began our meetings the next morning, June 2, with the Cuban Minister of Health, Dr. Carlos Dotres Martinez, at one of Cuba's largest medical teaching facilities on the outskirts of Havana. Dr. Martinez touted the Cuban health system and presented charts and statistics to suggest that Cuba's aggressive research and vaccination program has eradicated polio, diphtheria and other pestilences and improved its citizens' health and longevity. In a common Cuban refrain, Dr. Martinez argued that the U.S. blockade has forced Cubans to spend more for medical imports from Europe and China. He estimated Cuba has spent an estimated $20 million more for freight and other incidental costs on top of the fixed costs of $50 million to $100 million. I suggested that Dr. Martinez meet with HHS Secretary Donna Shalala. We met next with Concepcion de la Campa, President and General Director of the Finlay Institute, which manufactures vaccines, including the Meningitis B vaccine pioneered by the Cuban research labs. I had a particular interest in this biotechnology effort because a company with a substantial base in my state of Pennsylvania is negotiating a license to work with Cubans to produce the Meningitis B vaccine. Under their proposed arrangement, the Pennsylvania company would produce the vaccine in quantity for distribution in the United States and elsewhere in the First World and the Cubans would manufacture the vaccine for the rest of the world. Mrs. Campa, like her Cuban medical colleagues, agreed that medical research would be boosted by closer relations between the United States and Cuba, and by such joint ventures. We met next at the U.S. Ambassador's Residence with ambassadors from several nations: Charge Josef Marsicek of the Czech Republic, Ambassador Reinhold Huber of Germany, Ambassador Eduardo Junco Bonet of Spain, Ambassador David Ridgway of Britain, and Ambassador Keith Christie of Canada. The ambassadors gave me a frank assessment of President Castro and the Cuban realities. Like the US team, the European diplomats also saw a thawing in the Castro regime's stridency, as demonstrated by Cuban overtures for dialog. After my talk with the ambassadors, I met at the US residence with five Cuban dissidents and human rights activists: A member of the Christian Liberation Movement; a former Batista-era soldier, an environmental and peace activist; a medical doctor removed from his post for criticizing the Cuban medical establishment; and a member of the Pro-Human Rights Party. We discussed human rights and repression generally and specifically, with a focus on ``The Four,'' four jailed Cuban dissidents whose plight has stirred international human rights complaints. I have omitted their names and limited comments on their statements to protect their identities. The dissidents told us passionately of the Cuban government's intolerance for any dissent, demonstrated by frequent jailings and loss of jobs and travel opportunities for those who speak out. The dissidents disagreed on remedies for accomplishing change, differing, for example, on whether the United States should lift its embargo. At 8 pm Wednesday evening, we arrived at the President's complex for a dinner meeting with President Castro. The President arrived 10 minutes later, apologized for his tardiness, and proceeded to host us for a six hour and 37 minute session, ending at nearly 3 am. We had been advised that President Castro enjoyed lengthy talks. We knew we were in for a long night when President Castro said he had worked until 5:45 am the night before and then slept eight hours, waking at 2 pm-- just six hours before our meeting. We did not even move from the President's conference room to his dining room until midnight. I found President Castro, at 73, robust and engaging. Always cordial, he was at times jocular and at other times guarded. He wore his trademark green military uniform with modest insignia and took notes throughout much of our meeting. During our talk, we covered the gamut of subjects. I asked about the possibility of parole for the four celebrated dissidents. President Castro told me, ``I think they should fulfill their sentences because they have done great damage to this country,'' He insisted that charges against Cuba of human rights abuses ``were totally unfair,'' arguing that Cuba did not torture prisoners, employ death squads or practice assassination. On the issue of drug trafficking, President Castro said his country has been cracking down, including establishing the death penalty for international drug trafficking. ``We are willing to cooperate'' with the United States, he said. ``We don't ask the Americans for anything in return. We do it as a matter of ethics.'' He noted that Cuba would not, however, allow the United States to violate its territorial waters or air space. I asked President Castro about the assassination of President Kennedy, an area of particular interest for me because of my work as a lawyer on the Warren commission. President Castro maintained that the Cuban government played no role in the assassination, and that it would have been insane for it to have become involved, given that the United States, by his reckoning, was looking for provocation or pretense to invade Cuba. Castro said Lee Harvey Oswald, Kennedy's assassin, wanted to go to Cuba--a request the Cubans denied--simply to transit to the Soviet Union. President Castro said he was relieved that the Warren Commission concluded that Cuba was not involved with Oswald. I asked President Castro if he was concerned that people might think Cuba had been involved with Oswald. He said, ``Yes, we were concerned.'' President Castro gave an