Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had hoped to make this floor statement in advance of the vote, but I could not be here yesterday. So, I have asked for time this morning to state my reasons for voting against the omnibus appropriations bill. And I do so with a conflict of my own views because I think this bill provides very substantial funding for very many important projects. However, I decided to vote against the bill because of the change from regular order and existing procedures in the appropriations process. The Constitution gives the authority to 100 Members of the Senate and 435 Members of the House, but as the appropriations process went forward the final decisions were made by only four Members.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to express my strong objections to the procedures which were followed on the omnibus appropriations bill, which contains the text of eight individual appropriations and authorizing provisions totaling nearly $500 billion in spending. The importance of this legislation stems from our Constitution, which provides in Article I, section 9 that, ``no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' The regular order is for the 435 House members and the 100 Senators to consider the appropriations bills in sequence with floor action, conference reconciliation and then final action by each body before presentation to the President. This process, too, stems from the Constitutional directive in Article I, section 7 that a bill which has passed the House and Senate shall be presented to the President, who may sign it into law, or veto the bill and return it accordingly to the Congress for their reconsideration. This year, the final stages and key negotiations were carried on by only 4 elected members: the Majority Leader and Minority Leader in the Senate and the Speaker and Minority Leader of the Democrats in the House, with the participation of White House representatives. I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee which has jurisdiction for the bill funding the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. Our bill did not reach the Senate floor for consideration by the full Senate. And, except for a small portion, our bill did not receive consideration by the full House of Representatives. Thus, the Senate could never formally convene a full-fledged conference with the House on the Labor, HHS, Education bill. Recognizing that our bill would be wrapped into an omnibus spending bill, we held informal conferences involving the House and Senate Chairmen and ranking minority members, but we were not present when the final, key decisions were made. In an early conference session on our bill, representatives of the Office of Management and Budget raised questions about approximately $330 million of the $32 billion designated for education programs in our bill. I asked these Administration officials whether that differnce, slightly more than 1 percent of the total, would produce a veto. The OMB representatives responded that they did not know the answer to my question. I then said if the difference would not produce a veto, then the matter really ought to be left to the House and Senate negotiators, who would reach their own conclusions as to the appropriate figures to be presented in the bill to the President. With the Republicans in control of both the House and Senate, it is my strongly held view that we had a responsibility to conclude the appropriations bills in September before the end of the fiscal year for presentation to the President. That agreement was not reached because of many pending military ancillary issues such as school testing, organ transplants, ergonomics, etc. Had we finished Congressional action on the appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, in September, for example, we could have then presented it to the President for his signature or veto with the issues crystallized. It is entirely possible that the President would not have vetoed the bill. However, when the bills were not ready for final consideration until October, the White House emerged with the most leverage because a failure to agree meant the government would shut down. On Friday, October 9, the President held an afternoon news conference in the Rose Garden criticizing the Republican Congress on education funding. I was asked to give a part of the Republican reply in a Capitol press conference, which I did, pointing out that the House- Senate subcommittee conferees had approved $31.8 billion for Fiscal Year 1999 discretionary education spending, which was $600 million over the President's budget request of $31.2 billion. As expected with the force of the bully pulpit, the President carried the day in the media arena with no Congressional reply receiving any significant attention. On the subject of adding teachers to reduce classroom size, earlier this year the President proposed paying for that $1.2 billion with proceeds from the tobacco settlement. Of course, there was no tobacco settlement legislation enacted and the Administration had no fallback proposal to cover the attendant shortfall in funding. Notwithstanding the absence of a tobacco settlement, my ranking member, Senator Harkin, and I had worked through the figures and allocated $300 million in additional federal funds for title one which could be used for school districts to hire new teachers and reduce the average number of children assigned to each classroom teacher. We were advised the budgetary outlays would be $50 million in the first year, which was more than enough for the first year's funding and could be afforded within the existing Subcommittee allocation. Again, all of that was lost in the last minute shuffle with the President criticizing the Congress without a factual foundation. Had these issues on education, for example, been handled in a timely fashion in September with presentment of a Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill to the President, he would have had to articulate his views in a public forum to justify a veto. The result likely would have been entirely different. It is my hope that we will not