Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is likely there will be an amendment offered relating to Kosovo. I would like to speak briefly on that subject, if I may, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor. I note the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has just come to the floor. Does the chairman wish to take the floor?

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the chairman. I will participate. I want to make just a couple of comments. Mr. President, the Kosovo matter again raises the issue about the respective power of Congress under the Constitution, the sole authority to declare war, and the authority of the President as Commander in Chief. This is a recurrent theme of consideration. Within the course of the past year, we faced the issue of airstrikes, which were anticipated against Iraq in February of 1998. At that time, I wrote the President, and spoke on the floor of the Senate calling on the President to seek congressional authority, if action was contemplated there, because an airstrike was an act of war and only the Congress of the United States has the authority to involve the Nation in war. There are circumstances where the President has to act in emergency situations, where as Commander in Chief he must act in the absence of an opportunity for congressional consideration. At that time, there was adequate opportunity for congressional consideration. However, it was not undertaken, and that incident passed without any military action. We then had the events of this past mid-December where airstrikes were launched on Iraq. Again, on that occasion, I had written to the President of the United States urging that he make a presentation to the Congress as to what he wanted to do. Again, airstrikes constitute an act of war, and we have learned from the bitter experience of Vietnam that we cannot successfully undertake a war without the support of the American people. And the first action to obtain that support is from the Congress of the United States. We have now been in Bosnia for a protracted period of time. Originally, this was supposed to be a limited engagement. That has been extended. Congress enacted legislation to cut off funds under certain contingencies. That has all lapsed, and we remain in Bosnia with very substantial expenditures. Fortunately, there has not been military action. So although there have been some casualties, it has not been as a result of a conflict. We are looking at a situation in Kosovo which is enormously serious. I, again, urge the President of the United States to make a presentation to the Congress as to what he would like to undertake. The House of Representatives, by a fairly narrow vote, authorized some limited use of force in Kosovo. The headline featured was ``President Gets Support That He Had Not Asked For''. Presidents are very reluctant to come to the Congress with a request for authorization, because that may be interpreted to dilute their authority to act as Commander in Chief unilaterally without congressional authority. I had filed a resolution on the use of force with missile and airstrikes, which would involve minimal risk and strike where there are no U.S. personnel placed in harm's way. I did that really to stimulate debate by Congress on what authorization there should be. But it is more than a matter of notification. The administration talks of notification, and very frequently even notification is a virtual nullity coming at a time when Congress has no opportunity to really be involved in the decision making process. I can recall back in mid-April of 1986 when President Reagan ordered the airstrike on Libya. The consultation was had--really notification, not consultation, the difference being that if you notify, you are simply telling Congress what has happened. If you consult, that has the implication that there may be some response from the administration depending on the congressional reaction. Both are vastly short of authorization, which is what the Constitution requires on a declaration of war. But, in any event, in mid-April of 1986, congressional leaders were summoned to be told that the planes were in flight. There was a meeting with many Senators shortly after the attack occurred, there was quite an interesting debate between the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and Secretary of State Schultz as to whether Congress could have had any effect, or whether congressional leaders could have had any effect, if they wanted to have an impact on that situation. But when we take a look at what is happening now in Kosovo with a massing of forces, and we take a look at the terrain, we take a look at the air defense, we may be involved in more than missile strikes. And it is one thing to support missile strikes. It is quite another thing to support airstrikes. It all depends upon the facts and the circumstances in situations where the Congress needs to know more, and the American people need to know a great deal more. So it is my hope that the President will address this issue, will tell the Congress of the United States what he would like to do in Kosovo, seek authorization from the Congress, and tell the American people what he has in mind. I know from my contacts in my State of 12 million people that Pennsylvanians do not have much of an idea about what is involved in Kosovo. And there are very, very serious ramifications and questions as to what our posture would be with NATO, if we do not join NATO forces on something which is agreed to there. But, when nations of NATO act, they do not have our Constitution. They are aware of our Constitution. They are aware of the provisions of our Constitution, that only the Congress can declare war. So if there is not congressional support, if there is not congressional action, they are on notice that they do not have a commitment in the Congress of the United States, a Constitutional commitment in the United States, to act. What the President may do unilaterally, of course, is a matter which has always been a little ahead of the process. It is a fact that frequently Congress sits by and awaits Presidential action. If it is a success, fine. If it is a failure, then there may be someone to blame--the President, not the Congress. But it is my hope the President will come to the Congress, tell the Congress what it is he wants, tell the American people what it is the President thinks ought to be done so we can have an understanding as to what is involved here. So we can have an understanding as to what the risks are, what the objectives are, what the end game is, and what the exit strategy is. Then we can make a rational decision. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a bill that would allow states to pass laws limiting the import of waste from other states. Addressing the interstate shipment of solid waste is a top environmental priority for millions of Americans, millions of Pennsylvanians and for me. As you are aware, Congress came very close to enacting legislation to address this issue in 1994, and the Senate passed interstate waste and flow control legislation in May, 1995 by an overwhelming 94-6 margin, only to see it die in the House of Representatives. I am confident that with the strong leadership of my colleagues Chairman Chafee and Senator Smith, we can get quick action on a strong waste bill and pressure the House to conclude this effort once and for all. As you are aware, the Supreme Court has put us in the position of having to intervene in the issue of trash shipments. In recent years, the Court has struck down State laws restricting the importation of solid waste from other jurisdictions under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The only solution is for Congress to enact legislation conferring such authority on the States, which would then be Constitutional. It is time that the largest trash exporting States bite the bullet and take substantial steps towards self-sufficiency for waste disposal. The legislation passed by the Senate in the 103rd and 104th Congresses would have provided much-needed relief to Pennsylvania, which is by far the largest importer of out-of-State waste in the nation. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 3.9 million tons of out-of-State municipal solid waste entered Pennsylvania in 1993, rising to 4.3 million tons in 1994, 5.2 million in 1995, and a record 6.3 million tons from out-of-State in 1996 and 1997, which are the most recent statistics available. Most of this trash came from New York and New Jersey, with New York responsible for 2.7 million tons and New Jersey responsible for 2.4 million tons in 1997, representing 82 percent of the municipal solid waste imported into Pennsylvania. This is not a problem limited to one small corner of my State. Millions of tons of trash generated in other States find their final resting place in more than 50 landfills throughout Pennsylvania. Now, more than ever, we need legislation which will go a long way toward resolving the landfill problems facing Pennsylvania, Indiana, and similar waste importing States. I am particularly concerned by the developments in New York, where Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani have announced the closure of the City's one remaining landfill, Fresh Kills, in 2001. I am advised that 13,200 tons per day of New York City trash are sent there and that Pennsylvania is a likely destination once Fresh Kills begins its shut-down. On several occasions, I have met with country officials, environmental groups, and other Pennsylvanians to discuss the solid waste issue specifically, and it often comes up in the public open house town meetings I conduct in all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. I came away from those meetings impressed by the deep concerns expressed by the residents of communities which host a landfill rapidly filing up with the refuse of millions of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans whose States have failed to adequately manage the waste they generate. Recognizing the recurrent problem of landfill capacity in Pennsylvania, since 1989 I have pushed to resolve the interstate waste crisis. I have introduced legislation with my late colleague, Senator John Heinz, and then with former Senator Dan Coats along with cosponsors from both sides of the aisle which would have authorized States to restrict the disposal of out-of-State municipal waste in any landfill or incinerator within its jurisdiction. I was pleased when many of the concepts in our legislation were incorporated in the Environment and Public Works Committee's reported bills in the 103rd and 104th Congresses, and I supported these measures during floor consideration. During the 103rd Congress, we encountered a new issue with respect to municipal solid waste--the issue of waste flow control authority. On May 16, 1994, the Supreme Court held (6-3) in Carbone versus Clarkstown that a flow control ordinance, which requires all solid waste to be processed at a designated waste management facility, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In striking down the Clarkstown ordinance, the Court stated that the ordinance discriminated against interstate commerce by allowing only the favored operator to process waste that is within the town's limits. As a result of the Court's decision, flow control ordinances in Pennsylvania and other States are considered unconstitutional. I have met with county commissioners who have made clear that this issue is vitally important to the local governments in Pennsylvania and my office has, over the past years received numerous phone calls and letters from individual Pennsylvania counties and municipal solid waste authorities that support waste flow control legislation. Since 1988, flow control has been the primary tool used by Pennsylvania counties to enforce solid waste plans and meet waste reduction and recycling goals or mandates. Many Pennsylvania jurisdictions have spent a considerable amount of public funds on disposal facilities, including upgraded sanitary landfills, state-of-the-art resource recovery facilities, and co-composting facilities. In the absence of flow control authority, I am advised that many of these worthwhile projects could be jeopardized and that there has been a fiscal impact on some communities where there are debt service obligations. In order to fix these problems, my legislation would provide a presumptive ban on all out-of-state municipal solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, unless a landfill obtains the agreement of the local government to allow for the importation of waste. It would provide a freeze authority to allow a State to place a limit on the amount of out-of-state waste received annually at each facility. It would also provide a ratchet authority to allow a State to gradually reduce the amount of out-of-state municipal waste that may be received at facilities. These provisions will provide a concrete incentive for the largest states to get a handle on their solid waste management immediately. To address the problem of flow control my bill would provide authority to allow local governments to designate where privately collected waste must be disposed. This would be a narrow fix for only those localities that constructed facilities before the 1994 Supreme Court ruling and who relied on their ability to regulate the flow of garbage to pay for their municipal bonds. This is an issue that affects numerous states, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a bill that would allow states to pass laws limiting the import of waste from other states. Addressing the interstate shipment of solid waste is a top environmental priority for millions of Americans, millions of Pennsylvanians and for me. As you are aware, Congress came very close to enacting legislation to address this issue in 1994, and the Senate passed interstate waste and flow control legislation in May, 1995 by an overwhelming 94-6 margin, only to see it die in the House of Representatives. I am confident that with the strong leadership of my colleagues Chairman Chafee and Senator Smith, we can get quick action on a strong waste bill and pressure the House to conclude this effort once and for all. As you are aware, the Supreme Court has put us in the position of having to intervene in the issue of trash shipments. In recent years, the Court has struck down State laws restricting the importation of solid waste from other jurisdictions under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The only solution is for Congress to enact legislation conferring such authority on the States, which would then be Constitutional. It is time that the largest trash exporting States bite the bullet and take substantial steps towards self-sufficiency for waste disposal. The legislation passed by the Senate in the 103rd and 104th Congresses would have provided much-needed relief to Pennsylvania, which is by far the largest importer of out-of-State waste in the nation. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 3.9 million tons of out-of-State municipal solid waste entered Pennsylvania in 1993, rising to 4.3 million tons in 1994, 5.2 million in 1995, and a record 6.3 million tons from out-of-State in 1996 and 1997, which are the most recent statistics available. Most of this trash came from New York and New Jersey, with New York responsible for 2.7 million tons and New Jersey responsible for 2.4 million tons in 1997, representing 82 percent of the municipal solid waste imported into Pennsylvania. This is not a problem limited to one small corner of my State. Millions of tons of trash generated in other States find their final resting place in more than 50 landfills throughout Pennsylvania. Now, more than ever, we need legislation which will go a long way toward resolving the landfill problems facing Pennsylvania, Indiana, and similar waste importing States. I am particularly concerned by the developments in New York, where Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani have announced the closure of the City's one remaining landfill, Fresh Kills, in 2001. I am advised that 13,200 tons per day of New York City trash are sent there and that Pennsylvania is a likely destination once Fresh Kills begins its shut-down. On several occasions, I have met with country officials, environmental groups, and other Pennsylvanians to discuss the solid waste issue specifically, and it often comes up in the public open house town meetings I conduct in all of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. I came away from those meetings impressed by the deep concerns expressed by the residents of communities which host a landfill rapidly filing up with the refuse of millions of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans whose States have failed to adequately manage the waste they generate. Recognizing the recurrent problem of landfill capacity in Pennsylvania, since 1989 I have pushed to resolve the interstate waste crisis. I have introduced legislation with my late colleague, Senator John Heinz, and then with former Senator Dan Coats along with cosponsors from both sides of the aisle which would have authorized States to restrict the disposal of out-of-State municipal waste in any landfill or incinerator within its jurisdiction. I was pleased when many of the concepts in our legislation were incorporated in the Environment and Public Works Committee's reported bills in the 103rd and 104th Congresses, and I supported these measures during floor consideration. During the 103rd Congress, we encountered a new issue with respect to municipal solid waste--the issue of waste flow control authority. On May 16, 1994, the Supreme Court held (6-3) in Carbone versus Clarkstown that a flow control ordinance, which requires all solid waste to be processed at a designated waste management facility, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In striking down the Clarkstown ordinance, the Court stated that the ordinance discriminated against interstate commerce by allowing only the favored operator to process waste that is within the town's limits. As a result of the Court's decision, flow control ordinances in Pennsylvania and other States are considered unconstitutional. I have met with county commissioners who have made clear that this issue is vitally important to the local governments in Pennsylvania and my office has, over the past years received numerous phone calls and letters from individual Pennsylvania counties and municipal solid waste authorities that support waste flow control legislation. Since 1988, flow control has been the primary tool used by Pennsylvania counties to enforce solid waste plans and meet waste reduction and recycling goals or mandates. Many Pennsylvania jurisdictions have spent a considerable amount of public funds on disposal facilities, including upgraded sanitary landfills, state-of-the-art resource recovery facilities, and co-composting facilities. In the absence of flow control authority, I am advised that many of these worthwhile projects could be jeopardized and that there has been a fiscal impact on some communities where there are debt service obligations. In order to fix these problems, my legislation would provide a presumptive ban on all out-of-state municipal solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, unless a landfill obtains the agreement of the local government to allow for the importation of waste. It would provide a freeze authority to allow a State to place a limit on the amount of out-of-state waste received annually at each facility. It would also provide a ratchet authority to allow a State to gradually reduce the amount of out-of-state municipal waste that may be received at facilities. These provisions will provide a concrete incentive for the largest states to get a handle on their solid waste management immediately. To address the problem of flow control my bill would provide authority to allow local governments to designate where privately collected waste must be disposed. This would be a narrow fix for only those localities that constructed facilities before the 1994 Supreme Court ruling and who relied on their ability to regulate the flow of garbage to pay for their municipal bonds. This is an issue that affects numerous states, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to require that the States allocate a portion of the funds recovered under the tobacco settlement for purposes relating to tobacco--smoking cessation education for children, 20 percent; and some 30 percent to be allocated for public health matters. The origin of this issue arose when there was a settlement in November of last year where 46 States agreed to accept $206 billion over 25 years. The settlement grew out of lawsuits that primarily sought the recovery of Medicaid costs, although there is a contention that there were some other allegations in the cause of action. The current law requires the States to share Medicaid recoveries from third parties with the Federal Government. The Federal Government's share of Medicaid costs is generally 57 percent, but varies from State to State. Under the existing law, only the States have the authority to bring suits for the recoveries. During the course of the litigation, the States, as I understand the legal documents, released all of the claims which the Federal Government would have for these Medicaid funds. An amendment to the appropriations bill was offered by the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, to provide that all of the funds would be paid over to the States, specifically prohibiting the Federal Government's recoupment of funds recovered by States from the tobacco companies. At the appropriations markup, some concerns were expressed by this Senator and by others. On Monday of this week, March 15, we held a hearing, participated in by Senator Hutchison and myself, where we heard from the Governor of Kentucky and the attorneys general of Pennsylvania, Texas, and Iowa. At that time, the assertion was made by the Governor and the three attorneys general that all of these funds should be retained by the States, and a representation made that there were other claims involved in the settlement besides Medicaid funds. Senator Harkin and I worked together to craft the amendment which is now before the Senate, joined, as I noted, by Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy; Senator Harkin and I taking the lead because of our positions as chairman and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee having jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services. It is a fact that we are very limited in the funding which is available for health care. Our subcommittee has a budget which has to be divided among education matters and also the Department of Labor, which implicates many issues of worker safety, so that every dollar is of vital importance and we must make an application to purposes of health care. The problem of tobacco in America is well recognized and the statistics are really very, very stark. Some 400,000 people die each year from tobacco-related illnesses. Approximately 5 million Americans under 18 are projected to die from smoking if the current trend continues. Some $72 billion a year constitute the health care expenditures in the United States on tobacco-related illnesses; some $7.3 billion annually total Medicaid payments directly related to tobacco, and between $1.4 and $4 billion constitute expenditures for infant health and developmental problems caused by mothers who smoke. It is a matter of overwhelming importance. There is a very pervasive mantra in America today that the Federal Government should not dictate to the States how the funds are to be used. In accordance with the principles of federalism, I believe in leaving as much control as is possible to the State governments and also to local governments, as they carry out their responsibilities. But when you have a very major settlement involving $206 billion and where the Federal Government has a very strong claim to 57 percent of those monies and the existing law provides that an allocation shall be determined by the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, it is my view that it is preeminently reasonable to ask States to make a commitment to spend at least a portion of these funds--50 percent, I think, would be a reasonable sum--on matters which are related to tobacco. The cause of the damages involves tobacco, and that is why we are asking that 50 percent be allocated, as we have said--20 percent for smokers cessation and education; and 30 percent for public health programs. We do not propose an elaborate series of regulations, we do not propose micromanaging in any way what the States will be doing, but require only a certification from the States. We have already seen announcements from officials in a number of States on plans to spend these monies for other purposes; for example, for highways. Highways are very important. States would have latitude to spend part of the money for highways, but certainly should not have unfettered discretion to spend the total sum of the money on highways. Other funds are proposed to be spent for mental health services--here again, a very, very important item. Perhaps some of the mental health services are reasonably related to tobacco causes. That contention can be made and may well be honored. Another State official is talking about eliminating the State debt, which is certainly a worthwhile matter. Again, 100 percent of the funds ought not be used for that purpose, nonrelated to tobacco. Other proposals are to increase teacher pay. Perhaps some of that is allocable for drug education. In another State, the officials propose using the funds to finance tax relief. That, again, is a worthwhile objective, but there ought to be some assurance that on a matter like this, some of the funds ought to be used for tobacco-related purposes. Other States propose scholarships, which may be related, if the educational portion is to be assigned to tobacco-related education. We see that in the very short term, there are a great many purposes where the States have a need for funds where they would like to have unfettered discretion. In a perfect world, we would like to see them have $206 billion. But with a very, very substantial Federal claim, there ought to be at least some allocation for public health, which we are proposing in this amendment. If this legislation is not enacted, it is possible that there could be very bitter, protracted, and expensive litigation, with the Federal Government asserting its claim under existing law, which could take a great deal of time. The Governor of Kentucky and three attorneys general who testified on Monday at the hearing and I agreed that we ought to try to resolve the matter so they would know what is going to happen and their planning would be firm. This, we think, is a preeminently reasonable approach to a very, very difficult issue. I am joining with my colleagues, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Jim Jeffords, and Senator Kennedy in introducing an amendment to the fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations bill concerning the State tobacco settlements. In November 1998, 46 States agreed to a settlement with the tobacco industry that totals $206 billion over 25 years. If focused in the right direction, these settlement funds could serve as a significant resource for improving the quality of life in the 21st century. Each year, the total health care expenditures in the USA directly related to smoking is $72 billion. $7.3 billion is spent by Medicaid for smoking-related illnesses. Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 430,700 American lives each year. Despite all of what we know about the consequences of smoking, it is estimated that every day 3,000 young people become regular smokers and it is believed that approximately 89 percent of smokers begin to smoke by or at the age of 18. And finally, it is reported that cigarette smoking kills more Americans than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, violence, illegal drug use, and fires combined. On March 15, 1999, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee, which I chair, held a hearing to discuss the State tobacco settlements. We heard from the National Governors' Association, States' Attorneys General, a teen smoking prevention advocacy group, and the Deputy Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration to review the policy implications of how the tobacco settlement funds will be used and whether the Federal Government should receive a share of these funds for programs to reduce the use of tobacco products as well as programs for the public health. Michael Hash, Deputy Director of the HCFA, testified that the comprehensive settlement of November 1998 between manufacturers of tobacco products and States, and the individual State settlements reached with these manufacturers, included claims arising out of the Medicaid program. Mr. Hash explained that as a matter of law, the Federal Government is not permitted to act as a plaintiff in Medicaid recoupment cases. 42 U.S.C. section 1396a provides that ``the State or local agency administering such plan will take all responsible measures to ascertain the legal liability of third parties . . . to pay for care and services available under the plan. . . .'' The statute further gives the State the authority to ``pursue claims against such third parties.'' The Department of Justice, in interpreting this statute, has determined that the State has the sole power to take action against third parties, and that the Federal Government has no authority to take this action. During his testimony, Deputy Director Hash further explained that Section 1903(d) of the Social Security Act specifically requires that the State reimburse the Federal Government for its pro rata share of Medicaid-related expenses that is recovered from liability cases involving third parties. In a letter addressed to me dated March 15, 1999, Secretary Shalala expressed the Administration's strong opposition to the provision approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee as part of the FY 1999 supplemental appropriations bill that would prohibit the Federal Government from recouping its share of the Medicaid funds from the settlement with the tobacco companies. She noted that ``by releasing the tobacco companies from all relevant claims that can be made against them subsequently by the states, the settlement effectively precludes the federal government from recovering its share of Medicaid claims in the future through the established statutory mechanism.'' Specifically, in section XII of the Master Settlement Agreement, the States and tobacco companies agreed to the following: Under the occurrence of State-Specific Finality in a Settling State, such Settling State shall absolutely and unconditionally release and forever discharge all Released Parties from all Released Claims that the Releasing Parties directly, indirectly, derivatively or in any other capacity ever had, now have, or hereafter can, shall or may have. During the hearing, we also heard from representatives of the states. Governor Paul Patton of Kentucky and Attorney Generals' Mike Fisher of Pennsylvania, John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Miller of Iowa argued that because the states took the risk and burden of the tobacco lawsuits on their own, they are entitled to all of the tobacco funds. While I agree with the Governor and Attorney Generals' that the Federal Government should not micromanage the use of the funds, I am not prepared to turn all of this money over to the states carte blanche to use on matters unrelated to tobacco. Several of my colleagues have proposed creating a bureaucratic system that would strictly dictate how the states must spend the tobacco funds. I do not think this is a wise approach. However, I think it is entirely appropriate for the Federal Government to set general standards to ensure that the federal share of the tobacco funds is spent to advance the public health. Medicaid is a joint Federal-State partnership designed to provide health care to citizens with low-income. On average, the Federal Government pays 57 percent of the costs of the Medicaid program, and no State must pay more than 50 percent of the cost of the program in that State. The Federal government has both the right and the responsibility to ensure that the federal share of the comprehensive tobacco settlement is used to reduce youth smoking, to improve the public health and to assist in the economic diversification of tobacco farming communities. The amendment that I am introducing today would require states to use at least 20% of the total funds received in the settlement for tobacco reduction and education programs. Further, my amendment would require states to use at least 30% of the total funds received in the settlement for public health programs or to assist tobacco farmers. The amendment contains a provision that these funds must supplement and not supplant funds already being spent on similar activities in the State. Finally, in order to ensure that we do not create an unnecessary bureaucracy to implement this program, each Governor would merely have to certify to the Secretary of HHS each year how the funds have been used. It is vital that we act now to ensure that these funds are used to protect public health. During the discussion which is currently occurring in the states on how to use the tobacco funds, a wide variety of uses have been proposed. Specifically, I understand that states have plans to spend funds on roads, mental health services, to assist tobacco farmers, and to eliminate the State debt, increase teacher pay, other proposed uses include financing tax relief, and using these revenues to fund a new Merit Award Trust Fund. While all of these goals may be noble, I am convinced that states, who sued tobacco companies to reimburse state health costs as a result of smoking, have a fiduciary duty to use these funds to reduce smoking and to support public health. The Federal Government has both the right and the responsibility to ensure that the federal share of the comprehensive tobacco settlement is used to reduce youth smoking, to improve the public health and to assist in the economic diversification of tobacco farming communities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print a March 15, 1999, letter from Secretary Shalala.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding that the unanimous consent agreement provides for argument, debate this afternoon, and then 90 minutes equally divided tomorrow morning, between 9:30 and 11?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note the presence of my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Iowa, on the floor. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SPECTER. So, whatever time is used this afternoon does not count against the 90 minutes which will be equally divided tomorrow?

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Harkin, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Kennedy, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to support the pending legislation. I am listed as a cosponsor, and I believe that it is an important statement of U.S. policy which we ought to adopt. This is one of the most direct bills that I have seen in my tenure in the Senate, providing: It is the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as is technologically possible, an effective national missile defense system, capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack, whether accidental, unauthorized or deliberate. The most basic purpose of government is to protect its citizenry. The most basic purpose of the Government of the United States of America is to protect the people of the United States from foreign and domestic dangers. We have focused a great deal of attention on the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and the top of the list involves the issue of ballistic missile attack. Beyond ballistic missile attack, we know that there are many other concerns of biological warfare and chemical warfare. Right now a commission is working to try to streamline the Federal Government to try to make some organizational sense, organizational improvements out of the 96 separate agencies which now deal with weapons of mass destruction. During my tenure as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, working collaboratively at that time with CIA Director John Deutch, a provision was inserted in the Intelligence Authorization bill in 1996 to provide a commission to take a look at the 96 separate agencies dealing with weapons of mass destruction. We find that the Department of Health and Human Services is involved in this venture, as is the Department of Defense, as is the Department of Justice. Tomorrow we are holding a hearing on some aspects of the domestic problem. Internationally, the strategic defense initiative has been a hotly contested subject for debate for more than a decade, going into the early administration of President Reagan when he articulated the idea of a strategic defense initiative, popularly known as Star Wars. At that time many people debunked the idea that there could be a shield to protect the United States from a ballistic missile attack, and we have relied upon the theory of mutual assured destruction--accurately labeled, in shorthand, MAD, for mutual assured destruction--with our basic defense posture being that the Soviet Union, our principal adversary, would not fire ballistic missiles at the United States because of fear of retaliation, so that the balance of power was maintained. More than a decade ago, we had some very lively debates on the Senate floor as to whether the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty should have a narrow or a broad interpretation, going back to the origin of the treaty, the history. The debate then was whether we might be able to deploy some sort of strategic defense initiative under a broad interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. That treaty, entered into in 1972, has been a subject of very extended debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate and beyond. It may well be that with the enactment of this policy, there will have to be some negotiations with Russia, with other parties to the ABM Treaty. It was entered into by the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. There have been many modifications of the policy with the former Soviet Union, with Russia, where the United States, under the Nunn-Lugar program, has appropriated very substantial sums of money to acquire and destroy Russian missiles, missiles formerly housed by the U.S.S.R. I do believe that with the changing relationship between the United States and the former Soviet Union, and with the expansion of NATO, a move that many thought Russia would never tolerate but now has become acclimated to, there are signs of a maturation process, a changing relationship between the United States and Russia. I do believe that it is important to have talks with Russia about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, but I do think that the treaty is subject to modification. There are provisions for revocation of the treaty on notice by the United States, but we now face a very different kind of a threat. We now face a threat, perhaps, from North Korea, perhaps soon from rogue nations like Iran or Iraq. It is none too soon to look toward the deployment of a national missile defense system which is intended to deal with the threat posed by the rogue nations. The technology is very hard to calculate as to what can be achieved. When President Reagan articulated the principle, or the idea of a strategic defense initiative, people said it was impossible. I recall reading a commentary more than a decade ago about Vannevar Bush's comment back in the mid-forties, about 1945, when Vannevar Bush said it would be an impossibility to have intercontinental ballistic missiles. Now look at what has happened; we have them by the thousands. In 1965, then Secretary of Defense McNamara said that the United States was so far ahead of the Soviet Union that they could never catch up. They did. For a time, they passed the United States, until we rearmed America, leading, in effect, to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. There is a story many people believe to be apocryphal, but it is a true story, about a man who worked for the Patent Office shortly after the turn of the 19th century who resigned his post because everything that could be discovered or invented had been discovered or invented. We see how modern science has produced discoveries, inventions unthought of, uncontemplated. So, too, we may be able to find an effective system to protect the United States from missiles from rogue countries. I believe this is an important bill. We could not bring it to the floor in the 105th Congress because we were one vote short of cloture. There are some 54 cosponsors on this bill, and I believe it articulates a very important principle, to defend America, to defend Americans and to find a national missile defense system which would protect our country against rogue nations, against accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate attacks. We will have other considerations to deal with regarding Russia, other considerations to deal with in relation to China where recent events have shown advances in China's missile technology, in part, according to reliable reports, as a result of China having gained access to United States technology through espionage. But this principle--of having a national missile defense policy--is something which ought to be adopted. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to once again join my colleagues in introducing the Caring for Children Act, which will ease the financial burden of child care for American families--for those parents who work, and for those who choose to stay home to raise their children for a period of time. This legislation is identical to the child care proposal my colleagues and I introduced during the 105th Congress, on January 28, 1998. I believe it is vital that the Congress recognize the importance of affordable, quality child care to the successful development of our children. The Caring for Children Act is a middle-ground, targeted response to the growing child care needs facing American families. Our bill includes tax incentives for employers and parents, and an increase in funding for programs that assist the most needy families. Most importantly, our bill proposes prudent adjustments to discretionary programs rather than implementing new mandatory spending. Our bill would expand the Dependent Care tax credit to make it more accessible to families who need it, double the authorization for the Child Care Development Block Grant, and provide grants to small businesses to create or enhance child care facilities for their employees. This bill also includes provisions from the proposal I introduced during the 105th Congress with my colleagues, Congressman Jon Fox, The Affordable Child Care Act, which provides a tax credit for employers who provide on-site or site-adjacent child care to their employees in order to reduce the child care expenses of the employee. Not all families choose the same option for child care. Many families rely on relatives, centers operated by churches and other religious organizations, centers at or near their workplace, or make other arrangements to provide care for their children while they work. In light of the diverse needs for child care in America, this bill represents a good start toward expanding the choices for American parents. And, any such legislation must recognize that there is a need to provide some relief to families where one parent stays at home. The need for affordable and accessible day care is critical given the increasing numbers of working parents and dual-income families in the United States. According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1975, 31 percent of married mothers with a child younger than age one participated in the labor force. By 1995, that figure had risen to 59 percent. Almost 64 percent of married mothers and 53 percent of single mothers with children younger than age six participated in the labor force in 1995. The cost of child care for families is also significant. Licensed day care centers in some urban areas cost as much as $200 per week, and the disparity in costs and availability of child care between urban and rural grows greater every day. For families which need or choose to have both parents work outside the home, the burden of making child care decisions is great. These figures serve to underscore the need for action on the part of the Federal Government to provide the necessary assistance to our Nation's working families. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I am pleased that this legislation would build on an existing Federal child care program by authorizing an additional $5 billion over 5 years to the Child Care Development Block Grant program, bringing total spending for this program to nearly $2.5 billion annually by fiscal year 2003. The child care block grant works well to assist low-income families acquire child care, and helped over 93,000 Pennsylvania families last year. Fiscal year 1999 funding for this vital assistance program totaled $1.182 billion, $182 billion, $182 million above the currently authorized level. By increasing the authorization, we can help even more families without creating a new entitlement program. Our legislation will also require States to create and enforce safety and health standards in child care facilities, and provide money for the Department of Health and Human Services to disseminate information to parents and providers about quality child care, through brochures, toll-free hotlines, the Internet, and other technological assistance. The Caring for Children Act complements my recent efforts to assist working families in the context of welfare reform and children's health insurance. When Congress debated welfare reform in 1995 and 1996, I worked to ensure that adequate funds were provided for child care, a critical component for welfare mothers who would be required to work to receive new limited welfare benefits. I am pleased that the welfare reform bill that became law provided $20 billion in child care funding over a 6-year period. Similarly, I was pleased to participate in the bipartisan effort in 1997 to enact legislation to provide $24 billion over the next 5 years for States to establish or broaden children's health insurance programs. Utilizing these new Federal funds, over 10,000 previously uninsured children in Pennsylvania have been enrolled in this program since May of 1998. In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that it is critical that the 106th Congress not adjourn without enacting legislation to assist families in their ability to afford safe, quality child care for their children, either at home with a parent or another arrangement. Our legislation will provide peace of mind to millions of American families struggling to balance career and child raising. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is my expectation--and really prediction--that this resolution will pass the U.S. Senate by overwhelming numbers and that it should be heeded by any of those who wish to have a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. My colleagues have already articulated the point that Chairman Arafat has made a commitment to determine issues such as the Palestinian state by negotiations, and we would expect that commitment to be preserved. There are very delicate matters involving Israel and the Palestinian Authority with respect to withdrawals, and there are major risks in ceding as much real estate, as much ground, as much territory as Israel has ceded to the Palestinians. There is an element of great emotionalism, over and above the issue of security. I recall the famous handshake on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, with the expectation of working out a permanent peace in the Middle East. In December of 1993 I had occasion to travel with a congressional delegation and visited Egypt. President Mubarak arranged a meeting with Chairman Arafat at that time, where he renewed his pledges to live by the Oslo accord. A few weeks later I was in Israel, in Jericho, and found for sale at the roadside stands, flags of the Palestinian state. The ink was barely dry on the Oslo accords and the handshakes were barely unclasped on the White House lawn before people were talking about a Palestinian state and there was, in fact, the Palestinian flag. I recall visiting in Amman, Jordan, in the mid-1980s, awaiting a meeting with King Hussein and looking at a map of the Mideast. Where I expected to see the designation of ``Israel,'' there was the designation of ``Palestine.'' I mentioned that to King Hussein, the leader of Jordan, and had the comment that ``it was an old map.'' Well, maps can be redrawn. But for years the State of Israel was not recognized in the Arab world. Instead of having ``Israel,'' which had control of the land and was the sovereign controlling that land, ``Palestine'' was still noted on the maps. There is also the issue of a very substantial appropriation which is being sought from the Congress of the United States. I am not saying that appropriation would be conditioned on the Palestinian Authority abiding by the terms of the Oslo accord with respect to settling the declaration of a Palestinian state by negotiations, but certainly it would be in mind, it would be a factor to be considered, with many, many others. So, in sum total, there is much to recommend restraint by the Palestinian Authority and to leave this issue, as to whether there will be a declaration or not, to final status negotiations in accordance with the terms of the Oslo accord. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the important education bill which we passed on its substantive merits, and also to speak briefly on the politics, where the bill might have appeared at some points to be partisan, with three votes on amendments being cast along party lines. I am convinced that we had a very strong bipartisan vote on final passage. At the same time that the Senate will pass this Education Flexibility Partnership Act, the House of Representatives is working on similar legislation, so it will be presented to the President for his signature, which we are optimistic of obtaining. I think it is important to note that there were important provisions in amendments offered by Members on the other side of the aisle, where there were good programs which can be taken up in due course. The program for new teachers I think is a good idea. The program for dropout prevention is another good idea. The program for afterschool provisions I think, again, is sound and can be taken up at a later time. But had they been pressed on this bill, we would have had gridlock and this bill would not have been enacted. Last year, the President proposed $1.2 billion as a starter for 100,000 new teachers. That was accepted by the Congress. Before the President came forward with that proposal, in the subcommittee of Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education which I have the privilege to chair, we had put provisions in for some $300 million which would have provided for as many new teachers as could have been hired during fiscal year 1999. The President came in with a bigger figure at a later date. That was ultimately accepted by the Congress. But I do think the idea for new teachers is a good idea. The question of how to fund it is always the tough issue. Similarly, the proposals for dropout prevention and afterschool programs again are sound and it is a question of finding the adequate funding for these kinds of important programs. I believe the Senate spoke very loudly and very emphatically on the question of giving local school districts the choice as to whether to use the money for special education, or whether to use the money for new teachers, or what to use the money for. The local education agencies were given that discretion on a vote of 61 to 38, where 6 Democrats voted with 55 Republicans on that choice issue. Funding special education is a very major problem in America today. The Federal Government has imposed a mandate on the States, and the Supreme Court in a recent decision has broadened the terms of that mandate. In the subcommittee that I chair, which funds education, we have provided very substantial increases for special education, but the Federal Government has made a commitment for 40 percent funding and we are nowhere near that. So when you talk about the priorities of more new teachers or money for special education, that matter was put to the Senate for a vote and, not strictly along party lines, the Senate voted to have the option with the local education agencies; with the vote being 61 to 38, some 6 Democrats joined the 55 