elaborate description of the Cuban Missile Crisis. He described how Cuba initially bought its weapons from Belgium, a NATO country, to avoid inciting the United States. But the second Belgian shipment was sabotaged and blown up on Havana's docks, Castro said, and he eventually arranged to buy Soviet arms. President Castro said former Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev made a mistake in not describing the missiles as defensive weapons and in ``getting into a game of definitions'' instead of simply maintaining his right to install weapons without question. President Castro noted the United States had weapons at the time in Turkey and Italy. He described his hunting trip in Russia with Kruschev, and how Kruschev had pulled out and read from a letter to Kennedy. When Kruschev read a passage about Kennedy promising to pull U.S. missiles out of Turkey and Italy, President Castro said, Kruschev realized he had made a mistake in revealing that Kruschev was going to breach his deal with Castro and remove the Cuban missiles. That would leave Cuba vulnerable to U.S. invasion, in President Castro's view. In the end, President Castro said, the Russian withdrawal also served Cuba's purpose. ``We preferred the risk of invasion to the presence of Soviet troops, because it would have established an image [of Cuba] as a Soviet base.'' President Castro told us about various assassination attempts against him by the United States since 1959, some documented by the U.S. Senate's Church Committee. Plans were launched to poison President Castro's milk shake, to plant an exploding cigar and to blow him up. ``Some of them were childish,'' he said. President Castro said he had survived largely ``as a matter of luck.'' I asked him how he felt about being the target of so many assassination attempts. President Castro replied, ``Do you play any sports?'' I said, ``I play squash every day.'' He said, ``That is my sport.'' Throughout the evening, the Cuban President frequently dispatched an aide or minister in the wee hours to produce a document or find an official's name. The aides performed their research in short order. In one case, President Castro wanted the name of a U.S. Senator who had visited Cuba in 1977, which turned out to be former Sen. Lowell Weicker of Connecticut. The next morning--or, more accurately, later Thursday morning--we met with Cardinal Ortega. Like Dr. Miller of the Havana synagogue, Cardinal Ortega also said the Cuban regime had adopted a more open attitude toward religion, from the previous ``climate of fear.'' He attributed the thaw in the government's position to a recognition that it was not easy to erase religious faith. He noted there have always been diplomatic relations between Havana and the Vatican. As for living conditions in Cuba under Castro, the Cardinal said the obvious in noting widespread poverty. On human rights, he said the Castro regime always equates human rights as the right to health, study and education, a low threshold. Our visit was facilitated by the assistance and cooperation of the U.S. team and the Cuban government.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of our distinguished majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until the hour of 2 p.m. under the same terms as previously submitted.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to compliment the prompt action of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in sending a forensic team to gather evidence in Kosovo for the prosecution of those indicted under the War Crimes Tribunal in the former Yugoslavia, which would include President Milosevic. Earlier this morning, FBI Director Louis Freeh announced that some 59 agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, have been dispatched to Macedonia--will be in Kosovo--and will be, starting tomorrow, preserving evidence for the prosecution of those under indictment by the War Crimes Tribunal. This is a very important step because we have already had a series of reports about tampering with evidence, about the removal of massive grave sites. The prompt action by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, moving to the scene of the crimes to gather evidence for use in court, is of the utmost importance. For some 12 years, as an assistant district attorney and later as district attorney in Philadelphia, I had experience in the gathering of evidence for use in the criminal prosecution process. I can personally attest to the importance of prompt action. If you do not get the evidence while it is fresh, it may disappear; its quality may change unless it is preserved. So the very prompt action of the FBI in moving on this is very important. It is especially important as the evidence is unfolding of the crimes against humanity by the Serbian Armed Forces under the direction of President Milosevic. President Milosevic has already been indicted. The acquisition of this evidence will be key in preparing for the trial of the case. The long arm of the law extends very far. It is my prediction that one day President Milosevic will be in the dock at the Hague in the criminal court there, as will be Radovan Karadzic, the former head of Bosnia, General Mladic, and the others who are under indictment. As I have noted before on the floor of the Senate, I believe that a condition of the cease-fire should have been having Milosevic turned over to the NATO forces. We learned from the bitter experience in Iraq--20/20 hindsight--we would have been wiser to have taken the steps necessary to take Saddam Hussein into custody. Our failure to do so has caused enormous problems. We have seen with Milosevic that he has started