repeat this year's process. I firmly believe that if the people of America are given the opportunity to understand precisely what is happening, they will demand that we follow regular order in the appropriations process as set forth in the Constitution and the long-established practices of congressional legislative action. fiscal year 1999 labor, health and human services, and education appropriations act Mr. President, this has been an unusual year for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee. While both the House and Senate subcommittees reported bills out of the full committee, neither House ever had the opportunity to fully debate its merits. I believe that a bill which constitutes the single largest investment in improving the health, educational standing and economic well-being of our nation, and in one way or another, affects the lives of every man, woman and child in this country should have had the opportunity to be fully debated by all 100 Senators. The subcommittee received over 1,300 requests from colleagues seeking more funding, report language and special earmarks. We weighed each of those requests very carefully, and wherever possible we accommodated our colleagues. I want to extend my sincerest appreciation to Senator Harkin and his staff, Marsha Simon and Ellen Murray for their role in this effort. I also want to extend my thanks to each of the members of the subcommittee for their cooperation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked to make a unanimous consent request on behalf of our leader, Senator Lott. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate begins consideration of the two-day continuing resolution, there be 10 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without additional action or debate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the budget process and the status of events now pending between the Congress and the Administration. We have come to a stage on appropriations where so many decisions are left, in the final analysis, to negotiations which involve only four Members of Congress and now the Chief of Staff of the President's administration, which I believe is far removed from the regular order of the United States Congress and the regular order as envisioned by the Constitution where the Congress legislates, presents bills to the President, and the President either signs or vetoes those bills. We have, as we all know, 100 Members of the Senate and 435 Members of the House of Representatives. And it is my view that, if unconstitutional, it is certainly an unwise de facto delegation of power to four Members of Congress: The Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the Speaker, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. My bill is illustrative. I chair the appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction of three major Departments: The Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor. And my staff and I worked during the month of August, a recess month, so that when we came back into session on August 31 we would be prepared, as we were on September 1, to have the subcommittee act. The full committee then acted on September 3 in an effort to have this complex and important bill considered early on by the Senate. The bill never came to the Senate floor because of other pressing business and candidly, because the bill was so controversial that it would likely be tied up in matters which might not be resolved. However, I believe that had these issues been debated on the Senate floor, I think that they would have had chance, a realistic chance. Ultimately, with enough time and effort, we could have prevailed. Similarly, in the House of Representatives there was never floor consideration to the legislation covering these three important departments. So the subcommittee chairman and the ranking members met and tried to work out many of the points of contention. The matters have never been considered on the floor of the Senate where under our procedures Senators have the right to offer amendments, the right to modify figures in the regular legislative consideration. We are going to have to take a hard look at our procedures when we reconvene next January so that we go back to the regular order and to the process under which this body, the Senate, considers the legislation we have handled on the floor and then in the conference report and then present it to the President for his signature or for his veto, as he exercises his Presidential judgment. We had a conference last Friday with representatives from the Office of Management and Budget and the chairmen of the Appropriations Committees from both Houses, as well as the chairmen of the subcommittees and ranking members. At that time we were considering an objection which the President had raised to the appropriations bill covering education. The President had just had a rose garden news conference and was very, very critical of Congress for failing to meet his demands, his requests, his priorities on education. I was asked to participate in a responsive news conference which, unlike the President's power of the bully pulpit, received virtually no attention. The facts are these: The President has requested for education $31,185,302,000; on Friday the House-Senate Conference Committee had come to a figure of $31,832,358,000. Rounding off the numbers, the President was at $31.2 billion and the House-Senate conference was at $31.8 billion. We were $600 million over the President's figure. It led me at that news conference to comment that the President either did not know what the figures were or was negotiating not in good faith in representing that the Congress had not met his requests for an education funding figure. A further controversy developed, and I believe is still pending, although those negotiations are ongoing. And minute by minute we do not know whether agreements are made or not until we hear their final report. The President asked for $1.1 billion for classroom size. The President proposed paying for that item with the proceeds from the tobacco settlement, except there never was a tobacco settlement