Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for yielding me the time and for submitting this amendment, which I have cosponsored. I believe that police on the street constitute a very significant deterrent effect--and that the 95,000 or 100,000 police who have been added across America have been a factor in reducing the crime rate--which we have noted in the past several years. I think that is one factor. The additional prison space, the fact that more men and women are incarcerated--regrettably, but necessarily--I think has been a contributing factor. The armed career criminal bill, which provides for a sentence for 15 years to life for those found in possession of a gun and have committed three or more serious offenses has been a significant contributing factor. I would like to offer a comment or two about the bill. I compliment Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, the managers of the bill, for the work they have done. I am hopeful that within the authorized portions of this bill comes to the appropriations process, there will be an even 50/50 split on measures designed for prosecution and incarceration, contrasted with measures for rehabilitation, job training, and education. When we deal with juvenile offenders, we deal with a category of offenders who will one day get out. I believe--based on the experience I had being district attorney of Philadelphia for 8 years where the principal job was prosecution, tough sentences for tough criminals, and dealing with career criminals--that when we deal with offenders who are going to be released, we ought to have rehabilitation. It is no surprise when a functional illiterate, without a trade or a skill, leaves incarceration will go back to a life of crime. It is not only in the interest of the individual to have rehabilitation, but also in the interest of law-abiding citizens to avoid having that individual become a repeater. The same thing, candidly, applies to first and second offenders. Where we have a career criminal--somebody who has three or more major offenses--then I think life imprisonment and throwing away the key is the appropriate consequence. When we deal with juveniles, we ought to be aware of the so-called seamless web, to apply 50 percent of the funding which, of course, comes to the attention of the appropriators. I considered submitting an amendment which would have called for a 50/ 50 split between the tough aspect of prosecution and incarceration contrasted with rehabilitation, literacy training, and job training. I decided not to do that since it really is within the function of the appropriators. I have a comment on the vote in the Senate to defeat the provision that was offered as an amendment yesterday. This would have imposed, in this bill, a mandatory requirement on the States that all those 14 years and older be tried as adults on a category of serious offenses. That was defeated soundly. A majority of Republicans voted against it, and I voted against it, and I was glad to see that amendment rejected on a number of grounds. One is that we ought not to be dictating to the States how they construct their juvenile justice system. And we ought not to condition Federal funding, which would be the stick to dictate the States as to how they operate. The other concern I had was that being tough on crime is very, very important, but there are a lot of variations on juveniles. The theory of the juvenile court was to treat an adjudication of delinquency as those under 18. There is ample discretion in the juvenile court to have a juvenile tried as an adult for a serious offense. That flexibility ought to be left to the juvenile courts, and that flexibility and that determination ought to be left to the States. Overall, I think this bill will be a step forward. The legislation that has been enacted with respect to guns, I think, has to be viewed as only a part of the picture. My own reluctance on the restrictions on guns has come from the fact that there has not been an appropriate response by the courts on tough sentences for tough criminals. There are three layers that we have to attack on this line. I have discussed two. One is the life sentences and the long periods of incarceration for career criminals. Second, is realistic rehabilitation for juveniles and other offenders who will be released from jail. Third, is the violence that has gripped America--juvenile violence especially. After Littleton, CO, I called Dr. Koop, former Surgeon General, who commented to me that he had--as early as 1982--filed a report identifying juvenile violence as a medical problem. I conferred with Surgeon General Satcher on the issue. We are trying to structure hearings on the Appropriations subcommittee I chair on health and human services which funds the Office of Surgeon General. Those three lines, I think, have to be studied very closely--the sentencing for career criminals and rehabilitation for those who will be released and an effort to understand and try to deal with the culture of violence we have in our society today. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Delaware. I yield the floor, releasing the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I have introduced a major piece of veterans legislation, the proposed Veterans Benefits Act of 1999. This bill is a so-called omnibus measure which will serve as the basis, and the platform, for much of the legislative work to be accomplished this year by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In the past, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has considered bills on a more piecemeal basis than is reflected in the larger bill that I have introduced today. In times past, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has come to the Senate floor with numerous, separate bills to address the various matters that the committee typically faces: annual cost-of-living adjustments, reauthorizations of ``sunsetting'' programs and authorities, medical care reforms, non-medical benefits programs improvements, and the like. With the bill I have introduced today, I propose that such matters be folded into a single bill. That bill, then, will be the central focus of a major hearing. At that hearing, the committee will have the opportunity to hear the views of the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and the Army; other senior VA officials, including the VA Under Secretaries who are responsible for VA's major operating entities; the major veterans service organizations (The American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS); unions representing the rank and file of VA employees; and, finally, associations representing VA's professional cadre of physicians, dentists, and nurses. By bringing all of the major issues to the fore at one time, and by bringing all of the interested parties together into one room at one time, I believe that the committee will be better positioned to advance this year's legislative agenda in an organized and systematic manner. Such an approach will not necessarily ease the work of the committee, or this body. It will, however, facilitate the placing of issues and initiatives into some order of priority. The need to recognize priorities has characterized the committee's approach to its work this year. During the first half of this year, the committee has devoted its attention almost entirely on the proposed fiscal year 2000 budget. As this body recognized when it ordered an increase in spending caps on veterans account spending in the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution, the Administration's proposal to keep the VA's health care budget flat for the fourth straight year was clearly unacceptable. Congress ordered an increase of approximately 10 percent in that budget--an action that I, and the committee's ranking minority member, Senator Jay Rockefeller, were urging as early as last fall. We now must proceed through the appropriations process--a process that the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the veterans service organizations, will watch very closely. Having heretofore focused principally on the budget, the committee will now turn to its authorizing business. The bill I introduced today opens, at title I, with the committee's first priority: the granting of cost-of-living adjustments to the cash benefits paid monthly by VA in the form of compensation to the 2.3 million veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities, and benefits for 320,000 surviving spouses and children of veterans who have died in military service or due to service-related injuries and illnesses. Those who are disabled due to service rely on these benefits. They surely merit cost-of-living adjustments. My bill, secondly, proposes to increase by 13.6% the most valuable ``readjustment'' benefit that is enjoyed--and earned--by the Nation's young veterans: their Montgomery GI bill educational assistance benefits. The ``blue ribbon'' Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance made a number of recommendations on this point. Most notably, it cited the fact that, unlike times past, veterans' educational assistance benefits no longer come close to affording the veteran an opportunity to return to school on a full time basis after service. The Commission has recommended that, for new enlistees, VA pay full tuition benefits and, in addition, pay an allowance for books and fees and, finally, a monthly living stipend. The committee will consider this proposal further. In the meantime, however, it is appropriate for the committee to address what it might do to make higher education and other training opportunities available to persons who are in the service today. My bill would increase their benefits in recognition of the increased costs of education. In addition, this bill would make needed changes in statutory authorities under which VA health care is provided. At the outset, I note that the single largest unmet medical need faced by the World War II/Korea generation of veterans is quality long-term care. In addition to providing hospital care and, increasingly, outpatient-based clinical care, VA provides some nursing home care and other types of long term care. But VA hardly scratches the surface of demand for such care. The solution, of course, is funding--funding that has been surely deficient. VA funding problems must be addressed by the Appropriate Committee, a committee on which I am proud to serve. However, the authorizing committee, which I am proud to chair, has its role to play too. The authorizing committee can free VA from unnecessary legal strictures which impede its efficient delivery of care. Many such impediments were eliminated by recent ``eligibility reform'' legislation. Some, however, remain. For example, VA is now authorized to provide adult day health care services, services which help the veteran--and the taxpayer--by keeping potential patients out of hospitals and nursing homes. It can do so, however, only if the veteran in question was, first, a hospital or nursing home patient. Thus, VA caregivers have an incentive to hospitalize people so that they will be authorized to provide the type of care that will allow the patient to avoid hospitalization. To my way of thinking, this makes no sense. Similarly, VA is authorized to provide ``respite care,'' that is, short term care which frees the day-to-day care giver, typically an aging spouse, to attend to his or her needs. But VA can do so only within the four walls of a VA medical facility. Often, it is more effieient--and surely it is more convenient from the patient's and spouse's standpoint--for a respite care provider to go to the home of the patient, as opposed to requiring the patient to be brought into the hospital or long term care center. But VA is precluded by statute from providing respite care in the veteran's home, even when it is clearly in VA's and the patient's interests for it to do so. This, too, makes no sense to me. The bill I have introduced today would clear away these two impediments to the efficient delivery of VA care. Further, it would reauthorize current programs which have proved their worth. In the veterans benefits arena, one sensitive matter is now ripe for action. It is time, I think, for clear standards to be established for eligibility for burial in Arlington National Cemetery. And they should be set by Congress. Remarkably, standards governing eligibility for burial in Arlington have never been put into place by statute. Rather, they are purely a product of administrative fiat. Indeed, in one of the most highly sensitive areas--the granting of ``waivers'' to allow the burial of distinguished persons who are not otherwise eligible for burial in Arlington--there has never even been a formal rulemaking to guide cemetery officials. Rather, the granting of waivers has evolved on a purely customary, and ad hoc, basis. Dealing with waiver requests on an ad hoc basis gives rise, at best, to suspicion of improper influence. At worst, if fans fears of outright abuse of power. Now, I will not rehash a recent case where it was alleged--I think inaccurately--that Arlington burial rights were ``sold'' to a political contributor. Suffice it to say, however, that when it comes to the most sacred of grounds, Arlington National Cemetery, there can be no suggestion whatsoever of improper influence. Surely, there are some honors that no amount of money or level of influence can buy. Perpetual rest in Arlington is clearly one of those honors. Mr. President, I could go on at considerable length, but many provisions of this bill speak for themselves. As I have noted, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has not yet had hearings on these specific legislative proposals. Accordingly, they are still works in progress. But they are works in progress that I intend to advance sooner rather than later, by this summer at the latest. The Nation's veterans deserve that kind of attention, and they are getting it from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I have introduced a major piece of veterans legislation, the proposed Veterans Benefits Act of 1999. This bill is a so-called omnibus measure which will serve as the basis, and the platform, for much of the legislative work to be accomplished this year by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In the past, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has considered bills on a more piecemeal basis than is reflected in the larger bill that I have introduced today. In times past, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has come to the Senate floor with numerous, separate bills to address the various matters that the committee typically faces: annual cost-of-living adjustments, reauthorizations of ``sunsetting'' programs and authorities, medical care reforms, non-medical benefits programs improvements, and the like. With the bill I have introduced today, I propose that such matters be folded into a single bill. That bill, then, will be the central focus of a major hearing. At that hearing, the committee will have the opportunity to hear the views of the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and the Army; other senior VA officials, including the VA Under Secretaries who are responsible for VA's major operating entities; the major veterans service organizations (The American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS); unions representing the rank and file of VA employees; and, finally, associations representing VA's professional cadre of physicians, dentists, and nurses. By bringing all of the major issues to the fore at one time, and by bringing all of the interested parties together into one room at one time, I believe that the committee will be better positioned to advance this year's legislative agenda in an organized and systematic manner. Such an approach will not necessarily ease the work of the committee, or this body. It will, however, facilitate the placing of issues and initiatives into some order of priority. The need to recognize priorities has characterized the committee's approach to its work this year. During the first half of this year, the committee has devoted its attention almost entirely on the proposed fiscal year 2000 budget. As this body recognized when it ordered an increase in spending caps on veterans account spending in the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution, the Administration's proposal to keep the VA's health care budget flat for the fourth straight year was clearly unacceptable. Congress ordered an increase of approximately 10 percent in that budget--an action that I, and the committee's ranking minority member, Senator Jay Rockefeller, were urging as early as last fall. We now must proceed through the appropriations process--a process that the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the