some three wars, and if he is at liberty, who knows what he may do in the future. That action has already been taken. It is vitally important that the evidence be preserved so that when-- and I do not say if--but when Milosevic and the other indictees are taken into custody, we will be in a position to have the prosecutors at the War Crimes Tribunal present that evidence. I have had the honor to visit the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague on a number of occasions. The prosecutors there are a very fine team. They have received support from a variety of Federal agencies. The CIA has been helpful with the overhead satellites. The Department of State has been of continuing assistance. The Department of Defense has been of assistance. Now the action by the FBI, with the approval of the Attorney General, is very important. This is unprecedented for the FBI to undertake this kind of acquisition of evidence. There are precedents in the field where the FBI has worked overseas on the Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia and with the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The FBI was deployed to El Salvador for the investigations of murders that occurred in 1983. The FBI was involved in the investigation of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia in 1993, and involved in a polygraph examination in a murder case in Guatemala in 1995, and supported the investigation of a murder in Haiti in 1995. The authority for the FBI to act on these premises is set forth in the Federal statute in 28 United States Code, section 533. The regulations which have been promulgated under that statute make a specific reference as follows: As provided for in procedures agreed upon between the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, the services of the Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory may also be made available to foreign law enforcement agencies and courts. The War Crimes Tribunal would fit within that qualification as an international court. The FBI will be undertaking a variety of evidence-preserving matters in Kosovo. They intend to establish the exact location of the crime scenes. They will photograph the scenes, the deceased victims, the evidence, map the crime scenes, collect the physical evidence related to indictments, examine victims for indications of the cause of death, indications of restraint and physical abuse, and preliminary identifications. They will collect appropriate samples from victims for possible future identification using DNA techniques. They will work on forensic and scientific investigations with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. I think this is very good news, acting as promptly as they are, moving in with very substantial equipment and personnel to undertake this important work. The gathering of this evidence is indispensable for the trials. We have an opportunity here at the War Crimes Tribunal to establish an international precedent of tremendous importance for the future. It is the establishment of the rule of law in international matters to let any future Milosevics, who might be inclined to commit crimes against humanity, know they will be brought to justice, that there is an international rule of law. I believe the apprehension and trial of Milosevic himself is very important, because it will be the first time that a head of state will have been subjected to the criminal process. I applaud what the Department of Justice is doing here. I applaud what the FBI is doing. I had an opportunity to discuss this matter yesterday with Director Freeh; I have talked to him from time to time. I think this very prompt action will be enormously important and instrumental in securing justice for the convictions of the people who are now under indictment. I thank the Chair. In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Again, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak relatively briefly on the steel import limitation bill. Similar legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 289-141. While this quota legislation is a very strong measure, it reflects the necessity that strong action be taken to enforce U.S. trade laws to stop an avalanche of dumping by foreign countries. We have seen the decimation and disintegration of the American steel industry by unfair foreign imports. Twenty years ago, in 1979, approximately 453,000 steelworkers were employed. Today that figure is about 160,000. Some $50 billion has been invested by the American steel industry to modernize, but there is no way that the American steel industry can compete with dumped goods, the sale of goods in the United States at prices lower than the price at which such goods are being sold by the producing companies in their own country or in some other country. These goods come into the United States from a number of countries--from Russia, from Brazil, from Ukraine, from South Africa and from China--at prices less than the cost of production. This is the antithesis of fair trade. This situation requires a change. Twelve executives from American steel companies sent a letter to the Secretary of Commerce Daley in response to his comment last week that the steel crisis is over--said Secretary Daley. This letter, dated June 18, 1999, says, in pertinent part, the following: The steel industry started some seven actions for antidumping, and six of those were subjected to suspension agreements by the Department of Commerce, to the detriment of the steel companies. I ask unanimous consent that this chart on steel imports and suspension agreement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1.)