and we never had those proceeds to work with. My subcommittee had anticipated that problem and had, in the report which we filed, provided for reduction in classroom size to meet what the President considered a priority. We agreed with him that it was a priority. We allocated some $300 million for that effort. According to the information presented in our conference, the maximum expenditure for the next fiscal year would have been $50 million. So we had adequately taken care of the President's priority and we had more than enough funding to proceed for the first year. It was our concern that the congressional authorizing committees had not taken up the item, which should be done in the context where we saw there was adequate funding. Had we had the tobacco proceeds, I think a good bit more attention would have been paid to this. When the funding did not come through, the subcommittee made its best efforts. I believe the facts are illustrated on these items, which were the bones of contention. The subcommittee had provided more funding for education than the President had requested, and it made an appropriate allocation for classroom reduction size. Congress had done its job on education. It is obvious that when the President speaks from that bully pulpit he may even get more attention than when a Senator addresses the same subject on the Senate floor, seen by very few people on C-SPAN2. But at least we do what we can to establish the record for the propriety of our congressional action. The business of having 535 elected Members of the Congress delegate authority to four individual Members, short-circuiting our process, is not in the national interest. One of the items which has been under consideration in the subcommittee has been a complex question of organ transplants. The subcommittee has adopted the recommendation of the administration, put forward by Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, to establish regulations issued by her Department. We held a hearing on the subject and tried to come to grips with that issue. A differing point of view was put forth by the House of Representatives. I concede that while the House advocates had parochial interests of their State, I, too, had an interest in Pennsylvania on this issue. Looking at the broader national aspects, it really is a matter to be decided by the medical experts. I think that was provided for in the regulations proposed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary had no parochial interest and was speaking for the national interest. If the Secretary was wrong, that is a matter which ought to be decided by the authorizing committee. It ought not to be left to the appropriators. That is only illustrative of many, many riders we have where the appropriators are called upon to decide very, very complex questions which ought to be resolved after hearings, analysis, floor debate, and a decision on what is public policy. They really are not issues to be decided by how much money ought to be allocated to a specific line, which is the function of appropriations. It is my hope that these procedures will be corrected when the Congress reconvenes next January, to find a way to return to regular order and to have these issues considered by the full Senate, considered in a Conference Committee, and presented to the President. When we had our conference last Friday, I raised the question head on with members of the Office of Management and Budget where this education item was a matter for veto. He had some difference of opinion of some $330 million, which is not insignificant, but is not enormous on a $32 billion budget. The representative of the administration couldn't answer the question. If we had passed a bill and submitted it to the President, I think he would not have vetoed. My instinct is if we passed a bill and submitted it to the President, the funding figure which he wished for, classroom size reduction, which has now been conceded by the congressional negotiators, but it left open the issue of whether it would be decided by the States and local government or decided by the Federal Government, with the President pressing to have a mandate from the Federal Government operated out of Washington instead of leaving it to local government. Here again, I think the President would not have exercised his veto, or at least had we followed regular order and the constitutional procedure without having the President in the negotiations on the appropriations bill--where he ought not to be, his representative ought not to be--we would have had a determination as to whether it rose to the magnitude of a Presidential veto. Our institutions have been well served, as we know, when we follow constitutional procedures, when you follow regular order on what has been established. I do believe that these shortcuts are not in the public interest and we ought to return to the tried and tested ways of the appropriations process. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the chart I referred to earlier.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Texas.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from Texas has the floor now. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his 30-minute allocation that I be permitted to speak as if in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have seen the issue of hate crimes again tragically before the American people with a horrendous event in Laramie, WY, on October 6, just last week, where a young man, Matthew Shepard, was kidnaped, robbed, severely beaten, and left tied to a fence in freezing weather. He died 5 days later from his wounds. Two men have been charged with the murder. It appears that the attack was motivated at least in part by an antigay bias. Police have stated that while robbery was the main motive for the attack, that Mr. Shepard was apparently chosen as a victim because he was gay. It has been reported by the investigators that the two suspects lured Mr. Shepard from the bar by stating that they, too, were gay and wanted to meet with him. The girlfriend of one of the two suspects has stated that Shepard was targeted because