veterans service organizations, will watch very closely. Having heretofore focused principally on the budget, the committee will now turn to its authorizing business. The bill I introduced today opens, at title I, with the committee's first priority: the granting of cost-of-living adjustments to the cash benefits paid monthly by VA in the form of compensation to the 2.3 million veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities, and benefits for 320,000 surviving spouses and children of veterans who have died in military service or due to service-related injuries and illnesses. Those who are disabled due to service rely on these benefits. They surely merit cost-of-living adjustments. My bill, secondly, proposes to increase by 13.6% the most valuable ``readjustment'' benefit that is enjoyed--and earned--by the Nation's young veterans: their Montgomery GI bill educational assistance benefits. The ``blue ribbon'' Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance made a number of recommendations on this point. Most notably, it cited the fact that, unlike times past, veterans' educational assistance benefits no longer come close to affording the veteran an opportunity to return to school on a full time basis after service. The Commission has recommended that, for new enlistees, VA pay full tuition benefits and, in addition, pay an allowance for books and fees and, finally, a monthly living stipend. The committee will consider this proposal further. In the meantime, however, it is appropriate for the committee to address what it might do to make higher education and other training opportunities available to persons who are in the service today. My bill would increase their benefits in recognition of the increased costs of education. In addition, this bill would make needed changes in statutory authorities under which VA health care is provided. At the outset, I note that the single largest unmet medical need faced by the World War II/Korea generation of veterans is quality long-term care. In addition to providing hospital care and, increasingly, outpatient-based clinical care, VA provides some nursing home care and other types of long term care. But VA hardly scratches the surface of demand for such care. The solution, of course, is funding--funding that has been surely deficient. VA funding problems must be addressed by the Appropriate Committee, a committee on which I am proud to serve. However, the authorizing committee, which I am proud to chair, has its role to play too. The authorizing committee can free VA from unnecessary legal strictures which impede its efficient delivery of care. Many such impediments were eliminated by recent ``eligibility reform'' legislation. Some, however, remain. For example, VA is now authorized to provide adult day health care services, services which help the veteran--and the taxpayer--by keeping potential patients out of hospitals and nursing homes. It can do so, however, only if the veteran in question was, first, a hospital or nursing home patient. Thus, VA caregivers have an incentive to hospitalize people so that they will be authorized to provide the type of care that will allow the patient to avoid hospitalization. To my way of thinking, this makes no sense. Similarly, VA is authorized to provide ``respite care,'' that is, short term care which frees the day-to-day care giver, typically an aging spouse, to attend to his or her needs. But VA can do so only within the four walls of a VA medical facility. Often, it is more effieient--and surely it is more convenient from the patient's and spouse's standpoint--for a respite care provider to go to the home of the patient, as opposed to requiring the patient to be brought into the hospital or long term care center. But VA is precluded by statute from providing respite care in the veteran's home, even when it is clearly in VA's and the patient's interests for it to do so. This, too, makes no sense to me. The bill I have introduced today would clear away these two impediments to the efficient delivery of VA care. Further, it would reauthorize current programs which have proved their worth. In the veterans benefits arena, one sensitive matter is now ripe for action. It is time, I think, for clear standards to be established for eligibility for burial in Arlington National Cemetery. And they should be set by Congress. Remarkably, standards governing eligibility for burial in Arlington have never been put into place by statute. Rather, they are purely a product of administrative fiat. Indeed, in one of the most highly sensitive areas--the granting of ``waivers'' to allow the burial of distinguished persons who are not otherwise eligible for burial in Arlington--there has never even been a formal rulemaking to guide cemetery officials. Rather, the granting of waivers has evolved on a purely customary, and ad hoc, basis. Dealing with waiver requests on an ad hoc basis gives rise, at best, to suspicion of improper influence. At worst, if fans fears of outright abuse of power. Now, I will not rehash a recent case where it was alleged--I think inaccurately--that Arlington burial rights were ``sold'' to a political contributor. Suffice it to say, however, that when it comes to the most sacred of grounds, Arlington National Cemetery, there can be no suggestion whatsoever of improper influence. Surely, there are some honors that no amount of money or level of influence can buy. Perpetual rest in Arlington is clearly one of those honors. Mr. President, I could go on at considerable length, but many provisions of this bill speak for themselves. As I have noted, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has not yet had hearings on these specific legislative proposals. Accordingly, they are still works in progress. But they are works in progress that I intend to advance sooner rather than later, by this summer at the latest. The Nation's veterans deserve that kind of attention, and they are getting it from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation, the Stadium Financing and Franchise Relocation Act of 1999, which is designed to respond to the need for stabilizing major league baseball and football franchises located in metropolitan areas of the United States. I have long been concerned with the pressure put upon communities by baseball and football clubs seeking new playing facilities, where, with the gun to their heads of the team's overt or tacit threat to move to another city, government leaders feel compelled to have taxpayers finance a lion's share of ballpark and stadium construction costs. As those costs rise--a present state-of-the-art new facility goes for close to $300 million--those pressures have intensified. Professional sports teams are entrusted with a public interest. The movement of the Dodgers from Brooklyn, which broke the hearts of millions of their Flatbush followers, was the start of pirating of sports franchises in America, and should never have been allowed. It was accompanied, of course, by the flight of the Giants from New York to San Francisco. Since then, the matter has proliferated to an almost absurd degree. It is hard to understand why the taxpayers of Maryland and Baltimore had to be in a bidding contest for the Cleveland Browns, when Baltimore should have had its own team, the Colts, instead of the Colts moving out of Baltimore in the middle of the night to go to Indianapolis. I have participated in America's love affair with sports since I was a youngster in Wichita, Kansas, reading the box scores in the Wichita Eagle every morning because of my love and passion for baseball. I have been attending Phillies and Eagles games, and, when I can, Pirates and Steelers games, because of my love for each of these sports. They are tremendously exciting. Basically, it was unfair for the old Browns to have been taken out of Cleveland, but now I am glad to hail the arrival of the new Browns, even though it was at great cost to the taxpayers, and deprived the Eagles of a well-earned first overall draft pick. The value of sports franchises to their owners has ballooned in recent years. Jeffrey Lurie bought the Philadelphia Eagles in 1995 for a then-high price of $185 million. Last year, the successful bidder for an expansion NFL franchise in Cleveland paid $530 million. The bidding for the Washington Redskins franchise (including Cooke Stadium) has surpassed $800 million. There also seems to be no limit to the amount of money available to club owners when it comes to paying players-- witness Mike Piazza's signing last year of a $91 million ten-year contract with the New York Mets. New ballparks and stadiums clearly provide an enhancement to the culture and tax base of communities. That said, however, there is also no doubt that having a new ballpark or stadium significantly increases the value of a sports franchise for its owner. In December, 1998, Forbes Magazine estimated the net worth of the nation's professional sports teams. Seven of the top ten valued baseball franchises and eight of the top ten valued football franchises were in cities with ballparks and stadiums built or approved to be built since 1990. In January, 1999, the Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Jeffrey Stein, managing director of McDonald Investments, a Cleveland brokerage house, who said: ``New stadiums, in and of themselves, significantly enhance the value of a team.'' He cited the Cleveland Indians Baseball Club as an example. In the December, 1998, Forbes article, the value of that team, which now plays in beautiful new Jacobs Field, was listed as $322 million, the third highest in baseball. In 1986, the Indians had been purchased for $35 million. In 1993, the last year the Indians played at Cleveland Stadium, the team had revenues of $54.1 million. Its 1997 revenues were $140 million. The value of these sports franchises to a community is reflected in the astronomical broadcast rights fees the sports leagues command in the U.S. marketplace. Ten years ago, the National Football League received $970 million a year for its network television rights. The NFL now receives three times that amount, through contracts with TV and cable networks that pay the League $17.6 billion for its TV rights over an 8-year period commencing with the 1998 season, an average of $2.2 billion per year, while Major League Baseball annually derives more than $400 million from this source. These revenues are shared by the clubs and their players. One would think some of that giant revenue windfall might trickle down and be used to help finance new ballparks and stadiums, which produce greatly enhanced revenues for team owners, yet it seems the more TV money a league makes, the more its clubs demand from local taxpayers to fund the construction of new playing facilities. The irony of this is that none of these huge TV revenues would accrue to the clubs and their players if the leagues did not have the benefit of an antitrust exemption permitting clubs to pool their TV rights. In the interest of fairness, I believe the leagues should, with a small portion of these TV revenues, assist local communities in the financing of new playing facilities for the leagues' clubs, as a condition of their continuing to receive the antitrust exemption which permits pooling of TV rights. I also believe the leagues should have an antitrust exemption which permits them to deny a club's request to move, thus minimizing the implied threat to move which has characteristically accompanied demands upon local government for a new ballpark or stadium. Both these objectives are met by the legislation I am offering today. It will clarify the broadcast antitrust exemption given to sports leagues and give the National Football League and Major League Baseball an opportunity to continue to receive it by agreeing to place 10% of their network TV revenues into a trust fund to be used to help finance construction or renovation of ballparks and stadiums for use by their teams. Trust fund revenues will be restricted to such use and will be excluded from the league's gross receipts which are distributed to clubs and players. Money from the trust fund will be provided to finance up to one-half the cost of construction or renovation of ballparks and stadiums on a matching fund basis, conditioned upon the local government's agreement to provide at least one dollar of financing for every two dollars to be provided from the trust fund. Thus, for example, if the cost of constructing a new stadium for the Philadelphia Eagles, or for the Pittsburgh Steelers, were $280 million, the National Football League would be obliged to provide $140 million to each such project, on condition that the city and state, combined, provided at least $70 million. Ideally, the League would pay one-half the cost out of the trust fund and the other half would be financed by the club owner and the local government. The legislation will also enlarge the antitrust exemption given to baseball, basketball, football, and hockey leagues to permit those leagues to deny a member club's request to move its franchise to a different city. My bill will take effect on the date of its passage, and will apply to all network TV revenues thereafter received by the leagues, and to all new ballpark and stadium facilities not yet constructed, such as the construction now underway in Cleveland and Pittsburgh. I have sought recognition today to introduce the Stadium Financing and Franchise Relocation Act of 1999. This legislation would require that the National Football League and Major League Baseball act to provide financing for 50 percent of new stadium construction costs, and that the National Football League be given a limited antitrust exemption to regulate franchise moves. This legislation is necessary because baseball and football have for too long had a public-be-damned attitude. At the present time, major league sports is out of control on franchise moves for football teams and the demands upon cities and states for exorbitant construction costs is a form of legalized extortion in major league sports. The National Football League has a multi-year television contract for $17.6 billion which it enjoys by virtue of a special status and antitrust exemption which they have for revenue sharing or else they could not collect television receipts of $17 billion. But, at the same time, when they are asked to step forward and help with stadium construction costs, which are minimal compared to their television receipts, they put one community in competition with another community. A franchise, being what it is, leaves a city like Hartford and a state like Connecticut to offer $375 million to lure the Patriots from Massachusetts to Connecticut. This is a problem which is particularly acute for my State, Pennsylvania, which is now looking at the construction of four new stadiums. Two are now under construction in western Pennsylvania-- Pittsburgh for the Pirates and the Steelers--and two more are being sought in eastern Pennsylvania for the Phillies and for the Eagles. It is a $1 billion price tag which we are looking at now, which is significant for public funding, especially in a context where our schools are under funded, where our housing is in need of assistance, where we need funds for child assistance, where we need funds for transition from welfare to work, where we need funds for highways, and for so many other important matters. But, understandably, a NFL franchise is a very major matter for the prestige of a city and also for the economy of a city. And a major league baseball franchise, similarly, is a major matter for the economy and the prestige of a city. You have a situation, for example, where the Colts left Baltimore in the middle of the night for Indianapolis. Then there was a bidding war for the Browns, which left Cleveland to go to Baltimore at an enormous cost to the taxpayers of Maryland and Baltimore. Indianapolis ought to have a football team, but they ought not to have Baltimore's football team. Similarly, Cleveland ought to be able to retain the Browns. It has been a matter of great pride for Cleveland for many, many years. The start occurred in 1958 when the Dodgers left Brooklyn to go to Los Angeles. Brooklyn had no more precious possession than ``Dem Bums,'' the Dodgers. And I recall as a youngster the 1941 World Series, Mickey Owens' famous fumble, dropping of the third strike, and the tremendous tradition that the Dodgers had with Jackie Robinson and Pee Wee Reese in the Pennant races. And off they went to Los Angeles. Los Angeles should have had a baseball team, but not Brooklyn's baseball team. And they had a twofer, they took the Giants out of New York and put them in San Francisco at the same time. Baseball has had an opportunity, to some extent, to control franchise moves because baseball has an unlimited antitrust exemption. And they have it in a very curious, illogical way. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled in the 1920s that baseball was a sport and not involved in interstate commerce and therefore exempt. That has been an item which has been out of touch with reality for a long time. Justice Blackmun said baseball was a big business, in a Supreme Court decision, and involved in interstate commerce. But since it had been unregulated with the antitrust exemption for so long, it has been left to Congress to make a change. It may be that we ought to make a change and take away the antitrust exemption from baseball generally. Baseball fiercely resists any contribution to stadium construction costs--fiercely resists with a lobbying campaign, which is now underway, of great intensity. I will not list the cosponsors who have prospectively dropped off this bill because of that lobbying. I am introducing this bill on behalf of Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and myself. We had a hearing in the Antitrust Subcommittee of Judiciary where I serve, and I asked the head of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to take a look at revoking baseball's antitrust exemption totally. Baseball has not been responsible in dealing with salary caps and with revenue sharing. So there would be some equality and some parity for cities like Pittsburgh, small cities, where you have the financial power of the New York Yankees dominating the league, buying up all the players; where you have Mr. Murdoch acquiring the Dodgers for a giant price in connection with his satellite ideas and with television revenues and the superstation which Atlanta now has. Here you have a goose which is laying a golden egg and baseball has not faced up to fairness in changing its approach to dealing with the realities of the market and has not undertaken the salary caps and the revenue sharing necessary to stabilize baseball. So this bill goes, to a limited extent, on conditioning baseball's continuation of its antitrust exemption to helping with stadium construction costs. I want them to help build a stadium for the Philadelphia Phillies. I want them to help on the construction costs for the Pittsburgh Pirates. I went them to help on construction costs for new teams, where cities are facing the reality of either spending hundreds of millions of dollars for these new stadiums, or having the teams flee to other cities. That is something baseball ought to face up to, even though it is true that baseball has a different situation from football, because baseball's television revenues are lesser. But there has to be some equality and there has to be some parity. Or if baseball wants to function like any other business, let them do so, but without the antitrust exemption, and let's see what will happen to those giant salaries for the baseball players and those tremendous rates and the way baseball operates, if it does not have an antitrust exemption which is very special and unique. Football has an antitrust exemption as to revenue sharing. Without that exemption they could not have the $17 billion multi-year television contract. They have plenty of funds to face up to stadium construction costs for the Pittsburgh Steelers and for the Philadelphia Eagles and for other teams. The facts are not yet before the public, but I hear the rumors that football is putting up a very substantial sum to have the Patriots remain in Massachusetts to top the bid of Connecticut. Connecticut is a television market, according to the media, about 24th. Boston, MA, is a media market about 6th. And the National Football League wants to protect its media market so they will put up a substantial sum of money to accomplish that. It ought to be regularized and they ought to have a specific obligation. And 50 percent is not too much for the leagues to contribute. That would leave the owners with 25 percent and would still leave the public with 25 percent. One of the prospective cosponsors dropped off the bill because he does not want to be associated with even 25 percent for the public. But I suggest when the raiders--I am not talking about the Oakland Raiders; I am talking about the sports franchise raiders coming to his State, which I shall not name--go after his baseball team and go after his football team, watch the scurrying around to pay a lot more than 25 percent unless there is some leveraging and some compulsion. Baseball and football are not going to face up to a fair allocation of funds if they are left to their own devices. But the Congress of the United States does have control of the antitrust exemption and we can take it away from baseball or we can limit it for baseball. And we can take away, if we choose, the football antitrust exemption on revenue sharing. So I do believe this is a matter which is of significant public interest. When a city like Hartford and a State like Connecticut bids $375 million of funds which could obviously be used better; where Pennsylvania is looking at more than $1 billion in four new stadiums at a time when $17 billion comes to the NFL, and the salaries are astronomical. If the leagues are to have this exemption, if they are to have this special break, they ought to face up to some public responsibility. The second part of this legislation would grant football a limited antitrust exemption so they could regulate franchise moves. When the Raiders moved from Oakland to Los Angeles, there was a multimillion- dollar lawsuit which the NFL had to pay. So they are reluctant to take a stand on exercising their league rules which require three-fourths approval. But, if they had an antitrust exemption to this limited extent, then they would be in a position to ameliorate the larceny. Maybe it would be petit larceny instead of grand larceny. But I think that kind of antitrust exemption would be worthwhile. As you can tell, I feel very strongly about this subject. I have been a sports fan since I was 8 years old--perhaps 5 years old when my family, living in Wichita, KS, made a trip to Chicago for the World's Fair and I became a Cubs fan. And I became a Phillies fan when I moved to Philadelphia more than a half century ago. And I am a Pirates fan, too, except when they are playing the Phillies. If you lived in Wichita, KS, when the morning paper came, the major item of interest would be the sports page and the box scores. And I am an Eagles fan and a Steelers fan and held season tickets as early as 1958. When the Dodgers and Giants moved away from Brooklyn and New York City, I thought that was really a very serious breach. Such moves have a great impact on the public, and we ought to stop this legalized extortion, and we ought to get a fair share for the tremendous antitrust break which baseball and football enjoy.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation, the Stadium Financing and Franchise Relocation Act of 1999, which is designed to respond to the need for stabilizing major league baseball and football franchises located in metropolitan areas of the United States. I have long been concerned with the pressure put upon communities by baseball and football clubs seeking new playing facilities, where, with the gun to their heads of the team's overt or tacit threat to move to another city, government leaders feel compelled to have taxpayers finance a lion's share of ballpark and stadium construction costs. As those costs rise--a present state-of-the-art new facility goes for close to $300 million--those pressures have intensified. Professional sports teams are entrusted with a public interest. The movement of the Dodgers from Brooklyn, which broke the hearts of millions of their Flatbush followers, was the start of pirating of sports franchises in America, and should never have been allowed. It was accompanied, of course, by the flight of the Giants from New York to San Francisco. Since then, the matter has proliferated to an almost absurd degree. It is hard to understand why the taxpayers of Maryland and Baltimore had to be in a bidding contest for the Cleveland Browns, when Baltimore should have had its own team, the Colts, instead of the Colts moving out of Baltimore in the middle of the night to go to Indianapolis. I have participated in America's love affair with sports since I was a youngster in Wichita, Kansas, reading the box scores in the Wichita Eagle every morning because of my love and passion for baseball. I have been attending Phillies and Eagles games, and, when I can, Pirates and Steelers games, because of my love for each of these sports. They are tremendously exciting. Basically, it was unfair for the old Browns to have been taken out of Cleveland, but now I am glad to hail the arrival of the new Browns, even though it was at great cost to the taxpayers, and deprived the Eagles of a well-earned first overall draft pick. The value of sports franchises to their owners has ballooned in recent years. Jeffrey Lurie bought the Philadelphia Eagles in 1995 for a then-high price of $185 million. Last year, the successful bidder for an expansion NFL franchise in Cleveland paid $530 million. The bidding for the Washington Redskins franchise (including Cooke Stadium) has surpassed $800 million. There also seems to be no limit to the amount of money available to club owners when it comes to paying players-- witness Mike Piazza's signing last year of a $91 million ten-year contract with the New York Mets. New ballparks and stadiums clearly provide an enhancement to the culture and tax base of communities. That said, however, there is also no doubt that having a new ballpark or stadium significantly increases the value of a sports franchise for its owner. In December, 1998, Forbes Magazine estimated the net worth of the nation's professional sports teams. Seven of the top ten valued baseball franchises and eight of the top ten valued football franchises were in cities with ballparks and stadiums built or approved to be built since 1990. In January, 1999, the Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Jeffrey Stein, managing director of McDonald Investments, a Cleveland brokerage house, who said: ``New stadiums, in and of themselves, significantly enhance the value of a team.'' He cited the Cleveland Indians Baseball Club as an example. In the December, 1998, Forbes article, the value of that team, which now plays in beautiful new Jacobs Field, was listed as $322 million, the third highest in baseball. In 1986, the Indians had been purchased for $35 million. In 1993, the last year the Indians played at Cleveland Stadium, the team had revenues of $54.1 million. Its 1997 revenues were $140 million. The value of these sports franchises to a community is reflected in the astronomical broadcast rights fees the sports leagues command in the U.S. marketplace. Ten years ago, the National Football League received $970 million a year for its network television rights. The NFL now receives three times that amount, through contracts with TV and cable networks that pay the League $17.6 billion for its TV rights over an 8-year period commencing with the 1998 season, an average of $2.2 billion per year, while Major League Baseball annually derives more than $400 million from this source. These revenues are shared by the clubs and their players. One would think some of that giant revenue windfall might trickle down and be used to help finance new ballparks and stadiums, which produce greatly enhanced revenues for team owners, yet it seems the more TV money a league makes, the more its clubs demand from local taxpayers to fund the construction of new playing facilities. The irony of this is that none of these huge TV revenues would accrue to the clubs and their players if the leagues did not have the benefit of an antitrust exemption permitting clubs to pool their TV rights. In the interest of fairness, I believe the leagues should, with a small portion of these TV revenues, assist local communities in the financing of new playing facilities for the leagues' clubs, as a condition of their continuing to receive the antitrust exemption which permits pooling of TV rights. I also believe the leagues should have an antitrust exemption which permits them to deny a club's request to move, thus minimizing the implied threat to move which has characteristically accompanied demands upon local government for a new ballpark or stadium. Both these objectives are met by the legislation I am offering today. It will clarify the broadcast antitrust exemption given to sports leagues and give the National Football League and Major League Baseball an opportunity to continue to receive it by agreeing to place 10% of their network TV revenues into a trust fund to be used to help finance construction or renovation of ballparks and stadiums for use by their teams. Trust fund revenues will be restricted to such use and will be excluded from the league's gross receipts which are distributed to clubs and players. Money from the trust fund will be provided to finance up to one-half the cost of construction or renovation of ballparks and stadiums on a matching fund basis, conditioned upon the local government's agreement to provide at least one dollar of financing for every two dollars to be provided from the trust fund. Thus, for example, if the cost of constructing a new stadium for the Philadelphia Eagles, or for the Pittsburgh Steelers, were $280 million, the National Football League would be obliged to provide $140 million to each such project, on condition that the city and state, combined, provided at least $70 million. Ideally, the League would pay one-half the cost out of the trust fund and the other half would be financed by the club owner and the local government. The legislation will also enlarge the antitrust exemption given to baseball, basketball, football, and hockey leagues to permit those leagues to deny a member club's request to move its franchise to a different city. My bill will take effect on the date of its passage, and will apply to all network TV revenues thereafter received by the leagues, and to all new ballpark and stadium facilities not yet constructed, such as the construction now underway in Cleveland and Pittsburgh. I have sought recognition today to introduce the Stadium Financing and Franchise Relocation Act of 1999. This legislation would require that the National Football League and Major League Baseball act to provide financing for 50 percent of new stadium construction costs, and that the National Football League be given a limited antitrust exemption to regulate franchise moves. This legislation is necessary because baseball and football have for too long had a public-be-damned attitude. At the present time, major league sports is out of control on franchise moves for football teams and the demands upon cities and states for exorbitant construction costs is a form of legalized extortion in major league sports. The National Football League has a multi-year television contract for $17.6 billion which it enjoys by virtue of a special status and antitrust exemption which they have for revenue sharing or else they could not collect television receipts of $17 billion. But, at the same time, when they are asked to step forward and help with stadium construction costs, which are minimal compared to their television receipts, they put one community in competition with another community. A franchise, being what it is, leaves a city like Hartford and a state like Connecticut to offer $375 million to lure the Patriots from Massachusetts to Connecticut. This is a problem which is particularly acute for my State, Pennsylvania, which is now looking at the construction of four new stadiums. Two are now under construction in western Pennsylvania-- Pittsburgh for the Pirates and the Steelers--and two more are being sought in eastern Pennsylvania for the Phillies and for the Eagles. It is a $1 billion price tag which we are looking at now, which is significant for public funding, especially in a context where our schools are under funded, where our housing is in need of assistance, where we need funds for child assistance, where we need funds for transition from welfare to work, where we need funds for highways, and for so many other important matters. But, understandably, a NFL franchise is a very major matter for the prestige of a city and also for the economy of a city. And a major league baseball franchise, similarly, is a major matter for the economy and the prestige of a city. You have a situation, for example, where the Colts left Baltimore in the middle of the night for Indianapolis. Then there was a bidding war for the Browns, which left Cleveland to go to Baltimore at an enormous cost to the taxpayers of Maryland and Baltimore. Indianapolis ought to have a football team, but they ought not to have Baltimore's football team. Similarly, Cleveland ought to be able to retain the Browns. It has been a matter of great pride for Cleveland for many, many years. The start occurred in 1958 when the Dodgers left Brooklyn to go to Los Angeles. Brooklyn had no more precious possession than ``Dem Bums,'' the Dodgers. And I recall as a youngster the 1941 World Series, Mickey Owens' famous fumble, dropping of the third strike, and the tremendous tradition that the Dodgers had with Jackie Robinson and Pee Wee Reese in the Pennant races. And off they went to Los Angeles. Los Angeles should have had a baseball team, but not Brooklyn's baseball team. And they had a twofer, they took the Giants out of New York and put them in San Francisco at the same time. Baseball has had an opportunity, to some extent, to control franchise moves because baseball has an unlimited antitrust exemption. And they have it in a very curious, illogical way. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled in the 1920s that baseball was a sport and not involved in interstate commerce and therefore exempt. That has been an item which has been out of touch with reality for a long time. Justice Blackmun said baseball was a big business, in a Supreme Court decision, and involved in interstate commerce. But since it had been unregulated with the antitrust exemption for so long, it has been left to Congress to make a change. It may be that we ought to make a change and take away the antitrust exemption from baseball generally. Baseball fiercely resists any contribution to stadium construction costs--fiercely resists with a lobbying campaign, which is now underway, of great intensity. I will not list the cosponsors who have prospectively dropped off this bill because of that lobbying. I am introducing this bill on behalf of Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and myself. We had a hearing in the Antitrust Subcommittee of Judiciary where I serve, and I asked the head of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to take a look at revoking baseball's antitrust exemption totally. Baseball has not been responsible in dealing with salary caps and with revenue sharing. So there would be some equality and some parity for cities like Pittsburgh, small cities, where you have the financial power of the New York Yankees dominating the league, buying up all the players; where you have Mr. Murdoch acquiring the Dodgers for a giant price in connection with his satellite ideas and with television revenues and the superstation which Atlanta now has. Here you have a goose which is laying a golden egg and baseball has not faced up to fairness in changing its approach to dealing with the realities of the market and has not undertaken the salary caps and the revenue sharing necessary to stabilize baseball. So this bill goes, to a limited extent, on conditioning baseball's continuation of its antitrust exemption to helping with stadium construction costs. I want them to help build a stadium for the Philadelphia Phillies. I want them to help on the construction costs for the Pittsburgh Pirates. I went them to help on construction costs for new teams, where cities are facing the reality of either spending hundreds of millions of dollars for these new stadiums, or having the teams flee to other cities. That is something baseball ought to face up to, even though it is true that baseball has a different situation from football, because baseball's television revenues are lesser. But there has to be some equality and there has to be some parity. Or if baseball wants to function like any other business, let them do so, but without the antitrust exemption, and let's see what will happen to those giant salaries for the baseball players and those tremendous rates and the way baseball operates, if it does not have an antitrust exemption which is very special and unique. Football has an antitrust exemption as to revenue sharing. Without that exemption they could not have the $17 billion multi-year television contract. They have plenty of funds to face up to stadium construction costs for the Pittsburgh Steelers and for the Philadelphia Eagles and for other teams. The facts are not yet before the public, but I hear the rumors that football is putting up a very substantial sum to have the Patriots remain in Massachusetts to top the bid of Connecticut. Connecticut is a television market, according to the media, about 24th. Boston, MA, is a media market about 6th. And the National Football League wants to protect its media market so they will put up a substantial sum of money to accomplish that. It ought to be regularized and they ought to have a specific obligation. And 50 percent is not too much for the leagues to contribute. That would leave the owners with 25 percent and would still leave the public with 25 percent. One of the prospective cosponsors dropped off the bill because he does not want to be associated with even 25 percent for the public. But I suggest when the raiders--I am not talking about the Oakland Raiders; I am talking about the sports franchise raiders coming to his State, which I shall not name--go after his baseball team and go after his football team, watch the scurrying around to pay a lot more than 25 percent unless there is some leveraging and some compulsion. Baseball and football are not going to face up to a fair allocation of funds if they are left to their own devices. But the Congress of the United States does have control of the antitrust exemption and we can take it away from baseball or we can limit it for baseball. And we can take away, if we choose, the football antitrust exemption on revenue sharing. So I do believe this is a matter which is of significant public interest. When a city like Hartford and a State like Connecticut bids $375 million of funds which could obviously be used better; where Pennsylvania is looking at more than $1 billion in four new stadiums at a time when $17 billion comes to the NFL, and the salaries are astronomical. If the leagues are to have this exemption, if they are to have this special break, they ought to face up to some public responsibility. The second part of this legislation would grant football a limited antitrust exemption so they could regulate franchise moves. When the Raiders moved from Oakland to Los Angeles, there was a multimillion- dollar lawsuit which the NFL had to pay. So they are reluctant to take a stand on exercising their league rules which require three-fourths approval. But, if they had an antitrust exemption to this limited extent, then they would be in a position to ameliorate the larceny. Maybe it would be petit larceny instead of grand larceny. But I think that kind of antitrust exemption would be worthwhile. As you can tell, I feel very strongly about this subject. I have been a sports fan since I was 8 years old--perhaps 5 years old when my family, living in Wichita, KS, made a trip to Chicago for the World's Fair and I became a Cubs fan. And I became a Phillies fan when I moved to Philadelphia more than a half century ago. And I am a Pirates fan, too, except when they are playing the Phillies. If you lived in Wichita, KS, when the morning paper came, the major item of interest would be the sports page and the box scores. And I am an Eagles fan and a Steelers fan and held season tickets as early as 1958. When the Dodgers and Giants moved away from Brooklyn and New York City, I thought that was really a very serious breach. Such moves have a great impact on the public, and we ought to stop this legalized extortion, and we ought to get a fair share for the tremendous antitrust break which baseball and football enjoy.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I again thank the Chair for his staying late. I thank him, beyond that, for listening to my speech. Very often Presiding Officers are otherwise engaged. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I compliment the Palestinian Authority for not acting unilaterally to declare statehood. Chairman Yasser Arafat visited me on March 23, and I urged him at that time not to make a unilateral declaration of statehood. He then said to me that when the Palestinian Authority had changed its charter, as it was urged to do so by an amendment introduced by Senator Shelby and myself some years ago, that there was no credit given for that. I said there should have been credit given. And Chairman Arafat asked if they did not make the unilateral declaration if there would be some acknowledgment of that move. I said I would take the floor when May 4 came, which was the date targeted--that is today--and there was no unilateral declaration of statehood. And there has been none. I congratulate the Palestinian Authority for its restraint. That is a matter which ought to be negotiated under the terms of the Oslo agreement. Chairman Arafat asked me if I would put it in writing that I would make the statement. And I said I would; and I did. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to him dated in March be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Department of Veterans Affairs, S. 940, the proposed Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Reduction Assistance Act of 1999. The Department of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by an undated letter received by the President of the Senate on April 13, 1999. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed analysis of the draft legislation which accompanied it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Department of Veterans Affairs, S. 940, the proposed Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Reduction Assistance Act of 1999. The Department of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by an undated letter received by the President of the Senate on April 13, 1999. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed analysis of the draft legislation which accompanied it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague from Indiana. I passed a note to the Senator because I did not want to interrupt the chain of thought. I think there is no one in this Chamber who carries greater respect than Senator Lugar on issues of foreign policy. I noted your comments earlier calling for Presidential leadership and referring to your op-ed piece which appeared in the Washington Post. I think it not inappropriate to comment at this time that the President noted your op- ed piece in the Washington Post at a meeting with you, Senator Warner, and myself in attendance. We were the last three to meet with the President in a very extraordinary meeting that lasted a little over 2 hours. At the very end of the meeting, Senator Warner, Senator Lugar, and myself stayed and he commented about your op-ed piece. The Senator made a comment, again referring to your op-ed piece, that the President has a dubious strategy to meet a limited goal. The problem that I have, which leads to my question, is the President's leadership. He has initiated the airstrikes along with NATO without a clear-cut strategy, and an overused word, the so-called end game. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Advisor speculated that Milosevic might relent after the first wave; that there might be a pause; that they might have a different attitude after there was some substantial damage done. Absent a relenting on the part of Milosevic, where do we go from here? In lengthy meetings--the President has now had four with Members--the President has not asked for troops nor has he asked for the authority which is present in the pending resolution to allow him to use whatever force is necessary. The question I have for my distinguished colleague: In light of the absence of any request by the President and in the absence of any showing of leadership by the President and acknowledging the correctness of Senator Lugar's assertion that the situation calls for Presidential leadership, why is it sensible to, in effect, give the President a blank check when he has not asked for the resources and has not demonstrated any capability to exercise leadership to effectively carry out that broad guarantee of authority?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona. I am opposed to the pending resolution for constitutional policy reasons and for pragmatic reasons. With respect to the constitutional issue, we have seen a significant erosion of congressional authority, as mandated in the Constitution, to declare war--the President having assumed the authority to declare war under his powers as Commander in Chief. Korea was a war without a declaration by the Congress. Vietnam was a war without a declaration by the Congress, except for the ill-advised Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The missile strikes against Iraq in December constitute acts of war without authorization by Congress. The airstrikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia constitute acts of war without congressional authorization. There was a resolution authorizing airstrikes which passed the Senate 58-41, but under our bicameral form of Government, the House of Representatives did not concur in authorizing that use of force. The broad sweeping authority contained within the pending resolution really is, in effect, tantamount to a delegation of Congress' authority. The President has had a series of four meetings with Members of Congress which I believe have been very constructive and are very much to the President's credit. When he met with Members of Congress last Wednesday, on April 28, he publicly acknowledged this. The President said that he would not order ground troops without prior authorization by the Congress of the United States. He wanted to reserve his constitutional authority to do so without prior congressional approval, but he said as a practical matter, he would get congressional authorization as a good-faith matter because of the sequence of events which have transpired and which he anticipates will transpire before any such move. If we are to authorize the President, in the language of this resolution, ``to use all necessary force and other means, in concert with United States allies, to accomplish United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),'' the Congress of the United States would be taking itself out of the picture with respect to being a party to whatever action the executive branch, the President, our Armed Forces might take. I suggest, Madam President, that there is substantial collective wisdom in the House and in the Senate which ought to be consulted, which ought to be a party to the takeoff, as well as the landing, which ought to be a party to advising what our rules should be, reserving, of course, the military function to the generals and to the admirals and to the executive branch. But the Congress has a very, very significant role to play in deciding what course we ought to take. As a matter of policy, it seems to me important that the Congress reserve its rights and not become involved in such a broad delegation of congressional authority. As a pragmatic matter, we have seen the ill-advised Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and I quote from that resolution in part: . . .The United States is therefore prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member. . . of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty. . . The language, ``to take all necessary steps including the use of armed force,'' is strikingly similar to the language of the present resolution to authorize the use of all necessary force. I suggest that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was very, very ill-advised. Madam President, I supported the resolution passed by the Senate 58- 41 to authorize airstrikes, expressly reserving that there should be no ground forces. I am prepared to consider whatever the President may request, providing that very, very important questions are answered. I believe we need to know to what extent the airstrikes have degraded the military forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We need to know what the prospective resistance would be, what the plan of attack would be, what resources would be necessary to implement the plan, what of those resources would come from the United States, what of those resources would come from our NATO allies, and what would be the cost to be borne by our NATO allies as well as the United States? We are currently looking at a request from the President for some $6 billion, and we are looking at an add-on from the House of Representatives which may bring the total bill to $12 billion, or to $13 billion. Before any such appropriation is authorized, it seems to me that we are going to have to take a very hard look at precisely what is involved and what our obligations are and what our NATO allies have contributed. Now that there is a surplus and there has been a public declaration backed by consensus that the surplus ought to be used for Social Security, it has been noted that