Republicans. When the choice issue was articulated along a slightly different line, the vote was 78 to 21, with some 23 Democrats joining 55 Republicans. That amendment also had provisions to keep the guns out of schools, which was doubtless an incentive to make that a stronger bipartisan vote than on some of the others. Two of the other amendments were 59 to 40, with 4 Democrats joining the Republicans and, 57 to 42, 2 Democrats joining--and although we did have 3 votes along party lines, 55 to 44, there was a very definite bipartisan flavor to the votes on this matter. It is always difficult when we have votes which are 55 to 44, strictly along party lines, with the question being raised: Isn't there any independence among 55 Republicans or the 44 Democrats? But the party line was adhered to in order to get the bill passed, even though, as I say, in voting against new teachers, against dropout prevention programs, and against afterschool programs--those are good ideas, and on another day we will be able to take them up. But if we were to maintain these programs, I think this bill could not have been passed; if we had not drawn the line to focus on Ed-Flex in this bill. The flexibility I think is a very good idea. The Federal Government funds some 7 to 8 percent of the total funding. Last year, again in the subcommittee, we increased the funding by about $3.5 billion, about 10 percent, bringing the total Federal share to about $34.5 billion. But the principle of federalism continues to be sound, and that is that we ought to leave as much to the States as we can and we ought to leave as much to the local education agencies as we can, with the people at the local level knowing best what their needs are. So if there is a limited amount of funding, let them make the choice among special education or new teachers or dropout prevention programs or afterschool programs; leave it to the people who are closest to the problems. So, all in all, there was a bit of partisanship here but I think it was justified to get the bill passed--not too much, with only three votes being along party lines--and deferring to another day the important programs which were not enacted today, but maintaining a very important point of flexibility to allow local education agencies to have the dominant voice in meeting their needs as they see them, being closest to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to once again join my colleagues in introducing the Caring for Children Act, which will ease the financial burden of child care for American families--for those parents who work, and for those who choose to stay home to raise their children for a period of time. This legislation is identical to the child care proposal my colleagues and I introduced during the 105th Congress, on January 28, 1998. I believe it is vital that the Congress recognize the importance of affordable, quality child care to the successful development of our children. The Caring for Children Act is a middle-ground, targeted response to the growing child care needs facing American families. Our bill includes tax incentives for employers and parents, and an increase in funding for programs that assist the most needy families. Most importantly, our bill proposes prudent adjustments to discretionary programs rather than implementing new mandatory spending. Our bill would expand the Dependent Care tax credit to make it more accessible to families who need it, double the authorization for the Child Care Development Block Grant, and provide grants to small businesses to create or enhance child care facilities for their employees. This bill also includes provisions from the proposal I introduced during the 105th Congress with my colleagues, Congressman Jon Fox, The Affordable Child Care Act, which provides a tax credit for employers who provide on-site or site-adjacent child care to their employees in order to reduce the child care expenses of the employee. Not all families choose the same option for child care. Many families rely on relatives, centers operated by churches and other religious organizations, centers at or near their workplace, or make other arrangements to provide care for their children while they work. In light of the diverse needs for child care in America, this bill represents a good start toward expanding the choices for American parents. And, any such legislation must recognize that there is a need to provide some relief to families where one parent stays at home. The need for affordable and accessible day care is critical given the increasing numbers of working parents and dual-income families in the United States. According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1975, 31 percent of married mothers with a child younger than age one participated in the labor force. By 1995, that figure had risen to 59 percent. Almost 64 percent of married mothers and 53 percent of single mothers with children younger than age six participated in the labor force in 1995. The cost of child care for families is also significant. Licensed day care centers in some urban areas cost as much as $200 per week, and the disparity in costs and availability of child care between urban and rural grows greater every day. For families which need or choose to have both parents work outside the home, the burden of making child care decisions is great. These figures serve to underscore the need for action on the part of the Federal Government to provide the necessary assistance to our Nation's working families. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I am pleased that this legislation would build on an existing Federal child care program by authorizing an additional $5 billion over 5 years to the Child Care Development Block Grant program, bringing total spending for this program to nearly $2.5 billion annually by fiscal year 2003. The child care block grant works well to assist low-income families acquire child care, and helped over 93,000 Pennsylvania families last year. Fiscal year 1999 funding for this vital assistance program totaled $1.182 billion, $182 billion, $182 million above the currently authorized level. By increasing the authorization, we can help even more families without creating a new entitlement program. Our legislation will also require States to create and enforce safety and health standards in child care facilities, and provide money for the Department of Health and Human Services to disseminate information to parents and providers about quality child care, through brochures, toll-free hotlines, the Internet, and other technological assistance. The Caring for Children Act complements my recent efforts to assist working families in the context of welfare reform and children's health insurance. When Congress debated welfare reform in 1995 and 1996, I worked to ensure that adequate funds were provided for child care, a critical component for welfare mothers who would be required to work to receive new limited welfare benefits. I am pleased that the welfare reform bill that became law provided $20 billion in child care funding over a 6-year period. Similarly, I was pleased to participate in the bipartisan effort in 1997 to enact legislation to provide $24 billion over the next 5 years for States to establish or broaden children's health insurance programs. Utilizing these new Federal funds, over 10,000 previously uninsured children in Pennsylvania have been enrolled in this program since May of 1998. In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that it is critical that the 106th Congress not adjourn without enacting legislation to assist families in their ability to afford safe, quality child care for their children, either at home with a parent or another arrangement. Our legislation will provide peace of mind to millions of American families struggling to balance career and child raising. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to reintroduce legislation to authorize the operation of the Gateway Visitor Center in Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Similar legislation has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Robert Borski, Curt Weldon, and Robert Brady. As many of my colleagues are aware, Independence National Historical Park is one of the National Park Service's crown jewels, home to the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall and the birthplace of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In the Spring of 1997, the Final General Management Plan for Independence Park was released, which spells out the vision for the Park for the next fifteen years. The first block of Independence Mall will contain a new home for the Liberty Bell, the second block the Gateway Visitor Center, and the third block the National Constitution Center. The revitalization of Independence Mall is well underway, but legislation is needed to fully implement the General Management Plan with regards to the Gateway Visitor Center. The National Park Service is aware that this type of site-specific legislation is necessary for the Gateway Visitor Center. I have worked closely with the National Park Service and the Gateway Visitor Center Corporation in developing this legislation, and the National Park Service expressed its full support for this legislation during hearings held in the 105th Congress. I would note that the $24 million needed to construct the Gateway Visitor Center has already been committed, with the City of Philadelphia contributing $5 million, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania $10 million, and various Foundations $15 million, of which $6 million will fund an endowment. The legislation I am introducing today merely provides the authorization for the operation of the Center. The Gateway Visitor Center will be financially self-sustaining, with only a modest contribution coming from the National Park Service for operations and maintenance. While the Gateway Visitor Center will provide the traditional services to visitors to the Park, the Center will also provide some services which are somewhat beyond the scope of existing National Park Service legislation. In addition to its role as the Park's primary visitor center, providing visitor orientation to the Park, the city, and the region as a whole, the Gateway Visitor Center will be permitted to charge fees, conduct events, and sell merchandise, tickets, and food to visitors to the Center. These activities will allow the Gateway Visitor Center to meet its parkwide, citywide and regional missions while defraying the operating and management expenses of the Center. The current visitor center in Independence National Historical Park is poorly located, making it underutilized and inconvenient to the millions of people who visit the Park each year. The Gateway Visitor Center will serve far more people than ever possible with the current facility by providing information, interpretation, facilities, and services to visitors to the Park, its surrounding historic areas, the City of Philadelphia, and the region in order to assist visitors in their enjoyment of the historical, cultural, educational, and recreational resources of the area. The Gateway Visitor Center will be a major asset for the Park and critical to the central management goal addressed in the General Management Plan of creating an outstanding visitor experience. The Gateway Visitor Center holds enormous potential for Independence National Historical Park and the greater Philadelphia region as a whole, and I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Pennsylvania Battlefields Protection Act, legislation which will protect two important Revolutionary War sites in Pennsylvania and authorize the construction and operation of a new museum and visitor center dedicated to the American Revolution at Valley Forge National Historical Park. Representative Curt Weldon has introduced similar legislation in the House, with the remaining twenty Members of the Pennsylvania House delegation joining him in this effort. The first part of this legislation authorizes $3 million for the acquisition of the 472-acre area generally known as the Meetinghouse Road Corridor, where the largest engagement of the American Revolution, the Battle of Brandywine, took place from September 10-11, 1777. During the 1777 British campaign to capture Philadelphia, British General William Howe defeated but proved unable to demoralize General George Washington's Continental Army of 12,500 men at the Battle of Brandywine. While George Washington's and the Marquis de Lafayette's headquarters are preserved as part of the Brandywine Battlefield Park, the area where the actual fighting took place is not. The land is privately held and is in immediate danger of being sold and developed. The battlefield was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1961, and local officials, preservation groups, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been working together to protect the battlefield. This legislation will provide half of the $6 million needed to purchase the land from willing buyers, with the remaining $3 million to be raised from non-federal sources on a dollar for dollar basis. As with all aspects of this legislation, I have worked closely with the National Park Service, and they are supportive of federal assistance to protect this important Revolutionary War site. This legislation will also protect the Paoli Battlefield, in Malvern, Pennsylvania, where at least fifty-three Americans were killed. Shortly after the Battle of Brandywine, General Washington ordered General ``Mad'' Anthony Wayne and 2,000 of his men to move to the rear and contain the British army. The British learned of General Wayne's move and attacked and bayoneted Wayne's men on September 20, 1777 in what has infamously become known as the Paoli massacre. While the Senate passed legislation which I introduced late in the 105th Congress to authorize the addition of the Paoli Battlefield site to Valley Forge National Historical Park, at that time the bill did not enjoy the support of the National Park Service and eventually died in the House of Representatives. I have worked with Congressman Weldon on this legislation, and we believe that the federal government should provide assistance to acquire the 40-acre Paoli Battlefield, an unprotected Revolutionary War site that is privately owned by the Malvern Preparatory School. The School intends to sell the land in order to strengthen its endowment, but officials have agreed to give the community a first chance to purchase the land for historical preservation purposes. Thus, the Paoli Battlefield will become open to residential or commercial development if $2.5 million is not raised by September 1999 to purchase the land. This bill envisions a combination of public and private financing to purchase the battlefield by authorizing a purchase price of $2.5 million with not less than $1 million in nonfederal funds. After much consultation with the National Park Service, I am now informed that they are supportive of this approach to protecting Paoli Battlefield. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Borough of Malvern, which has agreed to manage the 45-acre Paoli Battlefield site in perpetuity. A similar provision authorizes the Secretary of Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or the Brandywine Conservancy to manage the Meetinghouse Road Corridor area of the Brandywine Battlefield. Moreover, the bill directs the Secretary of Interior to undertake a resource study of Paoli and Brandywine Battlefields to identify the full range of their resources and historic themes and alternatives for National Park Service involvement at these two sites. Finally, the last section of the bill authorizes the Secretary of Interior to enter into an agreement with the private, non-profit Valley Forge Historical Society to construct and operate a museum and visitor center within the boundaries of Valley Forge National Historical Park. After the Battles of Brandywine, the Clouds, Paoli, Germantown, and Whitemarsh, the Continental Army made Valley Forge its camp from December 19, 1777 to June 19, 1778, when it emerged as a new, better equipped, and well trained American army. Currently, there is no museum in the United States dedicated to the American Revolution. I believe it is important that Congress provide the authorization to bring this worthwhile project to fruition, which will not only tell the story of the Philadelphia campaign, but the story of the entire American Revolution as well. This museum will combine the holdings of the Valley Forge National Historical Park and the Valley Forge Historical Society, making it the largest collection of Revolutionary War era artifacts in the world. The Valley Forge Historical Society, established in 1918, has a long history of service to the park, and has amassed one of the best collections of artifacts, art, books, and documents relating to the 1777-1778 encampment of the Continental Army at Valley Forge, the American Revolution, and the American colonial era. Their collection is currently housed in a facility that is inadequate to properly maintain, preserve, and display the Society's ever-growing collection. Construction of a new facility will rectify this situation. This project is supported by local officials, and a new facility is part of the Valley Forge National Historical Park's General Management Plan, which has identified inadequacies in the park's current visitor center and calls for the development of a new or significantly renovated museum and visitor center. The museum will educate an estimated 500,000 visitors a year about the critical events surrounding the birth of our nation. This legislation authorizes the Valley Forge Historical Society to operate the museum in cooperation with the Secretary of Interior. This project will directly support the historical, educational, and interpretive activities and needs of Valley Forge National Historical Park and the Valley Forge Historical Society while combining two outstanding museum collections. Mr. President, too many important historical sites, especially Revolutionary War battlefields, have already been lost to residential and commercial development. The 105th Congress made a commitment to protecting battlefield sites. I have been pleased to support these efforts as well as the successful effort to obtain funding in the FY99 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to begin conducting the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Historic Preservation Study. I hope the 106th Congress will continue that commitment by protecting the Brandywine and Paoli Battlefields. In addition, this legislation holds enormous potential for all Americans to learn about our country's rich history by establishing a new visitor center and museum at Valley Forge National Historical Park, which will then be better able to tell the story of the American Revolution. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Pennsylvania Battlefields Protection Act, legislation which will protect two important Revolutionary War sites in Pennsylvania and authorize the construction and operation of a new museum and visitor center dedicated to the American Revolution at Valley Forge National Historical Park. Representative Curt Weldon has introduced similar legislation in the House, with the remaining twenty Members of the Pennsylvania House delegation joining him in this effort. The first part of this legislation authorizes $3 million for the acquisition of the 472-acre area generally known as the Meetinghouse Road Corridor, where the largest engagement of the American Revolution, the Battle of Brandywine, took place from September 10-11, 1777. During the 1777 British campaign to capture Philadelphia, British General William Howe defeated but proved unable to demoralize General George Washington's Continental Army of 12,500 men at the Battle of Brandywine. While George Washington's and the Marquis de Lafayette's headquarters are preserved as part of the Brandywine Battlefield Park, the area where the actual fighting took place is not. The land is privately held and is in immediate danger of being sold and developed. The battlefield was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1961, and local officials, preservation groups, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been working together to protect the battlefield. This legislation will provide half of the $6 million needed to purchase the land from willing buyers, with the remaining $3 million to be raised from non-federal sources on a dollar for dollar basis. As with all aspects of this legislation, I have worked closely with the National Park Service, and they are supportive of federal assistance to protect this important Revolutionary War site. This legislation will also protect the Paoli Battlefield, in Malvern, Pennsylvania, where at least fifty-three Americans were killed. Shortly after the Battle of Brandywine, General Washington ordered General ``Mad'' Anthony Wayne and 2,000 of his men to move to the rear and contain the British army. The British learned of General Wayne's move and attacked and bayoneted Wayne's men on September 20, 1777 in what has infamously become known as the Paoli massacre. While the Senate passed legislation which I introduced late in the 105th Congress to authorize the addition of the Paoli Battlefield site to Valley Forge National Historical Park, at that time the bill did not enjoy the support of the National Park Service and eventually died in the House of Representatives. I have worked with Congressman Weldon on this legislation, and we believe that the federal government should provide assistance to acquire the 40-acre Paoli Battlefield, an unprotected Revolutionary War site that is privately owned by the Malvern Preparatory School. The School intends to sell the land in order to strengthen its endowment, but officials have agreed to give the community a first chance to purchase the land for historical preservation purposes. Thus, the Paoli Battlefield will become open to residential or commercial development if $2.5 million is not raised by September 1999 to purchase the land. This bill envisions a combination of public and private financing to purchase the battlefield by authorizing a purchase price of $2.5 million with not less than $1 million in nonfederal funds. After much consultation with the National Park Service, I am now informed that they are supportive of this approach to protecting Paoli Battlefield. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Borough of Malvern, which has agreed to manage the 45-acre Paoli Battlefield site in perpetuity. A similar provision authorizes the Secretary of Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or the Brandywine Conservancy to manage the Meetinghouse Road Corridor area of the Brandywine Battlefield. Moreover, the bill directs the Secretary of Interior to undertake a resource study of Paoli and Brandywine Battlefields to identify the full range of their resources and historic themes and alternatives for National Park Service involvement at these two sites. Finally, the last section of the bill authorizes the Secretary of Interior to enter into an agreement with the private, non-profit Valley Forge Historical Society to construct and operate a museum and visitor center within the boundaries of Valley Forge National Historical Park. After the Battles of Brandywine, the Clouds, Paoli, Germantown, and Whitemarsh, the Continental Army made Valley Forge its camp from December 19, 1777 to June 19, 1778, when it emerged as a new, better equipped, and well trained American army. Currently, there is no museum in the United States dedicated to the American Revolution. I believe it is important that Congress provide the authorization to bring this worthwhile project to fruition, which will not only tell the story of the Philadelphia campaign, but the story of the entire American Revolution as well. This museum will combine the holdings of the Valley Forge National Historical Park and the Valley Forge Historical Society, making it the largest collection of Revolutionary War era artifacts in the world. The Valley Forge Historical Society, established in 1918, has a long history of service to the park, and has amassed one of the best collections of artifacts, art, books, and documents relating to the 1777-1778 encampment of the Continental Army at Valley Forge, the American Revolution, and the American colonial era. Their collection is currently housed in a facility that is inadequate to properly maintain, preserve, and display the Society's ever-growing collection. Construction of a new facility will rectify this situation. This project is supported by local officials, and a new facility is part of the Valley Forge National Historical Park's General Management Plan, which has identified inadequacies in the park's current visitor center and calls for the development of a new or significantly renovated museum and visitor center. The museum will educate an estimated 500,000 visitors a year about the critical events surrounding the birth of our nation. This legislation authorizes the Valley Forge Historical Society to operate the museum in cooperation with the Secretary of Interior. This project will directly support the historical, educational, and interpretive activities and needs of Valley Forge National Historical Park and the Valley Forge Historical Society while combining two outstanding museum collections. Mr. President, too many important historical sites, especially Revolutionary War battlefields, have already been lost to residential and commercial development. The 105th Congress made a commitment to protecting battlefield sites. I have been pleased to support these efforts as well as the successful effort to obtain funding in the FY99 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to begin conducting the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Historic Preservation Study. I hope the 106th Congress will continue that commitment by protecting the Brandywine and Paoli Battlefields. In addition, this legislation holds enormous potential for all Americans to learn about our country's rich history by establishing a new visitor center and museum at Valley Forge National Historical Park, which will then be better able to tell the story of the American Revolution. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to reintroduce legislation to authorize the operation of the Gateway Visitor Center in Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Similar legislation has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Robert Borski, Curt Weldon, and Robert Brady. As many of my colleagues are aware, Independence National Historical Park is one of the National Park Service's crown jewels, home to the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall and the birthplace of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In the Spring of 1997, the Final General Management Plan for Independence Park was released, which spells out the vision for the Park for the next fifteen years. The first block of Independence Mall will contain a new home for the Liberty Bell, the second block the Gateway Visitor Center, and the third block the National Constitution Center. The revitalization of Independence Mall is well underway, but legislation is needed to fully implement the General Management Plan with regards to the Gateway Visitor Center. The National Park Service is aware that this type of site-specific legislation is necessary for the Gateway Visitor Center. I have worked closely with the National Park Service and the Gateway Visitor Center Corporation in developing this legislation, and the National Park Service expressed its full support for this legislation during hearings held in the 105th Congress. I would note that the $24 million needed to construct the Gateway Visitor Center has already been committed, with the City of Philadelphia contributing $5 million, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania $10 million, and various Foundations $15 million, of which $6 million will fund an endowment. The legislation I am introducing today merely provides the authorization for the operation of the Center. The Gateway Visitor Center will be financially self-sustaining, with only a modest contribution coming from the National Park Service for operations and maintenance. While the Gateway Visitor Center will provide the traditional services to visitors to the Park, the Center will also provide some services which are somewhat beyond the scope of existing National Park Service legislation. In addition to its role as the Park's primary visitor center, providing visitor orientation to the Park, the city, and the region as a whole, the Gateway Visitor Center will be permitted to charge fees, conduct events, and sell merchandise, tickets, and food to visitors to the Center. These activities will allow the Gateway Visitor Center to meet its parkwide, citywide and regional missions while defraying the operating and management expenses of the Center. The current visitor center in Independence National Historical Park is poorly located, making it underutilized and inconvenient to the millions of people who visit the Park each year. The Gateway Visitor Center will serve far more people than ever possible with the current facility by providing information, interpretation, facilities, and services to visitors to the Park, its surrounding historic areas, the City of Philadelphia, and the region in order to assist visitors in their enjoyment of the historical, cultural, educational, and recreational resources of the area. The Gateway Visitor Center will be a major asset for the Park and critical to the central management goal addressed in the General Management Plan of creating an outstanding visitor experience. The Gateway Visitor Center holds enormous potential for Independence National Historical Park and the greater Philadelphia region as a whole, and I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to honor the memory of our distinguished colleague, Morris K. Udall, who tirelessly infused into American politics his eloquent humor, grace, and dignity during his thirty year career in the U.S. House of Representatives. His death from Parkinson's Disease on December 12, 1998, was a great loss for the American people, and I am honored to have served with Mo and to preserve his legacy in our continued efforts to cure Parkinson's Disease. I must point out that over one million Americans suffer from Parkinson's Disease symptoms, and 60,000 more are diagnosed each year; one every nine minutes. About forty percent of those patients are under age 60, and advanced symptoms leave people unable to complete their working careers. The disease is estimated to cost our nation about $25 billion annually. To help ease this suffering and remove the economic burden of Parkinson's Disease, I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act, signed into law on November 13, 1997 and sponsored by our distinguished colleagues Senators McCain and Wellstone. The Udall bill authorized a comprehensive Parkinson's Disease research and education program within the National Institutes of Health, and improved the coordination of all Parkinson's initiatives across the Department of Health and Human Services. On a personal note, I agree with the conventional wisdom that Mo had a marvelous sense of humor, as exemplified in his book, ``Too Funny to be President.'' One of my favorite anecdotes originates during his bid for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1976. Dutifully campaigning for the New Hampshire primary, he introduced himself to a barber as ``Mo Udall, running for President.'' The man chuckled and proceeded to respond, ``I know. We were laughing about that just this morning.'' Mo's accomplishments during his distinguished career are innumerable, from his tireless promotion of environmental conservation to his efforts to preserve the rights of our country's most vulnerable populations. I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting this resolution to honor one of the most civil, respected, and effective legislators of our time, Mr. Morris King Udall, and I extend my sincere condolences to the Udall family for their loss.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague from Vermont.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose of introducing the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 1999. This legislation is in response to a crisis facing the steel industry in the United States as a result of subsidized and dumped goods coming into the United States from a variety of countries--from Russia, from Brazil, from Japan, from Indonesia--where steel is being sold in the United States at far under cost of production and far under the price steel is being sold for in those countries. We know the financial problems which are present now in Russia where they are very anxious to have dollars and are selling steel in America for anything, virtually, that they can get for it. A similar problem has arisen with respect to other countries. The steel industry has modernized, spending some $50 billion, and simply cannot compete with this kind of subsidy on dumped goods. Thousands of steelworkers are losing their jobs. A few years back there were 500,000 steelworkers in the United States; now that number is down to about 160,000, and more are going daily and weekly as a result of this dumped steel coming into the United States. The existing laws are totally insufficient. When the administrative procedures are taken under existing law, it takes months. For example, complaints filed in September of 1998 will not be heard, adjudicated, decided, until May. Then there will be some retroactive duty imposition. Meanwhile, thousands of steelworkers will be losing their jobs. The steel industry will be suffering tremendous losses from which it cannot recover. Beyond the issue of the industry itself and the workers, we have the paramount issue on national defense, the industrial base for the United States. My legislation would provide a private right of action so that injured parties could go into a Federal court, into a court of equity, and get immediate relief. This legislation is similar to legislation which I have introduced as far back as 1982 where I sought injunctive relief. It now appears that injunctive relief is not consistent with GATT, although GATT international trade laws are consistent with U.S. trade laws which prohibit subsidized or dumped goods from coming into the United States. The remedy which is provided in this bill would be that tariffs would be imposed at the direction of the Federal court as the form of equitable relief, and these tariffs would then be paid over to the damaged parties--to the steelworkers who had sustained damages as a result of losing their jobs and to the steel companies which had sustained damages from loss of sales as a result of this illegal steel coming into the United States which is dumped or subsidized. There have been rallies held across the United States and on the west end of the Capitol not too long ago. The Senate Steel Caucus, which I have the privilege to chair, has had a series of hearings, including one in Pittsburgh on February 18. There are a variety of legislative proposals now pending before the Congress: Tariffs, changing the U.S. law to conform to international laws to make it easier to get relief under 201 and 301. But there is nothing on the books which would be as effective as the kind of equitable relief which would be provided by this private right of action. There is litigation pending now in the Federal court in Ohio brought by Wheeling-Pittsburgh where, after I conferred with the officials of that company, they brought an equity action in the State courts seeking equitable relief, and it has since been transferred to the Federal courts. I believe that cause of action, that claim for relief in the Federal court, is well founded. This legislation would remove any doubt that the injured parties--the workers, the companies, injured parties--would have a right to go into Federal court to get this relief on a prompt basis. In a court of equity, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, having litigated extensively himself, it is possible to get a temporary restraining order, a TRO, on an ex parte basis by the filing of affidavits. When that is done, then there has to be a hearing within 5 days where the moving party then seeks a preliminary injunction. Then the court hears the evidence and makes a determination as to a preliminary injunction, and then further hearings to make a determination as to a permanent injunction. I outline that very, very briefly to signify the speed that you can have action if you go into the Federal court. A court of equity is designed to provide prompt relief upon the showing of the requisite proofs. The difficulty with waiting for administrative action, action by the executive branch, is that we know as a matter of experience that the executive branch defers to foreign policy or defense policy. There is grave concern in the administration, expressed by a variety of administration officials, about what will happen to the Russian economy. Of course, there are grounds for concern about the Russian economy but not sufficient concerns so as to override what will happen to the American steel industry. What happens to the Russians is important but, frankly, not as important to this Senator as what happens to Pennsylvanians or to people in West Virginia or to people in Indiana, Ohio, or Illinois--to mention only a few of the States which are impacted by these subsidized and dumped goods. I am reminded, Mr. President, about an event back in 1984 when there was a favorable ruling for the steel industry from the International Trade Commission. The President had the authority to override that determination. My then colleague Senator Heinz and I made the rounds of the International Trade Representative, William Brock, and of the Secretary of Commerce, Malcolm Baldrige, and we found great sympathy with having the laws of the United States and the international trade laws enforced. When we talked to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, they were more concerned about their problems-- foreign policy and defense policy. Ultimately, the President overruled the International Trade Commission to the detriment of the American steel industry. Regrettably, that is what happens. We have had meetings of the Steel Caucus with the key officials of the executive branch. When it comes to the Secretary of Commerce or the Trade Representative, there has been a certain amount of sympathy for the position of the steel industry. What we need to do is to take this issue out of international politics--politics at the highest level, where there are concerns for foreign policy or defense policy--and move it into court, where the rule of law will govern and where, on a showing that there is a violation of U.S. trade laws, a showing of a violation of international trade laws, and there is a remedy which is GATT consistent, which is to impose tariffs. The approach of having the tariffs then paid over to the damaged parties is an idea which was originated by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, on legislation which he has introduced. When we had sought injunctive relief, it had been sufficient just to stop the steel from coming into the United States immediately, and then there would have been no further damage. That is not GATT consistent. It is GATT consistent to have duties imposed, and then if any steel comes in, those duties ought to be a deterrent to stop dumped and subsidized steel from coming into the United States. But to the extent any further steel comes in, those duties would be collected by the Treasury and then paid over to the injured parties--the steelworkers who have lost wages or lost their jobs, or the industry which has been damaged by this illegal dumping and this illegal subsidy. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to reintroduce legislation to provide for a private right of action for an injured party to sue in Federal court to stop goods from coming into this country which are subsidized, dumped or otherwise sold in violation of our trade laws. My legislation, the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 1999, is based on legislation I have introduced since 1982 and most recently during the 103rd Congress in 1993. I have revised the legislation so that at the conclusion of the case and upon the finding of liability, the court will direct the Customs Service to assess an antidumping duty on the dumped or subsidized product. Duties collected will be distributed to steelworkers for damages sustained from loss of wages resulting from loss of jobs due to illegal imports, and the affected domestic producers of the product for qualifying expenditures which may include equipment, research and development, personnel training, acquisition of technology, health care benefits, pension benefits, environmental equipment, training or technology, acquisition of raw materials, or borrowed working capital. I am introducing this legislation to respond to the substantial dumping of foreign goods on the U.S. market, particularly steel. As Hank Barnette, chief executive officer of Bethlehem Steel, wrote as early as in an August 6, 1998 op-ed in the Washington Times, the United States has become ``The Dumping Ground'' for foreign steel. He noted that Russia has become the world's number one steel exporting nation and that China is now the world's number one steel-producing nation, while enormous subsidies to foreign steel. As one example, Mr. Barnette cited the Commerce Department's revelation that Russia, one of the world's least efficient producers, was selling steel plate in the United States at more than 50 percent or $110 per ton below the constructed cost to make this product, which ultimately costs our steel companies in lost sales and results in fewer jobs for American workers. As chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, I am well aware that the current financial crisis in Asia and elsewhere has generated surges in U.S. imports of steel. Recently released statistics by the Department of Commerce note that the year-to-date final statistics through November of 1998 show steel imports of 35.1 million metric tons, an increase of 8.7 million metric tons over the 26.4 million metric tons through November 1997. While the preliminary data on steel imports for December 1998 shows a decrease in imports of hot-rolled steel products, one month is not a trend. In fact, overall steel imports in 1998 were considerably higher than in 1997, and total imports of hot-rolled steel were up 73 percent from 1997 to 1998. The flooding of steel on the U.S. market from Asian countries, as well as countries of the former Soviet Union and Brazil, have led the Senate and House Steel Caucuses to hold joint hearings and receive testimony from steel company executives and union representatives on the growing problems of steel imports and their troubling effect on our economy and our ability to retain high- paying jobs. I believe in free trade. But the essence of free trade is selling goods at a price equal to the cost of production and a reasonable profit. Where you have dumping--the sale of goods in the United States at prices lower than the price at which such goods are being sold by the producing companies in their own country or in some other country-- it is the antithesis of free trade. We have too long sacrificed American industry and American jobs in the name of foreign policy or defense policy, without having the proper enforcement of the laws because the executive branch, whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, has made concessions for foreign policy and defense interests. For many years, foreign policy and defense policy have superseded basic fairness on trade policy. I received a comprehensive education on this subject back in 1984 when there was a favorable ruling by the ITC for the American steel industry, but it was subject to review by the President. At that time my colleagues, Senator Heinz and I visited every one of the Cabinet officers in an effort to get support to see to it that International Trade Commission ruling in favor of the American steel industry was upheld. Then-Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige was favorable, and International Trade Representative Bill Brock was favorable. We received a favorable hearing in all quarters until we spoke with then-Secretary of State Shultz and then-Secretary of Defense Weinberger who were absolutely opposed to the ITC ruling. President Reagan decided to overrule the ITC, and U.S. trade policy and workers again took second place to foreign policy concerns. In the current environment, I believe more than ever that it is necessary for an injured industry to have an opportunity to go into federal court and seek enforcement of America's trade laws, which are currently not being enforced adequately by the executive branch. The only way to handle these important issues is to see to it that there is a private right of action, which is a time-honored approach in the context of antitrust law. I believe this is absolutely necessary if the steel industry and other U.S. industries subject to unfair foreign competition are to have fairness and to be able to stop foreign subsidized and dumped products from coming into this country. current administrative remedies I have long been concerned about the export of subsidized or dumped goods to the U.S. market and its impact on U.S. jobs and industries. Even when our government does act aggressively to enforce U.S. trade laws, the process is extremely time consuming. It can take months after filing a dumping action for the Commerce Department to complete its investigations, from the summary investigation to determine the adequacy of the petition, to the formal investigation of the evidence presented. The Commerce Department then issues a preliminary determination that products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value. The Department must then make a final determination, which can consume several more months. In order to secure any relief, though, the International Trade Commission (ITC) must also independently review the case and make a determination about whether the imports materially injure, or threaten to injure, the U.S. industry. If the ITC finds injury or threat of injury, the Commerce Department instructs the Customs Service to collect antidumping duties. In the current hot-rolled carbon steel case currently before the Administration, the petitioners filed on September 30, 1998. The investigation by the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration was not initiated until October 15, 1998. On November 23, 1998, the Commerce Department found ``critical circumstances'' in the case. Commerce determined that there was a surge in imports from Japan and Russia. This determination, coupled with the preliminary injury decision, allows the Commerce Department to assess duties retroactively 90 days from the preliminary determination. On February 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce determined the preliminary dumping margin for Japan and Brazil. Later, on February 22, a preliminary dumping margin for Russia was determined. The Commerce Department then instructed U.S. Customs to require deposits or bonds on imported steel from these countries for 90 days prior to the dumping margin determination and for any steel from these countries brought in after the determination. The Department of Commerce is not expected to make a final determination until May 5, 1999; however, the assessment of duties is contingent on a favorable determination on injury to the domestic industry made by the International Trade Commission on June 12, 1999. Assuming that all decisions are favorable, the petitioning industry will have waited for months before any action is taken to remedy the injury done to the industry and its workers. Therefore, a private right of action is necessary to enable our domestic industries to counter foreign subsidies, dumping, and customs fraud in a timely manner. My bill accomplishes this by providing timely relief by allowing for the recovery of tariffs as a result of the illegal import. We have seen a long history where American industries have been prejudiced, and American jobs have been lost, due to subsidized and dumped goods coming into this country. There is no adequate remedy at the present time to provide domestic industries with timely relief from the damage caused by such imports. history of the private right of action legislation Since entering the Senate, I have been actively involved on this issue. On March 4, 1982, I introduced S. 2167 to provide a private right of action in federal courts to enforce existing laws prohibiting illegal dumping or subsidizing of foreign imports. Hearings were held on this bill before the Judiciary Committee on May 24 and June 24, 1982. On December 15, 1982, I offered the text of this bill on the Senate floors as an amendment, which was tabled by a slim margin of 51 to 47. During the 96th Congress, I reintroduced this legislation as S. 416 on February 3, 1983. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this bill on March 21, 1983. I offered the text of S. 418 as an amendment to the Omnibus Tariff and Trade Act of 1984 on September 19, 1984; the amendment was tabled. During the 99th Congress, I reintroduced this legislation as S. 236; I expanded the scope of this bill to include customs fraud violations and introduced S. 1655 on September 18, 1985, and the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill by unanimous voice vote on March 20, 1986. The Finance Subcommittee on International Trade held a hearing on S. 1655 pursuant to a sequential referral agreement. Significant progress was made toward reaching a unanimous consent agreement for full Senate consideration of S. 1655 prior to adjournment of the 99th Congress, but the press of other business prevented its coming to the floor for action. In the 100th Congress, I reintroduced comprehensive legislation, S. 361, to provide a private right of action in Federal court to enforce existing laws prohibiting illegal dumping or customs fraud. I expanded the scope of this bill in S. 1396, which I introduced on June 19, 1987, to revise the subsidy provision to include a private right of action to allow injured American parties to sue in Federal court for injunctive relief against, and monetary damages from, foreign manufacturers and exporters who receive subsidies and any importer related to the manufacturer or exporter. This bill would have provided a comprehensive approach to address three of the most pernicious, unfair export strategies used by foreign companies against American companies: dumping, subsidies, and customs fraud. During full Senate consideration of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (S. 490), I filed the text of S. 1396 as Amendment No. 315 on June 19, 1987, and offered it as an amendment to the trade bill on June 25, 1987. This amendment, however, was tabled. I again filed the text of this bill as an amendment to the Textile and Apparel Trade Act, S. 2662, on September 9, 1988, and to the Technical Corrections Act, S. 2238, on September 29, 1988. On July 15, 1987, I joined Senator Heinz as an original cosponsor of an amendment to S. 490 to provide a private right of action in the U.S. Court of International Trade for damages from customs fraud. Although the amendment was accepted by the Senate, it unfortunately was dropped in conference. In the 102nd Congress, I introduced similar legislation, S. 2508, because the Voluntary Restraint Agreements program was allowed to lapse in spite of the fact that no multilateral steel agreement was in place. In fact, as announced by the United States Trade Representative, talks on the steel accord had broken down. I might add that this was somewhat strange, Mr. President, if not incomprehensible. The steel industry had been awaiting an agreement on a multilateral steel accord which would have prevented subsidized and dumped goods from coming into the United States, and then there was a specific recognition by the Trade Representative, that the effort failed. Not to extend the voluntary restraint program at that time was a bit mystifying. In any event, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 2508 by unanimous voice vote on August 12, 1992. Again, the press of other business prevented the Senate from taking up this legislation on the floor. In the 103rd Congress, I introduced this legislation again, S. 332, in an effort to move the legislative process forward. The legislation was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but once again, the press of Senate business prevented further action on the bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my distinguished colleague from Vermont. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 528 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')