he had flirted with the suspect earlier that evening and allegedly embarrassed him. The issue of hate crimes was very much a national focus months ago, on June 7 of 1998, when Mr. James Byrd, Jr., an African-American, was kidnaped and killed by being dragged from the back of a pickup truck. Three white men have been charged with the murder. The evidence indicates that there was racial motivation for the attack. Authorities have stated that all three suspects were white supremacists and had white supremacist tattoos on their bodies. All three were identified as belonging to the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederate Knights of America while serving in prison. Racist literature was seized from the home shared by the suspects. The current hate crime legislation was deemed inadequate on the murder of Mr. Byrd because the victim was attacked in a way where he was not seeking to exercise a federally protected right. On November 13, 1997, Senator Kennedy, Senator Wyden, and I introduced the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which has not moved forward. It is my view that there is no place in America for hate. There is just no place in America for hate. There is no place for hatred of African-Americans, hatred of Asians, and there is no place for hatred of Jews, Muslims, gays, or anyone else. That is antithetical to America, antithetical to the concepts of the melting pot. We see around the world what has happened in places like Bosnia, and we see what has happened in Kosovo, and we have seen what has happened in Africa. But in the United States, there is no place for hate. I have asked both leaders in the Congress and the President to push to have this legislation included in the final Omnibus Appropriations Act. I know it is difficult to do. Let's see what happens on it. There ought to be a very, very strong stand taken against hate. Gays ought to be included in the protection, and we ought not to have the highly technical, legalistic concepts of the exercise of a federally protected right. I served for 8 years as district attorney of Philadelphia and 4 years as assistant district attorney before that, and crime was horrendous. But when hate is added to the crime, it becomes an intolerable circumstance, something which should be acted upon by the Congress of the United States. The legislation has been modified to arrive at a situation where local authorities would call for Federal assistance. I am not sure that is a wise provision, because so frequently we find local authorities unwilling to act, and that is really the reason for the necessity for Federal action. But the legislation has been modified in a number of important respects to try to give an impetus for enactment. We should not await the next tragedy on hate--whether it is directed to someone of Asian ancestry, or someone who is Jewish, or a Muslim, or a gay, or an African-American--to motivate us to take the appropriate steps and be very, very tough in the response and prosecution of those offenses. Mr. President, in the absence of anyone else seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2580 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this legislation is introduced to correct a legislative inequity that has adversely affected one of my constituents, Mrs. Vicki Reid of Dauphin, Pennsylvania. At the time of his death in Operation Desert Shield, Captain Frederick Reid was serving as a United States Air Force pilot. The Air Force had authorized an Aviator Continuation Pay contract contingent upon his continuing to serve in the Air Force. Unfortunately, on October 10, 1990, Captain Reid was killed during a flight training operation. The Defense Department policy at the time was that one's death precluded receiving the continuation pay. Congress responded by enacting the Mack Amendment, under which families of pilots killed in action during Operation Desert Storm are entitled to the deceased pilot's Aviator Continuation Pay. This provision of the fiscal year 1992 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 102-172) stipulates that in order to collect the Aviator Continuation Pay, the pilot must have died during Operation Desert Storm (on or after January 17, 1991), but excludes those pilots killed in Operation Desert Shield. By letter to me dated August 3, 1998 from Under Secretary Rudy De Leon, the Department of Defense has confirmed that Captain Reid was the only U.S. Air Force pilot killed in Operation Desert Shield who was entitled to Aviator Continuation Pay and that approximately $58,000 of Captain Reid's Aviator Continuation Pay was unpaid at the time of his death. In a September 11, 1998 letter to me, the Air Force has expressed its support for an extension of the Mack Amendment to cover the Reid case. While private relief legislation is a last resort to be used sparingly by the Congress, Captain Reid's service and dedication to his country are laudatory. Had he died only a few months later, his widow would have been justly compensated. Accordingly, I am introducing this bill today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Department of Defense and a letter from the Air Force be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2584.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. It has been cleared on the other side of the aisle. It provides for aviator continuation pay for Air Force personnel killed in Operation Desert Shield. It is for a Pennsylvania constituent, as I understand it, the only one who has not been so compensated.