Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss with the managers of this bill a matter relating to the 1992 Water Resources Development Act which authorizes the construction of flood protection facilities along the Lackawanna River in Olyphant and Scranton. I can personally attest to the serious situation, because when the flooding occurred, I went there one Saturday night late to see the ravage of that water problem and have been there on quite a number of occasions, to know firsthand the very severe problem which is involved there. The appropriated account has $42 million, and this bill removes some $25 million from that account. I know that the $17 million remaining will be sufficient to take care of the expenditures for the next fiscal year which amount to some $6 million, leaving $11 million in the account. I want to discuss with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee a couple of factors. One is if my representation is correct that the $17 million left in the account will be more than enough to take care of the expenditure line for the next fiscal year. The second question I want to be sure about is that there will be adequate funding to complete this project so that when the schedule arises that we need all of the $42 million, or whatever the amount is, that we will have the cooperation of the Appropriations Subcommittee, the distinguished chairman, and the distinguished ranking member in providing that funding, up to $42 million, which it has now. I understand the plight the chairman is under because 302(b) allocations are not sufficient. I have seen that firsthand. I chair the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and we are unable to go to a markup with the figure we have because of the very tight restrictions. The second aspect is, I am looking for the assurance that the remainder of the $42 million will be appropriated when the need arises to meet the ensuing fiscal year requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. The third factor that I want to be sure about on the record is that there could be an analysis which will segregate this flood control into three projects. There you start, again, to get into the complexities of the cost- benefit ratio. But as it has been structured very carefully, the arrangement, in its present form, as a unit, satisfies the cost-benefit relationship. There are a lot of concerns and a lot of battles about that. But we are, as a unit, covered under that cost-benefit ratio. I want to be cooperative, obviously, with the chairman as he is moving through this bill. I understand, as I say, the need for taking some of these funds for other projects, but if the chairman would respond to those three inquiries to be sure my constituents will have the adequacy of the funding. I know Senator Santorum, who could not be here at the moment, has a similar concern. Congressman Sherwood has a similar concern. We have all been very close to this issue and the very important constituent interest involved here. I direct those questions to my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague for those assurances. I am glad to hear, with respect to these three projects joined together, that they are being viewed as one integrated whole so that they do satisfy the requirements of the cost-benefit ratio, and further, that the rescissions on the two Pennsylvania projects, as to the Lackawanna River in Olyphant and Scranton and also the south- central Pennsylvania rescission, that those projects will move forward with sufficient funding, as Senator Domenici has pointed out, $17 million being left in the Lackawanna River project for Olyphant and Scranton and only $6 million needed in the next fiscal year. If it is possible, as Senator Domenici and Senator Reid work through the bill, to increase the funding, to eliminate the rescissions, that certainly would be appreciated. I think on this state of the record, these projects are protected. I will await further developments as we move through the bill to see if some of those funds might be restored and even the $25 million not rescinded. I thank Senator Domenici and I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for waiting until we finish this item of business.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in discussing the issue related to the 1992 Water Resources Development Act on the Lackawanna River in Olyphant and Scranton, it is obvious that my first preference, the delegation's first preference, is to have the $25 million restored. We have a second program in south-central Pennsylvania, the Environmental Improvements Program, where $20 million has been rescinded. This is in line with a large sequence of rescissions which have been put into effect by the subcommittee under the same problem where there is simply insufficient money on 302(b) allocations. Again, I understand that, because I have the problem on the appropriations subcommittee which I chair. I am advised that the $20 million rescission as to south-central Pennsylvania can be worked out in the House, and all of this is subject to compromise in the House, where we may have a larger figure for this subcommittee. So it is possible that the $25 million for the Scranton- Olyphant projects may be restored fully as well as the $20 million for south-central Pennsylvania. Before this bill is closed out, I want to be absolutely sure that we are protecting these projects so that whatever funding they need for the next fiscal year will be provided. That is the context in which I have made the request to the distinguished manager. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

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 today to pay tribute to two distinguished Pennsylvanians, Leonard and Madlyn Abramson, upon the establishment of the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center. The $100 million commitment from The Abramson Family Foundation--the largest single contribution for cancer research to a National Cancer Institute- designated comprehensive cancer center--supports the unprecedented expansion of cancer research, education and patient care at Penn's Cancer Center. The Abramson Family Foundation is a trust fund directed by Leonard and Madlyn Abramson. Mr. Abramson is the founder and former chairman and CEO of U.S. Healthcare, Inc. Best known for his accurate predictions in the changing world of health care over the past two decades, Mr. Abramson believed in HMOs as the best health care alternative in the early 1970s. He went on to build one of the nation's largest and most successful managed care organizations before selling it to Aetna in 1996. Madlyn Abramson is a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania, as well as a member of the Health System's Board of Trustees and the Graduate School of Education's Board of Overseers. The Abramsons have been supporters of cancer research, as well as numerous other causes, for more than a decade. The family's long and generous history with the University of Pennsylvania Health System includes gifts to endow two professorships and a multi-year grant through the former U.S. Healthcare to the Cancer Center's Bone Marrow Transplant Program. The Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute has created a revolutionary framework for facilitating