Mr. SPECTER. Steel import limitations, or quotas, provide for a drastic remedy. Along with the steel industry, other industries in the United States have been victimized by the failure to enforce U.S. trade laws. I have, for the past 15 years, proposed legislation which would authorize equitable relief to provide for enforcement of the U.S. trade laws. At the present time, if complaints are filed with the International Trade Commission, it takes up to a year--or more--to have those matters resolved. An equitable action, a court of equity, would result in having these matters resolved in the course of a few weeks. Until that is done, it appears to be necessary for some very decisive action. This is why I cosponsored the steel import limitation bill. Exhibit No. 1

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting against tabling both competing versions of the Patient's Bill of Rights because I believe both should be considered by the Senate. I oppose any proposal to limit amendments on either bill and then have just an up or down vote on each Bill. I believe a bill should be considered in regular order in the usual manner subject to the Senate rules which would permit amendments and debate under our rules without a unanimous consent agreement limiting amendments or debate. My own preference for the Patient's Bill of Rights is the bipartisan proposal S. 374 sponsored by Senators Chafee, Graham, Lieberman, Baucus, and myself. If any bill is called up subject to regular order, the various provisions could be considered and voted upon and the Senate would work its will on the competing provisions.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond briefly, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for that statement. I had presented legislation on equitable relief before the Finance Committee. The Senate's colleague, Senator Conrad, is a member, and he made the same statement about the similarity in wheat. At lunch today, Conrad Burns was talking about similar problems in Montana. I will send a copy of the equitable legislation which I think would cover many products. We will have an overwhelming response in this body so that our trade laws are enforced, consistent with GATT, but put teeth in an enforcement mechanism which is not present today. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to speak relatively briefly on the steel import limitation bill; a cloture vote on the motion to proceed is scheduled tomorrow at 12:15. I will be engaged in committee hearings at that time, so I have sought a few minutes this afternoon to express my support to impose cloture on the steel import limitation bill. Similar legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 289-141. While this is a strong measure, a so-called quota bill, I believe it reflects the necessity that strong action be taken to enforce U.S. trade laws to stop an avalanche of dumping by foreign countries. We have seen the disintegration of the American steel industry, the decimation of the American steel industry by unfair foreign imports. Twenty years ago, in 1979, approximately 453,000 steelworkers were employed. Today that figure is about 160,000. Some $50 billion has been invested by the American steel industry to modernize, but there is no way that the American steel industry can compete with dumped goods. When I say ``dumped goods'' I mean goods which come into the United States from a number of countries--from Russia, from Brazil, from Ukraine, from South Africa, from China--where they are sold for less than they are sold for in the exporting country; that is, sold for less than the United States and sold for less than Russia, which is sending them to the United States, and sold for less than the cost of production. The situation requires a change. I will quote extensively from a letter sent by 12 executives from American steel companies to the Secretary of Commerce, responding to a comment by the Secretary of Commerce last week that the steel crisis is over--so said Secretary Daley. This letter, dated June 18, 1999, from the executives of 12 American steel companies, says, in pertinent part, the following: The steel crisis is still very much with us. Imports volumes are down from the disastrous levels of 1998 but are still very high by historic standards. The surge of imports in 1998 caused inventories to balloon to extremely high levels. These inventories have seriously depressed prices up until the present and will continue to do so until these stocks have been worked down. Moreover, cold-rolled imports are up dramatically through April of this year, 24% above the level of the first four months of last year. Imports of cut- to-length plate are up dramatically--25% year-to-year for this period. Prices remain extremely depressed. The producer price index for all steel mill products is down 9% (1999:Q2/1998/Q2). This is the largest decline in nearly 20 years. Prices for hot-rolled sheet, cold-rolled sheet and plate are down 11% and 15% respectively. Operating rates have plunged from 93% to 80% between January and December 1998 and have remained at that depressed level through the first half of 1999. The decline in operating rates equates to about $2 billion in lost revenue in the second half of last year. On an annualized basis, a 10% change in operating rate equals about $5 billion in revenue. The depressed prices and operating rates caused most American steel companies to post losses in the most recent quarter. Several steel companies have been forced into bankruptcy. Thousands of those who were laid off due to unfairly traded imports are still out of work. Many