these appropriations are going to come out of the Social Security fund. That puts a political coloration on the matter which is going to require a lot of analysis to be sure that we are doing absolutely the right thing before we deplete funds which might be directed toward Social Security. There is another aspect in the consideration of this resolution, and that is the high improbability, really impossibility, of an acceptance of this resolution by the House of Representatives, in light of their votes last Wednesday, April 28. The House of Representatives turned down a resolution on a tie vote, 213-213, for the President to conduct air operations, so that the House is saying, by that tie vote, that they do not approve of what the President is doing at the present time. And in not approving even the limited air operations, with the specific reservation prohibiting the use of ground forces, what is there to support the belief that the House of Representatives will be prepared to grant even broader authority to the President? The vote by the House of Representatives on another resolution appears directly inconsistent with their refusal to authorize the President to continue the air operations. The House of Representatives rejected a resolution, 290-139, directing the President, under the War Powers Resolution, to withdraw troops from operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Now, there may be some ambiguity or difference between the withdrawal of troops compared to a cessation of air operations, but they amount to about the same thing. So here you have the House of Representatives saying, ``We will not authorize the President to carry out the air operations,'' and at the same time, ``We do not call for the withdrawal of troops,'' or, realistically viewed, whatever it is that the United States is doing in a military context at the present time. I believe it is important to consider negotiations, as has been urged by some Members, although I would not suspend the bombing operations. The return of the three U.S. soldiers by President Milosevic was, indeed, welcome news yesterday. I congratulate Reverend Jackson for his initiatives and his courage in undertaking that daring mission, and in succeeding at it. But I would not reward President Milosevic for doing something, in returning the three GIs, which he should have done weeks ago. I do think that we need to stay the course on the authorization of the resolution that the Senate passed on airstrikes. But I do also believe we ought to be cooperative with the efforts of Russia, and with any other efforts to have a negotiated settlement, providing we do not give up the standing to prosecute President Milosevic as a war criminal if the evidence so bears out. We know that as long ago as late 1992 then-Secretary of State Eagleburger, in effect, declared Milosevic a war criminal. And I believe that it is very important that the War Crimes Tribunal proceed to gather evidence. I think you will have a very salutary, a very deterrent effect if the evidence is present to proceed with an indictment against Milosevic. A bipartisan group of Senators met with Justice Louise Arbour last Friday, and she made a very strong plea for the IFOR, for the allied forces, to take Karadzic into custody. And that would be an occasion to take many other high ranking military and political figures into custody: war criminals, for the violation of human rights in Bosnia. And that could have a very, very profound effect on Milosevic's immediate subordinates. So we ought to be working in a number of directions--at a negotiated settlement, if it can be obtained, consistent with the NATO conditions, to pursue the issue of treating Milosevic and his subordinates as war criminals, and to continue with our airstrikes. But I do believe that at opposite ends of the poles, it is unsatisfactory, really counterproductive, for the House to reject the current military operations and the airstrikes by the tie vote; and I think it would be counterproductive at the other end of the spectrum to have a broad sweeping authorization of authority for the President to take whatever action he deems appropriate as a blank check. And in taking that position, I acknowledge the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, who speaks with great authority on military matters, and the leadership of his principal cosponsor, Senator Biden, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But for constitutional policy and pragmatic reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the pending resolution. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 20 minutes in morning business, notwithstanding the afternoon.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Aging be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Older Americans Act'' during the session of the Senate on Friday, April 30, 1999, at 11 a.m. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, April 30, 1999, at 11 a.m., to hold a business meeting. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on Monday, in the afternoon, the distinguished majority leader has scheduled a vote, so far denominated as a tabling motion on the pending S.J. Res. 20, concerning the deployment of United States Armed Forces in the Kosovo region of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Since Monday afternoon is likely to be crowded with debate on this subject and there is free time in the Senate Chamber today, I have decided to speak about this issue because I believe it is a matter of overwhelming importance for the United States, for NATO, for Europe and, for that matter, for the world. The resolution provides in a short statement worth reading in its entirety: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the President is authorized to use all necessary force and other means, in concert with United States allies, to accomplish United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to this resolution because it gives a total blank check to the President to involve the United States in any type of military action which he deems appropriate when it is the Congress of the United States that has the sole authority under the Constitution to declare war. In my view, the Congress ought not to give such a blank check, but instead ought to ask the President to come before the Congress, specifying what the President seeks to accomplish and what the means are for accomplishing that objective. I supported the resolution for airstrikes with a specific limitation that there would not be a deployment of ground forces. We have a great many very, very important questions, the answers to which ought to be provided, in my judgment, by the executive branch, by the President, to the Congress before the Congress exercises its authority to, in effect, declare war. Bear in mind at the outset, that the President has asked for no such authority, and that is a very important point and a threshold matter. But these are some of the questions which ought to be examined. I know that the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts from Kansas, who is on the Armed Services Committee, has participated in offering legislation which conditions funding and conditions congressional authority on a number of similar issues. These questions are of such vital importance that they bear repetition and they bear analysis and understanding by the American people, at least the relatively few who are watching on C-SPAN2 today. But these are monumental matters. These are some of the issues which I think have to be answered before the Congress is in a position to decide what authorization is to be given to the President: First, to what extent have the forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia been degraded by the air attacks? Second, what would the projected resistance be of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Third, what is the President's plan? So far we do not know what the President would like to do. There is not agreement among the alliance. The President has stated that he wishes to proceed with the support of the alliance, just as he has had the support of the alliance up to date. Once we know what the plan is, the fourth question would be, what resources are necessary to implement a specific plan? Fifth, what would the risks be to U.S. military personnel in carrying out the plan? Next, what contributions would be made by others of the alliance? And an additional question: What other pressures are available to use against the forces of President Milosevic, such as the pressure of the War Crimes Tribunal? These are all vital questions which ought to be answered before the Congress of the United States plunges into this field precipitously, without a request by the President, without a request by NATO, without any plan for us to consider on issues which can be answered only by the President of the United States. What we are being asked for on this resolution is a blank check, and it is really an unusual form of a blank check because the check is not only blank as to amount, but the check is also blank as to the identity of the payee; that is, who receives the funds. A check has a number of ingredients. There is the party who writes the check. That would be the Congress of the United States in the case of this resolution. A check has the identification of the party who receives the check, the payee. And the check has the amount of the check. And this check is blank in both material aspects. What is the amount of the check and who is to receive the check? I think the Congress of the United States would be most unwise to enact such a resolution on the state of the record which exists at the present time. What we have in Kosovo, what we have with NATO, what we have in our military action against the Republic of Yugoslavia is really a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis of major import, if anybody would pay attention to the Constitution. Only by ignoring the Constitution are we able to ignore the constitutional crisis. But the Constitution is explicit that only the Congress of the United States has the authority to declare war. Only the Congress of the United States has the power, responsibility and authority to engage the U.S. Armed Forces in war. But what we have going on at the present time in Kosovo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a war. The military actions there are clear-cut acts of war. We have this war in process without the authority of the Congress of the United States. As of Wednesday of this week, we have the war in process with a specific action of the House of Representatives in rejecting the use of airstrikes by a tie vote of 213-213. It is true that the Senate authorized the use of airstrikes with the reservation against ground forces by a vote of 58-41. But we have, as we all know, a bicameral legislature. You cannot have a declaration of war by the Senate. You could only have a declaration of war by the Congress; and that means joint action of the Senate and the House of Representatives. And now we have the House of Representatives rejecting the President's authority to conduct air operations by a vote of 213-213. And that is as forceful a rejection as had it been 426-0. Unless it passes, albeit by as little as a single vote, it is a rejection. The House of Representatives had a curious legislative day on Wednesday, April 28, taking up a series of resolutions by Congressman Tom Campbell of California. And I compliment Congressman Campbell for bringing the issues to a head--or trying to bring the issues to a head. The House of Representatives rejected a resolution calling for a state of war by a vote of 2 in favor, 427 against. The House of Representatives then voted on a resolution directing the President, under the War Powers Resolution, to withdraw troops from the operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That, too, was rejected by a vote of 139-290. Then there was the resolution authorizing the President to conduct air operations similar to the one passed by the Senate on March 23. As previously noted, that was rejected 213-213. Then, the House passed a resolution 249-180, placing limitations on the funding of the President to use ground troops in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without prior congressional authority. When we read through the War Powers Act, the legislation which was passed to try to limit the erosion of Congress' authority to declare war with the taking on of that authority by the President under his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief, the provisions of 5c specify that ``at any time the United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories, without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if a Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.'' So here we have the anomalous situation that the House turns down a declaration of war, the House turns down the use of airstrikes, the Senate has authorized airstrikes with the reservation prohibiting the use of ground forces, and you do not have the Congress--even the House--directing the withdrawal of forces. So it is a quagmire, to say the least. And it is a constitutional confrontation and a constitutional crisis to identify it squarely, when you have the Constitution requiring action by the Congress to declare war to involve the United States in war, and you have one House of the Congress, the House of Representatives, failing to authorize the airstrikes which are currently underway. The resolution which is going to be voted on on Monday, Mr. President, bears a striking similarity to the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was used to justify United States participation in the Vietnam war without a declaration of war. Section 2 of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution provides as follows: ``. . .The United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.'' And note with particularity the language ``to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force'' from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution compared to the resolution to be voted on on Monday that the President is ``authorized to use all necessary force and other means.'' These are blank checks which are not in the interest of the United States, but these checks ought to be very carefully considered, and ought to be very carefully written before the United States is engaged in war with the authorization of the Congress of the United States. The President has, to his credit, held a series of meetings with Members of Congress, going really beyond notification and really beyond what is customarily regarded as consultation in seeking opinions of Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. In one of these meetings, the President raised the issue of collateral activities, beyond or in addition to the use of military force, and made a specific reference to the War Crimes Tribunal. We have had President Milosevic denominated as early as the end of 1992, by then-Secretary of State Eagleburger, as, in effect, being a war criminal. We know that the War Crimes Tribunal has successfully completed prosecutions arising out of the incidents in Bosnia. There has been a very noteworthy plea of guilty and a life sentence for the Prime Minister of Rwanda for the genocide which occurred there, a guilty plea, a conviction, and a life sentence--the life sentence now being under appeal--of enormous importance, although hardly noticed by the press in the United States or the press in Europe. Somehow a matter of genocide or a matter of a conviction or a matter of a prosecution of a war criminal in Rwanda is of lesser status. It should not be, but that happens to be the practical fact of life. This morning there was a bipartisan meeting with Justice Louise Arbour, the chief prosecutor in the War Crimes Tribunal. Justice Arbour made a strong point of seeking support for the arrest of Karadzic, who is under indictment for war crimes in Bosnia, and for seeking an arrest for others in cases where there are sealed indictments arising from war crimes in Bosnia. Justice Arbour described the number of these cases, by the reference that there are only a handful, but she made the point--and I think it is a very valid point--that IFOR should proceed to arrest those individuals--even those under sealed indictment who have been identified to the military forces now in Bosnia, and Karadzic is an especially prominent war criminal under indictment, where the indictment has been outstanding for some 4 years. Not only has Karadzic thumbed his nose at the War Crimes Tribunal, but the reality is that the IFOR troops who have a responsibility to execute those warrants have, in effect, similarly thumbed their nose at the War Crimes Tribunal. The military commanders on the scene have been heard to say