innovation in cancer research, enabling the Penn Cancer Center to bring together the best scientists, physicians, and staff and to develop new approaches in an effort to make current treatments for cancer obsolete. John H. Glick, M.D., the Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Professor of Clinical Oncology and Director of Penn's Cancer Center for more than a decade, serves as Director and President of the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute. The gift of The Abramson Family Foundation will significantly increase our opportunities to break new ground in the war on cancer-- especially in the areas of cancer genetics and molecular diagnosis, from which future research and patient care advances will occur. The Institute supports leading-edge cancer research through the recruitment of outstanding scientists and physicians from around the world and the design of innovative patient care paradigms. The Abramson pledge propels the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center--already one of the nation's top cancer centers--to the next level of research and patient-focused care.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is there any established procedure for the consideration of amendments like the one I just sent to the desk? Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, of course, within the unanimous consent agreement which requires submission of amendments before 2:30--and it is now 2:17--I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in anticipation of Memorial Day this coming Monday, I wish to honor the memories of the 1.1 million Americans who gave their lives in defense of America and American ideals. Americans have fought and died in various wars spanning over two centuries. Her fallen soldiers have left indelible marks on the annals of history in conflicts notable for the good attained over the evil vanquished: independence over monarchial tyranny; freedom over slavery; and democracy over fascism and communism. Indeed, in this century alone, American servicemembers can be hailed for turning the tide of history's two world wars. As we head towards the dawn of a new millennium, I ask my colleagues to join with me to give homage to America's patriots, in deed as well as word. I believe the best way to commemorate the spirit of those who gave their lives is to honor, respect, and care for the 26 million American veterans living today. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have striven to accomplish this goal through a number of legislative measures and processes. After a successful battle over the budget resolution, I and 52 of my Senate colleagues signed on to a letter urging the Appropriation's Committee to match the budget resolution's recommendation of an additional $1.66 billion for veterans' health care. This funding is vital to ensure that our nation's veterans get the highest quality of health care available. I have also pushed for enactment of legislation which would increase veterans' education benefits; allow for a Medicare Subvention demonstration project; require additional national cemeteries to be built in areas with high veteran populations; and ensure that construction of the World War II Memorial begins next year. The Athenian leader Pericles had these words to say about those who lost their lives in the Peloponnesian War over 24 centuries ago: ``Not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions, but there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men.'' This Memorial Day, I challenge my colleagues to make a commitment to engrave the memory of 1.1 million Americans not only in our hearts, but in the legislation we enact for veterans and servicemembers during the remainder of the 106th Congress.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to comment about another matter very relevant to the pending legislation, that is the dispatch from Reuters within the hour that the War Crimes Tribunal has issued an indictment for President Milosevic and that an arrest warrant has already been signed. I think that is very important news, because it not only puts Milosevic on notice but also all of his subordinates, that the War Crimes Tribunal means business, that those who are responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes will be prosecuted. I compliment Justice Louise Arbour who was in Washington on April 30, asking a bipartisan group of Senators, including this Senator, for assistance; and we appropriated some $18 million in the emergency supplemental last week. The next important point is to be sure that we do not permit a plea bargain to be entered into which will exonerate Milosevic as part of any peace settlement. We ought to be sure this prosecution is carried forward. There is an abundance of evidence apparent to the naked eye from the television reports on atrocities, of mass murders, which can only be carried out with the direction of or at least concurrence or acquiescence of President Milosevic. Those crimes should not go unpunished. There should not be a compromise or a plea bargain which would give Milosevic immunity. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter dated March 30 to the President be printed in the Record, where I ask specifically that the extradition of President Milosevic to face indictments ought to be a precondition to stopping the NATO airstrikes; and a copy of my letter of April 30, to the President urging that warrants be issued and executed for Karadzic, and that the full impact of the War Crimes Tribunal be carried out, that this is a very important movement, probably worth a great deal more than airstrikes or even ground forces, to indict Milosevic, let him know that indictments and warrants are outstanding, and that those under him who carry out war crimes will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Washington. I support this amendment. I believe a woman should have a right to choose, and under the circumstances involved here, if the woman is going to seek an abortion, she should not be compelled to come back to the United States. Having an abortion in many foreign spots poses very material risks. This is a common sense abortion amendment which ought to be adopted. War Crimes Tribunal Indictment of Slobodan Milosevic

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I ask my colleague from Virginia to insert 2 minutes on each side to argue in advance of the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I reject the argument of the Senator from Virginia who wants to rely on assurances. This is a government of laws, and not men, and you get it done by this amendment. I reject the argument of the Senator from Michigan who says it is a bad signal to Milosevic. Whatever signal goes to Milosevic from this amendment has already been sent by the assurances of the President. It is a bad signal to America to tell the Country that the Congress is delegating its authority to involve this Nation in war to the President. We don't have the authority to delegate our constitutional authority. Our job is to analyze the facts and let the President come to us to state a case for the use of ground forces. I am prepared to listen. But, on this record, we ought to maintain the institutional authority of Congress and uphold the Constitution.