thousands have seen their workweeks shortened and are still not back to full time. For our industry, therefore, this crisis is very real. The steel industry started some seven actions for antidumping, and six of those were subjected to suspension agreements by the Department of Commerce, to the detriment of the steel companies. I ask unanimous consent this chart on steel imports and suspension agreements be printed at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. The result of steel import limitations, so-called quotas, is a drastic remedy. We have seen not only steel but other industries in the United States victimized by the failure to enforce U.S. trade laws. For the past 15 years, this Senator has proposed legislation which would authorize equitable relief to provide for enforcement of the U.S. trade laws. At the present time, if complaints are filed with the International Trade Commission, it takes up to a year or longer to have those matters resolved. An equitable action, a court of equity, would result in having these matters resolved in the course of a few weeks. Until that is done, it seems to me we need to take some very decisive action. That is why I have cosponsored the steel import limitation bill. I urge cloture on the motion to proceed be invoked when this matter comes up for a vote tomorrow at 12:15.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for those kind remarks. Our seats are pretty close on the Senate floor as evident if the television picture catches both of us, and I am sure it will. I walk over very frequently to confer with Senator Byrd on constitutional issues. Occasionally, he calls me his attorney general. He just gave a nod in the affirmative----

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I have sought recognition to support this bill, because I believe that a real need has been shown for these loan guarantees, certainly for the steel industry, and I believe for the oil and gas industry as well. Senator Byrd and Senator Domenici have outlined the procedures which were followed in the Appropriations Committee, and I was part of that conference. The conference worked one night until past midnight, and this provision was the subject of debate. Coming in the Senate bill, the House of Representatives accepted it after some substantial consideration, and then, as has been specified, some votes were changed. The Speaker of the House of Representatives was not pleased with this provision. The House of Representatives then changed its position after having agreed to this amendment. Then we were faced with a very difficult problem of a stalemate as to what would happen with the Senate insisting on this provision and the House opposing it. We were faced with the need to get this emergency supplemental appropriations bill to finance the military operations in Kosovo. The meeting finally eventuated in a very small session in S-128 downstairs where Senator Stevens was present, Senator Byrd was present, and I was present representing the Senate. There were a few of the House Members. It was a very tough bargaining session. Senator Byrd finally agreed, in the interest of moving the bill, and we all agreed, to take this particular amendment off in order that the provisions as to financing the military operation in Kosovo could go forward. The arrangement was made that this other legislative vehicle would be available to bring the bill back up for consideration by the Senate. Senator Domenici has just outlined the absence of a commitment on the vote, and I think that is, candidly, a generous position. There is a basis for contending that this amendment should be placed in the same position where it was prior to being taken off the earlier bill. If that is to be so, then this amendment will be agreed to and it will go back as the Senate's position for a conference with the House, with the House having first accepted it and then having rejected it. Whatever may eventuate in this Chamber today obviously remains to be seen in accordance with our rules. On the merits, I believe that is a sound proposal. The steel industry has been very hard hit over the past several decades with dumped and subsidized steel coming into the United States. The dumped steel ought not be tolerated. It is against our trade laws. It is against international trade laws. But, the dumping continues in great volume. That dumping has, in the immediate past, cost the jobs of thousands of steelworkers and caused tremendous lawsuits to the steel industry, which is a threat not only to the economy and to jobs and to profits, but also a threat to national security. It is one thing to have dumped steel coming from Russia at the present time where the Russian economic situation leads them to sell at virtually any price to get dollars, but if a national emergency arises, are we going to get steel from Russia? We have dumped steel from Brazil, from Korea, from Japan, and other countries. In times of national emergency, are we going to rely on those other countries as a source of supply? The steel industry once had some 500,000 workers and was an enormous industry in the United States. Over a period of time, that number has dwindled down to about a third--less than a third, actually--about 150,000 workers. The steel industry has capitalized with some $50 billion to be very competitive. But you cannot compete against dumping. You cannot compete against a seller who will sell at any price. That is why the steel industry is in the very serious condition it is today.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia for any purpose under any circumstance.