that they could make these arrests, that they could make the arrest of Karadzic who is, according to reportedly reliable information, in the French quarter. A real question arises as to the willingness of the French to cooperate in the arrest of Karadzic, but this is something which could be accomplished. Justice Arbour makes the point, and I think with great validity, that it would send a very strong message and have a chilling effect on the military and political leaders under Milosevic, if they saw that the War Crimes Tribunal had the skill to acquire evidence to bring forth indictments and then to follow with convictions; and, if the NATO and the IFOR forces had the political courage to execute those warrants of arrest by taking those indictees into custody. This would be a very, very strong deterrent to the continuation of the criminal activity by the Serbian forces and by the forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The War Crimes Tribunal has done its job. Now it is a matter of courage, the political courage and the military courage to serve those warrants of arrest and take those individuals into custody. By way of a footnote, Justice Arbour outlined the need for some $18 million in funding. The entire War Crimes Tribunal has only 17 investigators, an amazingly small number, to carry out the sort of work which has to be undertaken. For example, investigating overhead satellites intelligence which is telling something about the mass grave sites. This funding is something which will be coming before the Appropriations Committee next week, soon before the full Senate, and then the Congress. And at least judging from the reaction of the Senators who were present at the meeting today with Justice Arbour, there will be a favorable response. Certainly $18 million for the War Crimes Tribunal and an additional $2 million for extra State Department officials and extra help from the Central Intelligence Agency is a very small amount of the $6 billion requested by the President and the additions which have been made by the House of Representatives. Mr. President, in conclusion--the two most popular words of any speech--I urge my colleagues to focus with great care on this resolution. I have a strong sense that it won't be possible to make extended remarks on Monday, when a vote grows nearer. The number of Senators will increase, from the presiding Senator and the one Senator on the floor making a speech, to a fair number of Senators who will be seeking recognition. When we had the resolution authorizing the use of force with the airstrikes, there was a limited time agreement. Speakers were limited to 2 minutes in the final stage of that debate before the vote, not too much time to express a Senatorial judgment on an important issue, but more time than many of us were accorded later when the time was so limited that we couldn't even speak. So seeing an empty Chamber, and in attendance an attentive Presiding Officer, I thought I would take this opportunity to speak at some length on this important subject. I thank the Chair for his attention. The Chair is customarily in attendance, infrequently at attention.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues from Vermont, Senators Jeffords and Leahy, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Northeast Dairy Compact and to authorize a Southern Dairy Compact. This legislation will create a much needed safety net for dairy farmers and will bring greater stability to the prices paid monthly to these farmers. The fill authorizes an Interstate Compact Commission to take such steps as necessary to assure consumers of an adequate local supply of fresh fluid milk and to assure the continued viability of dairy farming within the compact region. Specifically, states that choose to join the compact would enter into a voluntary agreement to create a minimum price for milk within the compact region. This price would take into account the regional differences in the costs of production for milk, thereby providing dairy farmers with a fair and equitable price for their product. This bill would authorize Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Maryland, and Ohio to join the existing Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. New York, New Jersey, and Maryland have already agreed to join and the Pennsylvania State Legislature is currently considering compact legislation. Further, it would authorize states in the southern part of the country to form a similar compact to provide price stability in this region. In order to ensure that this legislation does not provide a negative impact to low-income nutrition programs that use a large quantity of dairy products each year, the bill ensures that the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program and the School Lunch program will not be required to pay higher prices for milk as a result of any action taken by the Compact Commission. Over the past several years, I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Senate in order to provide a more equitable price for our nation's milk producers. I supported amendments to the Farm Bills of 1981 and 1985, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 1991, the Budget Resolution of 1995 and the most recent Farm Bill in 1996 in an effort to insure that dairy farmers receive a fair price. As a member of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to ensure that dairy programs have received the maximum possible funding. In the past four years alone, I have worked to obtain almost $1.1 million for dairy research conducted at Penn State University. I have also been a leading supporter of the Dairy Export Incentive Program which facilitates the development of an international market for United States dairy products. In recent years, however, dairy farmers have faced the dual problems of a record high cost of feed grain and a record drop in the Basic Formula Price paid for dairy products. Prices have fluctuated greatly over the past several years, setting new record highs and lows, thereby making any long-term planning impossible for farmers. Most recently, after reaching an all time high in December of 1998, the Basic Formula Price for milk dropped $5.72 per hundredweight to a price of $11.62 for March 1999. These economic conditions have placed our nation's dairy farmers in an all but impossible position. In order to hear the problems that dairy farmers are facing first hand, I asked Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman to accompany me to northeastern Pennsylvania on February 10, 1997. We met a crowd of approximately 750 angry farmers who rightfully complained about the dramatic fluctuations in the price of milk. Upon our return to Washington, in an attempt to bring greater stability to the dairy market, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution on February 13, 1997 which passed by a vote of 83-15. The Resolution stated that the Secretary of Agriculture should consider acting immediately to replace the National Cheese Exchange as a factor to be considered in setting the Basic Formula Price for Dairy. I successfully attached an amendment to the 1997 Supplemental Appropriations Act which required the Department of Agriculture to replace the National Cheese Exchange, which had proven to be an unreliable source of price information, with a systematic national survey of cheese producers. As a result of this legislation, the Basic Formula Price increased from $12.46 in February of 1997 to $13.32 in February of 1998, which represented an increase of .86 cents per hundredweight over the course of the year. Unfortunately, this action alone was not sufficient to bring long- term stability to the dairy market. Consequently, on April 17, 1997, I introduced legislation to require the Secretary of Agriculture to use the price of feed grains and other cash expenses in determining the basic formula price for milk. Further, on September 9, 1997, I joined with Senator Feingold of Wisconsin in introducing S. Res. 119, which urged the Secretary of Agriculture to set a temporary minimum milk price that was equitable to all milk procedures nationwide and provided price relief to economically stressed milk producers. When we began to see some momentum on the national level to reform the current milk pricing system, we were stopped by a Federal District Court, which in December of 1997 ordered the USDA to scrap the price differentials in the current milk pricing formula. This change would have had a major negative impact on the dairy farmers in Pennsylvania. In reaction to this decision, on December 4, 1997, I wrote to the federal judge, asking him to stay his decision striking down the current Class I dairy pricing formula pending appellate review. Sixty- five Congressman and twenty other Senators signed onto my letter and on December 5, 1997, the Judge granted the requested stay. After this short victory, we received further bad news earlier this year, when Secretary Glickman released a new rule for setting the Basic Formula Price for dairy. While better than the proposed rule released last year, this new pricing formula will compound the already dire economic position of dairy farmers by removing an additional $196 million each year from the dairy industry nationwide. Our nation's farmers are some of the hardest working and most dedicated individuals in America. In the past several years, I have visited numerous small dairy farms in Pennsylvania. I have seen these hard working men and women who have dedicated their lives to their farms. The recent drop in dairy prices is an issue that directly affects all of us. We have a duty to ensure that our nation's dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk. If we do nothing, many small dairy farmers will be forced to sell their farms and leave the agriculture industry. This will not only impact the lives of these farmers, but will also have a significant negative impact on the rural economies that depend on the dairy industry for support. Further, the large-scale departure of small dairy farmers from agriculture could place our nation's steady supply of fresh fluid milk in jeopardy, thereby affecting every American. We must recognize the importance of this problem and take prompt action. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation as we continue to work in Congress to bring greater stability to our nation's dairy industry.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues from Vermont, Senators Jeffords and Leahy, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Northeast Dairy Compact and to authorize a Southern Dairy Compact. This legislation will create a much needed safety net for dairy farmers and will bring greater stability to the prices paid monthly to these farmers. The fill authorizes an Interstate Compact Commission to take such steps as necessary to assure consumers of an adequate local supply of fresh fluid milk and to assure the continued viability of dairy farming within the compact region. Specifically, states that choose to join the compact would enter into a voluntary agreement to create a minimum price for milk within the compact region. This price would take into account the regional differences in the costs of production for milk, thereby providing dairy farmers with a fair and equitable price for their product. This bill would authorize Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Maryland, and Ohio to join the existing Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. New York, New Jersey, and Maryland have already agreed to join and the Pennsylvania State Legislature is currently considering compact legislation. Further, it would authorize states in the southern part of the country to form a similar compact to provide price stability in this region. In order to ensure that this legislation does not provide a negative impact to low-income nutrition programs that use a large quantity of dairy products each year, the bill ensures that the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program and the School Lunch program will not be required to pay higher prices for milk as a result of any action taken by the Compact Commission. Over the past several years, I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Senate in order to provide a more equitable price for our nation's milk producers. I supported amendments to the Farm Bills of 1981 and 1985, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 1991, the Budget Resolution of 1995 and the most recent Farm Bill in 1996 in an effort to insure that dairy farmers receive a fair price. As a member of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to ensure that dairy programs have received the maximum possible funding. In the past four years alone, I have worked to obtain almost $1.1 million for dairy research conducted at Penn State University. I have also been a leading supporter of the Dairy Export Incentive Program which facilitates the development of an international market for United States dairy products. In recent years, however, dairy farmers have faced the dual problems of a record high cost of feed grain and a record drop in the Basic Formula Price paid for dairy products. Prices have fluctuated greatly over the past several years, setting new record highs and lows, thereby making any long-term planning impossible for farmers. Most recently, after reaching an all time high in December of 1998, the Basic Formula Price for milk dropped $5.72 per hundredweight to a price of $11.62 for March 1999. These economic conditions have placed our nation's dairy farmers in an all but impossible position. In order to hear the problems that dairy farmers are facing first hand, I asked Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman to accompany me to northeastern Pennsylvania on February 10, 1997. We met a crowd of approximately 750 angry farmers who rightfully complained about the dramatic fluctuations in the price of milk. Upon our return to Washington, in an attempt to bring greater stability to the dairy market, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution on February 13, 1997 which passed by a vote of 83-15. The Resolution stated that the Secretary of Agriculture should consider acting immediately to replace the National Cheese Exchange as a factor to be considered in setting the Basic Formula Price for Dairy. I successfully attached an amendment to the 1997 Supplemental Appropriations Act which required the Department of Agriculture to replace the National Cheese Exchange, which had proven to be an unreliable source of price information, with a systematic national survey of cheese producers. As a result of this legislation, the Basic Formula Price increased from $12.46 in February of 1997 to $13.32 in February of 1998, which represented an increase of .86 cents per hundredweight over the course of the year. Unfortunately, this action alone was not sufficient to bring long- term stability to the dairy market. Consequently, on April 17, 1997, I introduced legislation to require the Secretary of Agriculture to use the price of feed grains and other cash expenses in determining the basic formula price for milk. Further, on September 9, 1997, I joined with Senator Feingold of Wisconsin in introducing S. Res. 119, which urged the Secretary of Agriculture to set a temporary minimum milk price that was equitable to all milk procedures nationwide and provided price relief to economically stressed milk producers. When we began to see some momentum on the national level to reform the current milk pricing system, we were stopped by a Federal District Court, which in December of 1997 ordered the USDA to scrap the price differentials in the current milk pricing formula. This change would have had a major negative impact on the dairy farmers in Pennsylvania. In reaction to this decision, on December 4, 1997, I wrote to the federal judge, asking him to stay his decision striking down the current Class I dairy pricing formula pending appellate review. Sixty- five Congressman and twenty other Senators signed onto my letter and on December 5, 1997, the Judge granted the requested stay. After this short victory, we received further bad news earlier this year, when Secretary Glickman released a new rule for setting the Basic Formula Price for dairy. While better than the proposed rule released last year, this new pricing formula will compound the already dire economic position of dairy farmers by removing an additional $196 million each year from the dairy industry nationwide. Our nation's farmers are some of the hardest working and most dedicated individuals in America. In the past several years, I have visited numerous small dairy farms in Pennsylvania. I have seen these hard working men and women who have dedicated their lives to their farms. The recent drop in dairy prices is an issue that directly affects all of us. We have a duty to ensure that our nation's dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk. If we do nothing, many small dairy farmers will be forced to sell their farms and leave the agriculture industry. This will not only impact the lives of these farmers, but will also have a significant negative impact on the rural economies that depend on the dairy industry for support. Further, the large-scale departure of small dairy farmers from agriculture could place our nation's steady supply of fresh fluid milk in jeopardy, thereby affecting every American. We must recognize the importance of this problem and take prompt action. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation as we continue to work in Congress to bring greater stability to our nation's dairy industry.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, now that NATO has celebrated its 50th anniversary with unity, I believe it is important that the Congress of the United States should now carefully assess what action is next to be taken by NATO involving the United States against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is critical that Congress discharge its constitutional responsibility where the Constitution specifies that only the Congress of the United States has the authority to declare war and to involve the United States in war. The black-letter pronouncement of the Constitution is sufficient reason in and of itself for meticulous observance, but the public policy reasons behind that constitutional provision are very sound. Unless there is public support for war, shown first through the action of the Congress of the United States, it is not realistic or possible to successfully prosecute the war. We learned that from the bitter experience of Vietnam. When the Congress of the United States makes a declaration, either formally or through a resolution, it happens after deliberation, after analysis, after an interchange of ideas and after a debate. In so many instances now, we have seen erosion of the congressional authority to declare war. Korea was a war without a declaration by Congress. Vietnam was a war without a declaration by Congress. Only the Gulf of Tonkin resolution has been held up by some as a thinly veiled authorization for the military action taken by the United States in Vietnam. I believe that we must be very, very cautious not to repeat the mistake of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and not to endorse hastily a resolution proposed by some of our colleagues in the United States Senate to authorize the President to use whatever force the President may determine to be necessary in the military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I am not prepared to give the President a blank check. I believe that the constitutional responsibility of a Senator and the entire Senate, both Houses of Congress of the United States, involves a deliberate judgment as to what ought to be undertaken before we involve the United States in war and before we, in effect, have a declaration of war. And there are many, many very important questions which have to be answered before this Senator is prepared to authorize the executive branch--the President--to use whatever force the President deems necessary. First of all, we need to know what the U.S. commitment will be. We need to know what the plan is. We need to know the strength of the Serbian Army, the military forces of the Republic of Yugoslavia. We need to know to what extent the airstrikes so far have degraded or weakened the military forces of the Serbs or the Republic of Yugoslavia. We need to know what the other commitments will be from the other NATO nations. We need to know how long our commitment will be, or at least some reasonable estimate as to how long we may be expected to be in Kosovo. We know that the initial deployment in Bosnia was accompanied by a Presidential promise to be out within a year. That was extended by a period of time. That extension was re-extended, and now we don't even have an outer limit as to how long we are to be in Bosnia. We know that the President has come forward with a request for $5.9 billion in additional funding. I believe the Congress of the United States will support our fighting men and women. But that is a large bill; about $5.5 billion is for military machinery, operations and equipment. It was a surprise to many that in the course of that military operation, we were on the verge of running out of missiles; that our munitions supply was questionable; that our supply of spare parts was questionable. Many of us on this floor, including this Senator, have argued that our military has been reduced too much. And now there is a debate underway as to whether the President's request for $5.9 billion ought to be supplemented to take care of many items that have been overlooked in the past--issues of military pay, issues of munitions, the overall readiness of the United States. When the distinguished Prime Minister Tony Blair was in the United States last week, I had occasion to talk to him personally and get his views as to what ought to be done in our military action, the NATO military action, against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Prime Minister Blair talks about ground forces. I asked the obvious questions as to how many the United Kingdom is prepared to commit, how many the U.S. will be called upon to undertake, and what we have done by way of degrading the Yugoslav forces by air attacks. To his credit, Prime Minister Blair responded that those were all unanswered questions. Well, before I am prepared to vote for the use of force, I think there ought to be some very concrete answers to those questions. The President of the United States was quoted as saying that he was prepared to reevaluate the question of the use of ground troops because that request had been made by the Secretary General of NATO. Frankly, I am just a little bit surprised that the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military forces is looking to the leadership of the Secretary General of NATO when the United States is playing the dominant role and supplying the overwhelming majority of air power and materiel in our military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It seems to me the leadership ought to be coming from the President. The leadership ought to be coming from the United States. We certainly are footing the bill, and we certainly are the major actor. So if, in fact, there is a justification for a greater authorization by the Congress, that word ought to come from the President, through the leadership of the President, telling us in a very concrete way the answers to the important questions that I have enumerated. This Senator understands there are no absolute answers to the questions, but we ought to have best estimates, and we ought to have a very candid assessment from the United States military, who, so far, have been less than unequivocal in their responses as to whether the airstrikes alone can bring President Milosevic to his knees. The answer that is given by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, is that the military will be degraded. But there is a more fundamental question which needs to be answered--whether the airstrikes will be successful, or whether the airstrikes will sufficiently weaken the Republic of Yugoslavia so that we at least have an idea, if there are to be ground forces, what the results will be. But I believe very strongly that we should not pass a resolution analogous to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing the President to use whatever force the President deems necessary. I believe there should be no blank check for this President, or for any President. But I am prepared to listen to a concrete, specific plan that evaluates the risks, that evaluates the costs in terms of potential U.S. lives. I am not prepared to commit ground forces without having a specific idea as to what the realistic prognosis will be. The Senate of the United States passed a resolution on March 23 authorizing airstrikes, but strictly guarding against ground forces. The airstrikes constitute a clear-cut act of war, and the resolution of the Senate of the United States is not sufficient under the Constitution. There has to be a joinder with the House of Representatives. So it is my thought that before any further action is taken, before there is any suggestion of a commitment of ground forces, that matter ought to come before the Congress and ought to receive prior congressional authorization before any such force is used, and that the entire Congress of the United States ought to review the military action that is undertaken at the present time, and that it is in fact beyond the prerogative of the President under his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, but it is realistically a matter that is decided by the Congress. Make no mistake. There are very vital interests involved in the action now being undertaken against the Republic of Yugoslavia. NATO's credibility is squarely on the line. The credibility of the United States is squarely on the line. The activities of the Serbs, the Republic of Yugoslavia, in what is called ethnic cleansing, which is a polite name for ``barbaric massacres,'' is unparalleled since World War II. And there are very major humanitarian interests which are currently being served. This body has never come to grips, in my opinion, with the square determination as to whether vital U.S. national security interests are involved, and that is the traditional test of the use of force. But we are on the line; our country is on the line. NATO, a very important international organization, has its credibility on the line. And we must act in a very thoughtful, very careful way after important information is presented to the Congress by the President, because only the President is in a position to answer the critical questions. Then the deliberation of the Congress ought to take shape, and we ought to make a determination in accordance with the Constitution whether the Congress will authorize the executive branch to use force, to send in ground troops, or what the parameters of that declaration would be. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might speak for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I thank the Chair doubly for the double acknowledgment of representation, the distinguished Presiding Officer being the Senator from Kansas and this Senator having been born and raised in Kansas. If the sitting Senator from Kansas acknowledges representation of that State, I second the motion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge the Palestinian Authority not to take unilateral action on May 4 to declare a Palestinian state. That date, May 4, 1999, marks a period where significant speculation has been undertaken as to whether the Palestinian Authority would make such a unilateral declaration of statehood because of their dissatisfaction with the progress of the negotiations under the Oslo accords. I urge the Palestinian Authority not to take any such action on the grounds that is a matter for negotiation under the Oslo accords, and that it is something that ought to be decided between the parties to those accords--the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I had occasion to discuss this matter personally with Chairman Yasser Arafat when he was in the United States a little over a month ago when I was scheduled to visit him in his hotel in Virginia, but I had the opportunity to confer with Chairman Arafat in my hideaway. For those who don't know what a hideaway is, it is a small room in the Capitol downstairs 2 minutes away from the Senate floor; small, but accommodating. On that occasion, Chairman Arafat and I discussed a variety of topics, including the question of whether the Palestinian Authority would undertake a unilateral declaration of statehood. I might say to the Chair in passing just a small personal note that when I accompanied President Clinton to Bethlehem in December of last year, I was struck by a large poster which had the overtones of a political poster. It had a picture of the President on one side with his thumb up, and it had a picture of Chairman Arafat on the other side. It was a political poster. The picture had not been taken with President Clinton and Chairman Arafat together, but it had that symbolism for the occasion of the President's visit to Bethlehem. I took one as a souvenir. As we Senators sometimes do, I had it framed and it is hanging in my hideaway so that when Chairman Arafat came into the hideaway and saw the picture of himself and President Clinton, he was very pleased to see it on display and insisted on having a picture of himself taken in front of the picture of himself, which is not an unusual occurrence, whether you are a Palestinian with the Palestinian Authority, or from even the State of Kansas, or the State of Pennsylvania. In the course of our discussions, I urged Chairman Arafat not to make the unilateral declaration of statehood. He said to me that it was not up to himself alone, but it was up to the council. Then he made a comment that he questioned whether the Palestinian Authority had received sufficient credit for the change of its Charter eliminating the provisions in the PLO Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. In 1995, Senator Shelby and I proposed legislation, which was enacted, that conditioned U.S. payments to the Palestinian Authority on changing the Charter and on making the maximum effort against terrorists, so that when Chairman Arafat raised the question about whether there had been sufficient recognition given to the Palestinian Authority for changing the Charter, I told him that I thought he was probably right and that there had not been sufficient recognition given to the Palestinian Authority for that change. He then asked me if there would be recognition given to the Palestinian Authority if it resisted a unilateral declaration of statehood. I said to Chairman Arafat that I personally would go to the Senate floor on May 5 if a unilateral declaration of statehood was not made on May 4. Being a good negotiator, which we know Chairman Arafat is, he asked if I would put that in writing. I said that I would. On March 31 of this year, I wrote to the chairman as follows: Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for coming to my Senate hideaway and for our very productive discussion on March 23rd. Following up on that discussion, I urge that the Palestinian Authority not make a unilateral declaration of statehood on May 4th or on any subsequent date. The issue of the Palestinian state is a matter for negotiation under the terms of the Oslo Accords. I understand your position that this issue will not be decided by you alone but will be submitted to the Palestinian Authority Council. When I was asked at our meeting whether you and the Palestinian Authority would receive credit for refraining from the unilateral declaration of statehood, I replied that I would go to the Senate floor on May 5th or as soon thereafter as possible and compliment your action in not unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state. I look forward to continuing discussions with you on the important issues in the Mid-East peace process. Sincerely, Arlen Specter. Mr. President, I decided to make this public comment to emphasize my view, and I believe the view shared by many, if not most, in the Congress of the United States that, in fact, the Palestinian Authority should not unilaterally declare statehood, but should leave it to negotiations under the Oslo accords. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss an issue of great importance, and an issue on which I believe we can all agree. Regardless of health insurance type, payer, or scope, it is critical that women have direct access to caregivers who are trained to address their unique health needs. To help us ensure that all women have direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care within their health plans, I am joined by Senator Bob Graham in introducing the ``Access to Women's Health Care Act of 1999.'' This legislation will allow women direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care, without requiring them to secure a time- consuming and cumbersome referral from a separate primary care physician. Senator Graham and I are also pleased to have Senators Cochran and Robb as original cosponsors of this vital legislation. I would like to extend thanks to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, whose members have worked diligently with Senator Graham and myself in crafting this bill. While many managed care plans provide some form of direct access to women's health specialists, some plans limit this access. Other plans deny direct access altogether, and require a referral from a primary care physician. Under the ``Access to Women's Health Care Act of 1999,'' women would be permitted to see a provider of obstetric and gynecological care without prior authorization. This approach is prudent and effective because it ensures that women have access to the benefits they pay for, without mandating a structural change in the plan's particular ``gatekeeper'' system. It is important to note that 37 states have enacted laws promoting women's access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care. However, women in other states or in ERISA-regulated health plans are not protected from access restrictions or limitations. For many women, direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care is crucial because they are often the only providers that women see regularly during their reproductive years. These providers are often a woman's only point of entry into the health care system, and are caregivers who maintain a woman's medical record for much of her lifetime. I believe it is clear that access to women's health care cuts across the intricacies of the complicated and often divisive managed care debate. During the past few years, Congress has debated many proposals which attempt to address growing problems in managed health care insurance. These proposals have been diverse, not only in their approach to the problems, but in the scope of the problems they seek to address. Most recently, during the 105th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a managed care reform proposal which, among many other reforms, included provisions requiring health plans to allow women direct access to obstetrician/gynecologists which participate in the plan. I would also note that this direct access provision has been included, in varying forms, in all of the major managed care reform proposals introduced in the Senate this year, including the bipartisan managed care reform bill, the ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999'' (S. 374), which I cosponsored. It is for these reasons that I offer this legislation today. Only through bipartisanship and consensus-building can we come to an agreement on the difficult issue of addressing managed care reform. I believe that cutting through the cumbersome gatekeeper system to ensure women have access to the care they need is a good place to start, and I urge swift adoption of this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss an issue of great importance, and an issue on which I believe we can all agree. Regardless of health insurance type, payer, or scope, it is critical that women have direct access to caregivers who are trained to address their unique health needs. To help us ensure that all women have direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care within their health plans, I am joined by Senator Bob Graham in introducing the ``Access to Women's Health Care Act of 1999.'' This legislation will allow women direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care, without requiring them to secure a time- consuming and cumbersome referral from a separate primary care physician. Senator Graham and I are also pleased to have Senators Cochran and Robb as original cosponsors of this vital legislation. I would like to extend thanks to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, whose members have worked diligently with Senator Graham and myself in crafting this bill. While many managed care plans provide some form of direct access to women's health specialists, some plans limit this access. Other plans deny direct access altogether, and require a referral from a primary care physician. Under the ``Access to Women's Health Care Act of 1999,'' women would be permitted to see a provider of obstetric and gynecological care without prior authorization. This approach is prudent and effective because it ensures that women have access to the benefits they pay for, without mandating a structural change in the plan's particular ``gatekeeper'' system. It is important to note that 37 states have enacted laws promoting women's access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care. However, women in other states or in ERISA-regulated health plans are not protected from access restrictions or limitations. For many women, direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care is crucial because they are often the only providers that women see regularly during their reproductive years. These providers are often a woman's only point of entry into the health care system, and are caregivers who maintain a woman's medical record for much of her lifetime. I believe it is clear that access to women's health care cuts across the intricacies of the complicated and often divisive managed care debate. During the past few years, Congress has debated many proposals which attempt to address growing problems in managed health care insurance. These proposals have been diverse, not only in their approach to the problems, but in the scope of the problems they seek to address. Most recently, during the 105th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a managed care reform proposal which, among many other reforms, included provisions requiring health plans to allow women direct access to obstetrician/gynecologists which participate in the plan. I would also note that this direct access provision has been included, in varying forms, in all of the major managed care reform proposals introduced in the Senate this year, including the bipartisan managed care reform bill, the ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999'' (S. 374), which I cosponsored. It is for these reasons that I offer this legislation today. Only through bipartisanship and consensus-building can we come to an agreement on the difficult issue of addressing managed care reform. I believe that cutting through the cumbersome gatekeeper system to ensure women have access to the care they need is a good place to start, and I urge swift adoption of this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, President Clinton has just signified his intention to ask Congress for additional appropriations of some $5.45 billion for military costs involved in the war in Kosovo and some $491 million to pay for humanitarian assistance. It is my thought that Congress will be receptive to humanitarian aid for the thousands of refugees who have been driven from their homes in Kosovo. These requests will give us an opportunity to ask some very important questions and get some very important information to assess our military preparedness and to make the determination as to how much our allies are contributing to this effort, which ought to be a joint effort. We have seen the U.S. military preparedness decline very markedly in the past decade and a half. During the Reagan years, in the mid-1980s, the defense budget exceeded $300 billion. In 1999 dollars, that would be well over $400 billion, might even by close to the $500 million mark. But our budget for this year, fiscal year 1999, was $271 billion, and according to the President's request, is projected to be slightly over $280 billion for fiscal year 2000. That raises some very, very important questions as to the adequacy of our defense and our ability to deal with a crisis in Kosovo, where we are at war, notwithstanding the fact that a declaration has not been filed. The Senate of the United States has authorized air strikes in our vote of 58 to 41 on March 23, but the House of Representatives has not had a correlating move. Constitutionally this is a very, very dangerous situation, because only the Congress under our Constitution has the authority to declare war. We have seen a constant erosion of congressional authority, which is a dangerous sign, in terms of the requirements of constitutional law--this is bedrock constitutional law--and also in terms of having congressional support, which reflects public support, for the military action. We have seen this war in Kosovo move ahead. We have seen missile strikes, air strikes. The authorization of the Senate was limited in the air strikes because of our concern about not putting too many U.S. fighting men and women in so-called harm's way. It is rather a surprising consequence to find we are in short supply of missiles. We have seen the activity in Iraq reduced, according to military reports. We know of our commitments around the globe, including South Korea. I believe this is an occasion to take a very close look as to the adequacy of our military preparations. At this time, we have some 10 divisions, 20 wings active in reserve, some 13 active wings and some 256 naval service combatants. This is very limited, compared to the power of the United States during the mid-1980s in the Reagan years. Of course, it is a different world. It is a world without the potential clash of the superpowers--the United States and the Soviet Union--but it is still a world with major, major problems. When the President comes to Capitol Hill, comes to the Appropriations Committee on which I serve, comes to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on which I serve, then I think we need to ask some very, very hard questions. Those questions turn on whether the United States is, realistically, capable of carrying on the kind of a war in which we have become engaged in Kosovo. Do we even have sufficient air power to carry out our objectives? Do we have sufficient missiles to carry out our objectives? So far, we have bypassed the issue of ground forces. Some of our colleagues have advocated a resolution which would authorize the President to use whatever force is needed. I am categorically opposed to such a resolution. I do not believe that the Senate and the Congress of the United States ought to give the President a blank check, but I am prepared to hear whatever it is that the President requests, to consider that in the context of our vital national security interests and in the context of what we ought to do. But at a time when the Congress and the country has been put on notice that the President is considering calling up Reserves, we find ourselves in a military entanglement, a foreign entanglement and, by all appearances, we are ill-equipped to carry out the objectives and the course which the President has set out for us. We need to know on an updated basis what is happening in Iraq and what our commitments are there and what our potential commitments are around the world. Similarly, we need to know, Madam President, our allies' contributions. At a time when the Congress of the United States is being called upon to authorize $5.450 billion for the Pentagon, it is fair to ask what the contribution is from Great Britain. What is the contribution from France? What is the contribution from Germany? What is the contribution from the other NATO countries? The morning news reports carried the comment that the French are opposed to a naval blockade to cut off Yugoslavian oil reserves. That is sort of a surprising matter. As General Wesley Clark has noted, why are we putting U.S. pilots at risk in bombing Yugoslavian oil production at oil refineries if we are not willing to take on a less drastic matter of a naval blockade? Certainly a naval blockade is an act of war, as the French have been reported to have said, but so are missile and air strikes. As we are being asked for almost $6 billion, I would be especially interested to know the French contribution, besides their naysaying of a naval blockade to stop petroleum from reaching Yugoslavia. The issue of the relative contribution of the United States and the NATO countries has been a longstanding controversy for the 50 years that NATO has been in existence. I recall attending my first North Atlantic Assembly meeting in Venice shortly after I was elected. It was the spring of 1981. The chief topic was burden sharing. On the occasions when I have had an opportunity to return to North Atlantic Assembly meetings, burden sharing has always been a big question. I think it is a fair question for the Congress to ask: What is the proportion of burden sharing now in Kosovo, especially when we are being asked to ante up an additional $6 billion. There is another aspect to our activity in Kosovo which requires an answer, and that is, what are we doing with respect to prosecution of crimes against humanity in the War Crimes Tribunal, looking toward the prospective indictment of President Milosevic. There is an active effort at the present time to gather evidence against President Milosevic. There is a question as to why it has taken so long. In late 1992, then-Secretary of State Eagleburger, pretty much branded Milosevic a war criminal. There has been constant speculation over the course of the past 7 years about why Milosevic was not indicted, along with others in the Bosnia and Croatia crimes against humanity. We need an answer, Madam President, as to what has happened with outstanding key indictments against Mladic and Karadzic with respect to what has happened in Bosnia. When a group of Members of the House and Senate were briefed by the President last Tuesday, a distinction was made between our military activity and collateral ways to have an impact on the war in Kosovo, such as through the War Crimes Tribunal. There have been major efforts to locate Karadzic. There have also been major efforts to locate Mladic who is supposed to be in hiding near Belgrade. The activities of the War Crimes Tribunal could have a very profound effect on those committing atrocities as we speak in Kosovo--that that kind of conduct is going to be treated in a very severe and tough manner by the War Crimes Tribunal. This involves having the War Crimes Tribunal follow up on those who have been indicted, like Mladic and Karadzic, and it also involves the War Crimes Tribunal acting aggressively to gather evidence about Milosevic and any others who may be perpetrating crimes against humanity. At a time when we are looking for a supplemental appropriation, we ought to be as certain as we can be that the War Crimes Tribunal is adequately funded. I have had occasion to visit the War Crimes Tribunal three times in The Hague and have noted a very serious group of dedicated prosecutors, headed by Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour. But that contingent has been laboring with insufficient resources. Only recently their courtrooms have increased from one to three, and a substantial increase in their budget was achieved when the 1999 budget was increased from the 1998 level of $68.8 million to slightly more than $100 million to take care of the prosecutions in Bosnia and Croatia. That leaves open the question about what is going to happen with respect to the prosecutions in Kosovo. It is vital that efforts be ongoing contemporaneously with these atrocities to gather evidence while it is fresh. From my own experience as a prosecuting attorney, I can say firsthand--gather the evidence while the eyewitnesses are available, while the recollections are fresh and while the tangible physical evidence is present. There may be a necessity--and it is a very unpleasant subject but one of the facts of life in Bosnia, Croatia and now Kosovo--that mass graves be uncovered for tangible evidence of these atrocities. An inquiry today gave me the preliminary bit of advice that there is a request for some $5 million for documentation support for the War Crimes Tribunal. I have made the request that further information be forthcoming so that when the Appropriations Committee considers these supplemental matters, that we have in hand the needs of the War Crimes Tribunal. This will put all would-be war criminals on notice that these matters are going to be very, very vigorously pursued. It would be a very, very strong blow for international law and international justice to have a War Crimes Tribunal indictment at the earliest possible time branding Milosevic a war criminal for all to see. I think that would inevitably have a profound effect everywhere, including in Belgrade, including in Serbia, including in the Republic of Yugoslavia. So, these are questions which I hope we can have answers to in the forthcoming days when I do believe my colleagues will be willing to share my sense that the fighting men and women need to be supported on this $5.45 billion request from the Pentagon and on the almost $500 million for humanitarian aid. But we need to use this as an occasion to find out if we have adequate military strength to carry on the war which we have undertaken and to discharge the kind of commitments that we have made worldwide. We also need to take a close look at the burden sharing with our allies and to make sure that the important work of the War Crimes Tribunal is adequately funded. In the absence of anyone else on the floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.