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to thank Chairman Bond for his inclusion of funding within the Economic Development Initiatives account for three important projects in Pittsburgh, Wilkes-Barre, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that I requested. The conference report also includes $2 million for the City of Pittsburgh to redevelop the LTV site in Hazelwood, Pennsylvania. These funds can be used by the city to clean up and prepare the site for eventual reuse. One possibility being contemplated in the area is an effort to attract the Sun Oil Company to build a new coke facility which create hundreds of new jobs. I am pleased that we have been able to increase the level of funding in the bill from $750,000 to $1 million for the downtown revitalization project in Wilkes-Barre which is also a top priority for Mayor Tom McGroarty and Congressman Paul Kanjorski. I am also pleased that the conference report includes $50,000 for a project in Central and South Philadelphia, which is plagued with an average annual family income of $7,600, a 45 percent unemployment rate, and a 50 percent high school drop-out rate. These funds are intended to provide initial resources for the development of a job training and business center to generate employment in this section of Philadelphia. The renewal project is spearheaded by Universal Community Homes, a not- for-profit community development corporation which has a strong presence in the city, and which has received grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for housing and other initiatives which are geared toward improving the quality of life for low-income families. In January of this year, I had the opportunity to visit Universal Community Homes to tour their facilities. More importantly, I met with individuals who directly benefit from the programs and services delivered by Universal Community Homes. Members of the media and community leaders were also present to bring to my attention that the South Central Philadelphia sections of the city are in critical need of a job training and business center. I take this opportunity to clarify with Chairman Bond that it is the conferees' intent that Universal Community Homes is the appropriate applicant for the EDI grant for Central and South Philadelphia.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object. When this unanimous consent agreement was propounded initially, the distinguished assistant majority leader and I talked about including 20 minutes for me to speak. Will the Senator modify his request so that I may be recognized as soon as the Senator from Minnesota finishes his comments?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for permitting me to speak at the outset. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. At the outset, I congratulate my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, for his leadership on this important measure, along with Senator Lieberman and Senator Coats. This is a very important piece of legislation, which now appears to be near fruition, with joint action by the House of Representatives. This legislation, the International Religious Freedom Act, constitutes a very firm stand by the United States against religious persecution worldwide. A bipartisan group of Senators have spearheaded this effort, and the outcome is one in which the Senate can be proud. The rockbed of America is religious freedom. That is the reason that the pilgrims came to this country, to the settlements in Virginia in 1607 and in Massachusetts with the pilgrims in 1620. That was also the reason that my father, Harry Specter, came to this country in 1911 at the age of 18, and my mother, Lillie Shanin Specter, came to this country at the age of 5 with her family which had lived in a small town on the Russian-Polish border. Freedom of religion is the heart of the first amendment, the provisions for religious freedom. We have seen worldwide unspeakable religious persecution. We have seen Catholic clerics mistreated and tortured in China. We have seen Christians sold into slavery in the Sudan. We have seen the risk of the death penalty in Egypt and in Saudi Arabia for those of the Islam faith who seek to convert to Christianity. This legislation is a very forceful statement by the United States of America that religious persecution is intolerable wherever it exists, whether it is against Christians, whether it is against Jews, or whether it is against those of the Islam faith, Buddhist, or whatever the religious persuasion may be, it is intolerable. This issue, as I have already noted, goes to my own personal roots. I was motivated to act for legislative relief by a distinguished American named Michael Horowitz, who came to see me in early 1997 and said that there had been enormous support from the international Christian community to protect Soviet Jewry, and that there ought to be a firm, responsive action by those of the Jewish faith to try to help on the issue of persecution of Christians. It soon expanded beyond persecution of Christians to people of any religious persuasion. I have been working in the Senate on the issue of religious persecution for several years now. At the end of the 104th Congress, I introduced Senate Resolution 283, which detailed the need for quick, decisive action and called upon the President to appoint a White House advisor on religious persecution. After that, I worked with Senators Nickles, Nunn, and Coats on a broader Senate resolution, S. Con. Res. 71, which included my provisions on a White House Senior Advisor on religious persecution and expressed the sense of the Senate regarding persecution of Christians worldwide. S. Con. Res. 71, which I cosponsored, passed the Senate by voice vote but there was insufficient time remaining in the 104th Congress to secure passage in the House. In collaboration with Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia, on May 21, 1997, I introduced legislation in the Senate, S. 772, and Congressman Wolf introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. We introduced a bill that directly confronted the horrendous situation in many countries. This legislation targeted those countries that engaged in the most egregious acts of persecution such as torture, slavery and forcible acts of conversion. The legislation was passed in the House of Representatives on May 14, 1998 by a vote of 375-41. The matter has been under consideration by the Senate. The provisions of Senate bill 772, which I introduced, had been criticized, or concerns were raised because of the sanctions which had been imposed. There is a widespread concern in Congress--and in the Senate, at least among some Senators--that the sanctions are counterproductive and that they ought not to be