Mr. SPECTER. I retain my right to the floor. I had a lengthy debate with Senator Byrd about that many years ago when you had to retain your right to the floor. Senator Bayh has been patient, and I am glad to yield unconditionally.

Mr. SPECTER. I only got to be a district attorney. Senator Byrd and I have a long, unguarded border with southern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. We intend to keep it that way, especially if we can keep the steelworkers employed. I will be relatively brief, and I know the Senator from Indiana is waiting to speak and the Senator from New Mexico. The Senator from New Mexico has spoken. If I know his practice, he may speak again. There may be some additional occasion. We have had a very grave time in the steel industry with the loss of jobs. This is a relatively modest proposal. It is a loan guarantee proposal, and the borrowers have to provide collateral. The borrowers have to pay the fees. I believe this program can be administered in a way that the loan guarantees will not be called into play. That, of course, is a speculative matter. The reality of the situation is, if the companies cannot borrow commercially and have to have a loan guarantee, there is some element of risk. But I believe that is a fair proposition. The loan guarantee has been structured in a way to provide for collateral; that is, assets will have to be put up by the borrowing companies. Collateral means to fall back on if the borrower defaults; the collateral can be used to satisfy the loan. The payment of fees is another provision to save the Government of the United States costs. The situation has been recognized by the House of Representatives when it voted in overwhelming numbers, close to 290 votes, in favor of the steel quota bill; less than half of that in opposition. I have pressed legislation over the years which would provide for an equitable remedy to stop dumped goods from coming into the United States. In the early 1980s I had a legislative proposal to provide for injunctive relief, where the injured party could go into court and get relief within the course of a few weeks instead of many months or even years, which we now have under the procedures of the International Trade Commission. That legislation is pending now. It has been revised to provide for duties instead of injunctive relief to be GATT consistent. I believe the companion provision here offered by Senator Domenici on loan guarantees for the oil and gas industry is solid, especially for the small producers who have had a very difficult time. Years ago, my father had a used oil field supply business in Russell, KS. It really was a junkyard. At that time I had some experience with the small producers in the oil patch. I know that they have difficult times, too, and that this loan guarantee program makes sense there as well. I thank my colleague from Indiana for awaiting my recognition here. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. BAYH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak briefly on the emergency steel and emergency oil and gasoline guarantee program. Before discussing the merits of the pending issue--which I believe is a very meritorious bill--I think it appropriate to comment on the very unique procedural status of this measure, and it is this: This provision was in the emergency appropriations bill passed by the Senate, which went to conference with the House last month, on the so- called ``Kosovo emergency'' where we provided funding for the military action in Kosovo. The House of Representatives during the conference receded to the Senate position, so this bill was accepted by both the Senate--where it passed--and by the House on the rescission. On the next day, since the conference did not end that day, where the House receded, the House of Representatives changed its position, because the Speaker of the House took up the matter where two of the three key voters in the House changed their vote. The House then changed its position to be opposed to this guarantee loan program. Then we had the controversy continuing, with the Senate including the program in its bill. The House, having first receded and adopting the program, then said it would oppose the program. There was very considerable debate. One of our sessions lasted past midnight. The conferees, of which I was one on the Appropriations Committee, were trying to get this bill concluded so we could fund the Kosovo military operations. There were very considerable discussions. Finally, a small group went to Senate Room 128, the appropriations room. Senator Byrd was present, Senator Stevens was present, and I was present, all representing the Senate. There were just a few of the House Members present at that time. We finally agreed upon an approach where the sponsors of this measure--the principal sponsors being Senator Byrd and Senator Domenici, and I was a sponsor as well--agreed to have it removed from the emergency supplemental to be attached to another supplemental, which was available. The understanding was reached that the provision would be on the Senate bill going back to the House in an identical position, that the provision was on the Senate bill, the emergency supplemental passed by the Senate, and then up for consideration by the House. Senator Stevens, as the chairman of the committee, made a commitment on behalf of the Senate that that would