Mr. SPECTER. If it took hours and hours, I think those hours and hours would be well spent, at least by comparison to what the Senate does on so many matters. And we might convene a little earlier. We might adjourn a little later. We might work on Mondays and Fridays and maybe even on Saturdays. I would not be concerned about the hours which we would spend. I think this Senator, after the 18 years and 5 months that I have been here, has given proper attention to the constitutional authority of the Congress to declare and/or involve the United States in war, or to the War Powers Act. This is a matter which first came to my attention in 1983 on the Lebanon matter when Senator Percy was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and I had a debate, a colloquy, about whether Korea was a war, and Senator Percy said it was. Vietnam was a war. At that time, I undertook to draft a complex complaint trying to get the acquiescence of the President--President Reagan was in the White House at that time--which Senator Baker undertook to see if we could have a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. It is true, as the Senator from Virginia says, that Presidents have always denied it. They have denied it in complying with it. They send over the notice called for under the act, and then they put in a disclaimer. But I think the War Powers Act has had a profoundly beneficial effect, because Presidents have complied with it even while denying it. But I think it is high time that Congress stood up on its hind legs and said we are not going to be involved in wars unless Congress authorizes them.

Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, I think ``complied with the act''--the act requires certain notification, certain statements of the President. They make the statements which the act calls for, and then they add an addendum, ``but we do not believe we are obligated to do so.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his friendly gesture.

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides that: None of the funds authorized or otherwise available to the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the deployment of ground troops from the United States Armed Forces in Kosovo, except for peacekeeping personnel, unless authorized by declaration of war or a joint resolution authorizing the use of military force. The purpose of this amendment, obvious on its face, is to avoid having the United States drawn into a full-fledged war without authorization of the Congress. This authorization is required by the constitutional provision which states that only the Congress of the United States has the authority to declare war, and the implicit consequence from that constitutional provision that only the Congress of the United States has the authority to involve the United States in a war. The Founding Fathers entrusted that grave responsibility to the Congress because of the obvious factor that a war could not be successfully prosecuted unless it was backed by the American people. The first line of determination in a representative democracy, in a republic, is to have that determination made by the Congress of the United States. We have seen the bitter lesson of Vietnam where a war could not be successfully prosecuted by the United States, where the public was not behind the war. This amendment is being pressed today because there has been such a consistent erosion of the congressional authority to declare war. Korea was a war without congressional declaration. Vietnam was a war without a congressional declaration. There was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which some said justified the involvement of the United States in Vietnam--military involvement, the waging of a war. But on its face, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was not really sufficient. The Gulf War, authorized by a resolution of both Houses of Congress, broke that chain of the erosion of congressional authority. In January of 1991, the Senate and the House of Representatives took up the issue on the use of force. After a spirited debate on this floor, characterized by the media as historic, in a 52-47 vote, the Senate authorized the use of force. Similarly, the House of Representatives authorized the use of force so that we had the appropriate congressional declaration on that important matter. We have seen the erosion of congressional authority on many, many instances. I shall comment this afternoon on only a few. We have seen the missile strikes at Iraq really being acts of war. In February of 1998, I argued on the floor of the Senate that there ought not to be missile strikes without authorization by the Congress of the United States. There may be justification for the President to exercise his authority as Commander in Chief, if there is an emergency situation, but where there is time for deliberation and debate and congressional action, that ought to be undertaken. As the circumstances worked out, missile strikes did not occur in early 1998, after the indication that the President might authorize or undertake those missile strikes. When that again became an apparent likelihood in November of 1998, I once more urged on the Senate floor that the President not undertake acts of war with missile strikes because there was ample time for consideration. There had been considerable talk about it, and that really should have been a congressional declaration. The President then did order missile strikes in December of 1998. As we have seen with the events in Kosovo, the President of the United States made it plain in mid-March, at a news conference which he held on March 19 and at a meeting earlier that day with Members of Congress, that he intended to proceed with airstrikes. At a meeting with Members of Congress on March 23, the President was asked by a number of Members to come to Congress, and he did. The President sent a letter to Senator Daschle asking for authorization by the Senate. In a context where it was apparent that the airstrikes were going to be pursued with or without congressional