entertained. My own personal view is that the sanctions would have been appropriate. But I think it is worthwhile to take two-thirds of a loaf, 70 percent of a loaf, I think substantially more than half a loaf, in the accommodation which we are making here in the legislation which has been introduced today. Margaret Chase Smith, a distinguished Senator from Maine, articulated a very important concept talking about the principle of compromise as opposed to the compromise of principle. And in the legislation which is being advanced today there is not a compromise of principle, but we are making accommodations to put this legislation through. Over the past 2 years, I have conducted four hearings throughout Pennsylvania to hear from panelists who have witnessed or experienced personally the horrors of religious persecution. These hearings were held in the Pittsburgh area, the Harrisburg area, Allentown/Reading area and the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area. In addition, I have had several meetings with evangelical leaders and leaders of missionary organizations who have been striving to expose those governments and other organizations that tolerate or perpetuate serious, physical acts of religious persecution against their own population. It is clear from my meetings with religious leaders in Pennsylvania that there are regions of the world where the situation is particularly abhorrent. In China, the government distinguishes between ``Patriotic'' Catholic and Protestant churches that are endorsed by the government and the more than 50 million ``House'' church Christian Churches. The Chinese government recognizes officially only the Patriotic churches. Members of the House churches--those who refuse to register in a state religion, or who remain faithful to the Vatican--are regularly imprisoned for having bibles or holding worship services without permission. Just over two years ago in August 1996, I traveled to China and met with Chinese Vice-Premier Qian Qichen to express my strong concerns about religious persecution in his country. The next month, however, the Chinese Government released a statement warning the Chinese people that open exercise of their religion could result in harsh retribution. This Summer, when President Clinton traveled to China there was real hope that the Chinese Government would begin to reverse decades of religious intolerance and persecution. Sadly, recent reports indicate that the situation has improved little. This past January, I traveled to the Mideast and Africa to gather evidence on such practices in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt and neighboring countries. I met with religious leaders and governmental officials in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen. I had wanted to visit Sudan to investigate persecution of Christians by the fundamentalist Islamic Sudanese government, but was told by the State Department that Sudan was unsafe for American delegations. I did meet with the Sudanese government-in-exile in neighboring Eritrea, and discussed reports of Sudanese persecution with His Holiness Abuna Paulos, the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and with the leadership of the Ethiopian Supreme Islamic Council in Addis Ababa. My fact finding corroborated the widespread reports of bias, mistreatment and persecution of religious minorities in these countries. It is now a well known fact that the government of Sudan has supported a campaign of forced enslavement and conversion of the Christian population in southern Sudan. Literally thousands of Christian children have been taken as slaves in the last six years. The government of Sudan permits the torture and forcible conversion of Christian worshipers. I heard reports from Egyptian evangelicals who cited cases of eight and nine months in jail for Muslims who sought conversion to Christianity. Many of them complained about the long time it took to secure official permission to build churches. Eritrean Christians confirmed claims of Sudanese children being sold into slavery. They attributed it to profiteering by militia as part of the booty of war. One Eritrean Christian commented on Sudanese government action in closing churches in 1997. Egyptian President Mubarak and Saudi Arabian Intelligence Director Prince Turki told me that public intolerance toward non-Muslim religions springs from the Koran. Conversion from Islam to Christianity or any other religion carries the death penalty under Muslim laws that are based on teachings of the Koran. In Egypt, I talked to the Copts, saw situations where religious persecution was present. Congressman Wolf and I have talked about being criticized in the Egyptian press for our advocacy of religious freedom around the world. As the saying goes, you can tell a man or woman by their friends. And you can tell a man or woman by their enemies as well. Perhaps it is a mark of distinction to have been criticized, as Congressman Wolf and I had been in the Egyptian press, for articulating and pushing the principles of religious freedom. In Saudi Arabia, I talked to Christians and Jews who had been persecuted there, and was outraged to find that if you were a Christian in Saudi Arabia, you could not have a Christmas tree in your window, which could be viewed from the outside; that the Jewish men and women who are stationed there in the American forces did not want to wear their dog tags, their identification, because the indication of being Jewish was a source of possible reprisal. I heard conflicting statements in Saudi Arabia about whether the death penalty is actually imposed on conversion. In some cases there is question about whether individuals are put to death solely because of their faith, or if other charges are involved. There is no doubt, however, that the religious police in Saudi Arabia are very repressive against Christians. While in Saudi Arabia, I visited a tent city right in the center of the desert where we have 5,000 American soldiers who are there to protect the Saudis, living under I think intolerable conditions, where they cannot have an open exercise of their religious faith, be