happen. In order to comply with that arrangement, it would be necessary for this bill to pass the Senate and then to go back to conference with the House--where, candidly, its fate is uncertain--because the House Members, after the position taken by the Speaker of the House, appeared during our conference as being unlikely to accept the bill. Presumptively, that position would continue. That, of course, would await the events of the conference. But, that arrangement was made. I think that is a strong point that ought to be considered by the Senate to put this provision in the same position it was in when approved by the Senate, with disagreement by the House after they had earlier agreed, so there would not be a procedural loss. That was the essence that finally persuaded Senator Byrd to agree to take it off of the earlier bill. So much for the procedure, which I think speaks very strongly for having this measure enacted by the Senate. On the merits, I submit there are very sound reasons for this loan guarantee program. We have seen the steel industry really decimate in the recent past by dumped steel imports from many countries including Japan, Brazil, Korea, and Russia. In Russia there is a very great demand for the dollar so the Russians are selling steel for any price they can get for it. The International Trade Commission, backed by the Commerce Department, recently confirmed the very high level of dumping. We have had a very serious problem with thousands of layoffs in an industry which had slipped down from some 500,000 steelworkers to about 150,000 even while some $50 billion in capital had been put into the steel industry. There is no way to compete with dumping. Dumping is when foreign exporters bring imports into the United States below the cost of production--below the cost they are selling it in other places. Dumping is in violation of U.S. trade laws and is in violation of GATT. Over the years, I have urged the adoption of legislation which would provide for a private right of action. That was introduced early in the 1980s to have injunctive relief granted to stop dumped and subsidized steel coming into the country in violation of U.S. trade laws. I introduced legislation, which is pending at the present time, which would modify the injunctive relief but would provide for equitable relief with duties imposed. This would be GATT consistent. Anybody who dumped steel in the United States would have a duty imposed equal to the legitimate price minus the dumped price. With this legislation, there would be no advantage to dumping steel in the United States. The House of Representatives passed a very strong bill on quotas, by 289 to about 141. It is veto proof, at least on that state of the record. That matter may be headed for debate on the Senate floor--but in the interim--I think this program for emergency steel and loan guarantees is very appropriate. It provides for a $1 billion revolving fund for steel companies, and a two-year, $500 million revolving fund for oil and gas companies. The bill would require commitment of collateral, which would be a guarantee that the loan would be repaid and have a fee to be paid by the borrower to cover the cost of administering the program with all loans to be paid in full within 6 years. The package has been estimated to cost $270 million which is offset by the executive travel budget. On the merits, it is a solid program and it does have an appropriate offset. I speak with grave concern about the issue of steel--from the point of view of our Nation--because steel is essential for national security purposes. If an emergency were to arise, we would not be able to buy steel presumptively from the Russians or probably from the Japanese, or who knows, from the Brazilians. We ought to be independent and have a strong steel industry. In my capacity as chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, I have grave concern about the loss of jobs, which have been very heavy in my State, Pennsylvania, but very heavy in other States as well. Three medium- sized companies have recently gone into bankruptcy: Acme Steel, Laclede Steel, and Geneva Steel. Others may be in the offing with the tremendous impact of the dumping of steel. With respect to the problems in the so-called ``oil patch,'' Senator Domenici has spoken at some length. We are not talking about the big oil companies. From my background years ago when my family owned a used oil field equipment company--really, a junkyard in Russell, KS--I became familiar with the problems of the small oil dealers in the so- called ``oil patch.'' Senator Domenici will address that issue in somewhat greater detail. My familiarity at the moment is more intensive and extensive on steel, but I do believe that the problems which have been faced by the small oil producers are extensive and warrant this kind of a loan guarantee program. With the provisions of collateral security, safeguards, fees to be paid and with the offset present, this program is one which is structurally sound to have the loans repaid. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture so we can consider this matter on the merits, both because of the understanding-- really, commitment--reached as I earlier described and the merits of the substantive program.

Mr. SPECTER

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

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