authorization, and with the prestige of NATO on the line and with the prestige of the United States on the line, the Senate did authorize airstrikes, specifically excluding any use of ground troops. That authorization was by a vote of 58 to 41. The House of Representatives had, on a prior vote, authorized U.S. forces as peacekeepers, but that was not really relevant to the issue of the airstrikes. Subsequently, the House of Representatives took up the issue of airstrikes, and by a tie vote of 213-213, the House of Representatives declined to authorize the airstrikes. That was at a time when the airstrikes were already underway. I supported the Senate vote for the authorization of airstrikes. I talked to General Wesley Clark, the Supreme NATO Commander. One of the points which he made, which was telling on this Senator, was the morale of the troops. The airstrikes were an inevitability, as the President had determined, and it seemed to me that in that context we ought to give the authorization, again, as I say, expressly reserving the issue not to have ground forces used. So on this state of the record, with the vote by the Senate and with the tie vote by the House of Representatives, you have airstrikes which may well, under international law, be concluded to be at variance with the Constitution of the United States, to put it politely and not to articulate any doctrine of illegality, at a time when my country is involved in those airstrikes. But when we come to the issue of ground troops, which would be a major expansion and would constitute, beyond any question, the involvement of the United States in a war--although my own view is that the United States is conducting acts of war at the present time--the President ought to come to the Congress. When the President met with a large group of Members on Wednesday, April 28, the issue of ground forces came up and the President made a commitment to those in attendance--and I was present--that he would not order ground troops into Kosovo without prior congressional authorization. He said he would honor that congressional authorization, reserving his prerogative as President to say that he didn't feel it indispensable constitutionally that he do so. However, he said that he would make that commitment, and he did make that commitment to a large number of Members of the House and Senate on April 28 of this year. He said, as a matter of good faith, that he would come to the Congress before authorizing the use of ground troops. So, in a sense, it could be said that this amendment is duplicative. But I do believe, as a matter of adherence to the rule of law, that the commitment the President made ought to be memorialized in this defense authorization bill. I have, therefore, offered this amendment. It is a complicated question as to the use of ground forces, whether they will ever be requested, because unanimity has to be obtained under the rules that govern NATO. Germany has already said they are opposed to the use of ground forces. But this is a matter that really ought to come back to the Congress. I am prepared--speaking for myself--to consider a Presidential request for authorization for the use of ground forces. However, before I would vote on the matter, or give my consent or vote in the affirmative, there are a great many questions I will want to have answered--questions that go to intelligence, questions that go to the specialty of the military planners. I would want to know what the likely resistance would be from the army of the former Yugoslavia. How much have our airstrikes degraded the capability of the Serbian army to defend? How many U.S. troops would be involved? I would like to know, to the extent possible, what the assessment of risk is. When we talked about invading Japan before the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had estimates as to how many would be wounded and how many fatalities there would be. So while not easy to pass judgment on something that could be at least estimated or approximated, I would want to know, very importantly, how many ground troops would be supplied by others in NATO. I would want to know what the projection was for the duration of the military engagement, and what the projection was after the military engagement was over. These are only some of the questions that ought to be addressed. In 16 minutes, at 4 o'clock, members of the administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are scheduled to give another congressional briefing. Before we have a vote on a matter of this importance and this magnitude, those are some of the questions I think ought to be answered. That, in a very brief statement, constitutes the essence of the reasons why I have offered this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have not had an opportunity to read the letter from the President to the Speaker. It goes far short of the kind of commitment that has been represented--honestly represented. But the letter says in pertinent part: ``I can assure you that I will fully consult with the Congress'', which doesn't amount to a whole lot. And then another line, ``I would ask for congressional support before introducing U.S. ground forces into Kosovo into a nonpermissive environment''. The language of support here again goes far short of committing to congressional authorization such as is contained in this amendment. I yield the floor. I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator will yield so I can respond to the question.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which will direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish a national cemetery in the Pittsburgh area of Western Pennsylvania. As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' affairs, I make it my responsibility to see that our nation's veterans are cared for after serving honorably in the Armed Forces. Part of this care involves honoring the memory of their service upon death. Our nation's veterans are an aging population. At present, 46% of the area's veterans population is over age 65. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that by the year 2008, the number of veterans' deaths will peak and remain at a high level for years afterward. To anticipate the increased demand for burial space and to accommodate family and friends wanting nearby cemeteries at which to honor and remember their loved ones, the Congress and VA must act now. The legislation that I introduce today will alleviate the long overdue wait for a national cemetery which the veterans in the western Pennsylvania area have had to endure. Such a cemetery is necessary due to the over 750,000 veterans who reside in the area, including veterans in parts of the neighboring states of Ohio, Maryland, and West Virginia. I should also point out that Pennsylvania, a state with the fifth highest veteran population in the country, has only one national cemetery within its borders open for new burials. This cemetery, at Indiantown Gap, serves veterans in the eastern portion of the Commonwealth and is more than 225 miles from Pittsburgh. In 1987, VA ranked the Pittsburgh-area among the top ten population centers most in need of a national cemetery. In 1991, VA began the process of cemetery site-selection and Congress appropriated $250,000 for an Environmental Impact Statement. Four potential sites were identified in the Pittsburgh area. Despite this headway, construction on a national cemetery never commenced. The high veteran population of this region has waited far too long to see the creation of this national cemetery. Our nation's veterans, having given so much for us, deserve a proper burial site in the proximity of their homes. Veterans elsewhere around this country take for granted the availability of a nearby national cemetery. If passed, this legislation will ensure that what began over a decade ago will now become reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I submit a concurrent resolution which would express the Sense of the Congress that the third Monday in April be designated ``In Memory Day.'' In Memory Day will be a time for family and friends to gather and commemorate the supreme sacrifice made by their loved ones as their names are read from the In Memory Honor Roll at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as was done most recently on April 19, 1999. I feel this to be a small yet fitting tribute to those whose lives were ultimately claimed by the war in Vietnam. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a solemn reminder that the defense of liberty is not without loss. The 58,214 servicemembers who gave their lives in Vietnam will forever be memorialized in a most fitting manner. Their names, inscribed in granite walls, symbolize the reality that our nation's military personnel protects America behind walls built with the blood of patriots. We must keep them in our memory always. Not all of those who died, however, are commemorated on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Unaccounted for are those succumbed to the ravages of psychological wounds upon their return home. Unaccounted for are all those who died after war's end, yet whose deaths were intrinsically linked to wartime service. Their family members and loved ones have no wall to go to; no names to touch; no memorial to share. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF) runs an ``In Memory Program'' to honor these silent fallen. As part of this program, the VVMF keeps an ``In Memory Honor Roll'' to commemorate those who served and died prematurely, but whose deaths do not fit the parameters for inclusion upon the Wall. It it time for Congress to do its part in honoring these brave soldiers and their families.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which will direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish a national cemetery in the Pittsburgh area of Western Pennsylvania. As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' affairs, I make it my responsibility to see that our nation's veterans are cared for after serving honorably in the Armed Forces. Part of this care involves honoring the memory of their service upon death. Our nation's veterans are an aging population. At present, 46% of the area's veterans population is over age 65. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that by the year 2008, the number of veterans' deaths will peak and remain at a high level for years afterward. To anticipate the increased demand for burial space and to accommodate family and friends wanting nearby cemeteries at which to honor and remember their loved ones, the Congress and VA must act now. The legislation that I introduce today will alleviate the long overdue wait for a national cemetery which the veterans in the western Pennsylvania area have had to endure. Such a cemetery is necessary due to the over 750,000 veterans who reside in the area, including veterans in parts of the neighboring states of Ohio, Maryland, and West Virginia. I should also point out that Pennsylvania, a state with the fifth highest veteran population in the country, has only one national cemetery within its borders open for new burials. This cemetery, at Indiantown Gap, serves veterans in the eastern portion of the Commonwealth and is more than 225 miles from Pittsburgh. In 1987, VA ranked the Pittsburgh-area among the top ten population centers most in need of a national cemetery. In 1991, VA began the process of cemetery site-selection and Congress appropriated $250,000 for an Environmental Impact Statement. Four potential sites were identified in the Pittsburgh area. Despite this headway, construction on a national cemetery never commenced. The high veteran population of this region has waited far too long to see the creation of this national cemetery. Our nation's veterans, having given so much for us, deserve a proper burial site in the proximity of their homes. Veterans elsewhere around this country take for granted the availability of a nearby national cemetery. If passed, this legislation will ensure that what began over a decade ago will now become reality. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.