they Jewish or Christian. From my discussions with foreign leaders and religious minorities, it was clear that the introduction of the Specter-Wolf bill has had a beneficial impact by raising the issue's visibility. For example, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, Vatican Ambassador to Ethiopia, complimented the proposed legislation for raising the level of dialogue, adding that, if it were enacted with a ``little bite,'' then so much the better. I think this measure goes a long way in articulating the basic principles of religious freedom, which we prize so highly in America, and that we are exporting a fundamental American value. The bill I think would have been preferable to have sanctions. But it would be impossible to move it through the Senate. So we are taking a very substantial step forward in the legislation as it is currently framed. The legislation brings fair and honest fact finding to the situation of religious minorities around the world. It provides the necessary balance of respecting cultural differences and promoting religious tolerance throughout the world. The legislation provides for a strong, independent commission that can make recommendations based on honest facts. I want to compliment and commend especially New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal, who has had a very profound influence on the formulation of this legislation. You see his articles from time to time, or you see a column from time to time, and there may be some impact. But Mr. Rosenthal has published column after column and has brought to the American people through the impressive op-ed page, or editorial page of the New York Times, discussions of the problems of religious persecution around the world. I think it has had significant effect in moving this legislation forward. In our discussions, again, I compliment our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, for his leadership, along with Senator Lieberman. Senator Coats has been a tower of strength. There have been a number of kudos and compliments to Senator Coats as he leaves the U.S. Senate. However many compliments there have been, they are insufficient, because he has made a tremendous contribution to the U.S. Senate. But I believe that this bill will be a tribute, in effect, to Senator Dan Coats and I think to all of those who have worked so hard for its enactment. Mr. President, how much of my 20 minutes remains?

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Chair doublecheck that? I have spoken very fast if I have said all of that in 4 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. It all depends on what is ``better,'' Mr. President.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: I have been asked to propound a unanimous consent request which relates to another bill. Would it be in order at this time to ask unanimous consent that it may be considered separately?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to make a brief comment, on the appropriations process, and to express some concerns which I have about the procedures where some of the legislative proposals have not been considered in regular order and in due course--specifically, the legislation on the appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. In articulating these concerns, I understand the tremendous pressures which have been presented to leadership to conclude our session with the target date of October 9. The Constitution gives to the Congress the authority and responsibility of the appropriations process. And that customarily proceeds with action in the appropriations subcommittee, then the appropriations full committee, then the full body of the Senate, where Senators have an opportunity to comment on the legislation and to offer amendments, and then, when acted upon, goes to a conference in the House of Representatives, which has followed the same pattern-- consideration of the subcommittee, full committee, and by the House, and then the conference committee. That process has been short-circuited this year without having the legislation, the appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, come to the Senate floor. We have sought a conference with our distinguished House Members--Congressman Porter, who chairs the House equivalent of the subcommittee, and Congressman Obey, the ranking minority leader--along with Senator Tom Harkin, my distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee. It would be my hope that as we proceed with the business of the Senate in future years, we would be able to proceed in regular order so that the Senate has an opportunity to consider the measure, Senators offer amendments, and go through the regular procedure on the House- Senate conference.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths (those exempt from attending school) between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. While I realize that this legislation cannot be enacted so late in the session, I believe it is important to introduce the bill and promote a serious discussion on this issue. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer employment where they live. The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish community. Earlier this week I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. They explained that while the Amish once made their living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand into other occupations as farmland disappears in many areas due to pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish culture expects youth upon the completion of their education at the age of 14 to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become productive members of society. In many areas work in sawmills is one of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and lifestyle of the Amish. The House has already passed by a voice vote H.R. 4257, introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, which is similar to the bill I am introducing today. I am aware that concerns to H.R. 4257 exist: safety issues have been raised by the Department of Labor and Constitutional issues have been raised by the Department of Justice. I have addressed these concerns in my legislation. Under my legislation youths would not be allowed to operate power machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that they are enforced. The Department of Justice has stated that H.R. 4257 would ``raise serious concerns'' under the Establishment Clause. The House measure confers benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities. I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. Yoder held that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise clause. The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self- reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish do not need the final two years of public education. At this stage in the legislative process, so close to the end of the 105th Congress, passage of my bill requires a unanimous consent agreement. I have already been notified that there are Senators who would object to such an agreement, and I do understand that a measure of this nature cannot be rushed through the Senate. Nevertheless, I offer my legislation in the hope of beginning a dialogue on this important issue.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation responding to the critical steel import crisis along with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, who serves with me as co-chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, Senator Hollings, and Senator Santorum. Our bill is entitled the ``Trade Fairness Act of 1998'' because it would amend the Trade Act of 1974 to remove statutory provisions which put our domestic industry at a significant disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors. Specifically, this bill makes technical corrections to the so-called ``Section 201'' provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 to harmonize our laws with international laws administered by the World Trade Organization. While I know it is very late in the 105th legislative session, we intend that the introduction of this legislation will demonstrate our bipartisan commitment to responding to the current steel import crisis. Further, this should send a strong signal to the administration that it is high time that we respond. Yesterday, Senator John D. Rockefeller, Congressman Ralph Regula and Congressman Jim Oberstar, and I met with representatives of the Clinton administration, specifically Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Commerce Secretary William Daley, United States Trade Representative Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky and National Economic Council Advisor Gene Sperling, to discuss the steel import issue. At that meeting, representatives of the Clinton administration assured us that they are looking into actions that the administration can take to respond to the illegal dumping of foreign steel on the U.S. market but have yet to make a final decision on their response. While I appreciate their efforts to take a closer look at the problem, I am disturbed by the Administration's failure to take immediate action up to this time to prevent more cheap steel from flooding the American market. I am further disturbed by the fact that senior administration officials could not give me a specific date or timetable as to when we could expect a response from the administration on this crucial and pressing issue. The urgency of this crisis and the failure of the administration to take action was evident from testimony presented on September 10, 1998, where, as Chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, I joined House Chairman Regula in convening a joint meeting of the Senate and House Steel Caucuses to hear from executives from the United Steelworkers of America and a number of the nation's largest steel manufacturers about the current influx of imported steel into the United States. At that meeting, I expressed my profound concern regarding the impact on our steel companies and Steelworkers of the current financial crises in Asia and Russia, which have generated surges in U.S. imports of Asian and Russian steel. The past three months have been the highest monthly import volumes in U.S. history and, with Asia and Russia in economic crisis and with other major industrial nations not accepting their fair share of the adjustment burden, U.S. steel companies and employees are being damaged by this injurious unfair trade. The United States has become the dumping ground for foreign steel. Russia has become the world's number one steel exporting nation and China is now the world's number one steel-producing nation, while enormous subsidies to foreign steel producers have continued. In fact, the Commerce Department recently revealed 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 steel plate. The dumping of this cheap steel on the American market ultimately costs our steel companies in lost sales and results in fewer jobs for American workers. Specifically, in the first half of 1998, total U.S. steel imports were 18.2 million net tons, which is a 12.4 percent increase over 1997's record level of 16.2 million net tons for the same period. For the month of June 1998, total U.S. imports of steel mill products totaled over 3.7 million net tons, which is up 39.2 percent from the June, 1997 level of 2.6 million net tons. In June 1998, U.S. imports of finished steel imports were a record 3 million net tons, a 41.6 percent increase over the June 1997 2.1 million net tons. Also in the first half of 1998, compared to the same period in 1997, steel imports from Japan are up 114 percent, steel imports from Korea are up 90 percent, and imports from Indonesia are up 309 percent. Most significantly, the U.S. steel industry currently employs 163,000 people down from 500,000 people in the 1980's. This situation is untenable for the American steelworkers, steel manufacturers, their customers, and the American people in general. I believe that the growing coalition of steel manufacturers, steelworkers, and Congress must work together to remedy this import crisis before it is too late and the U.S. steel industry is forced to endure an excruciatingly painful economic downturn. The United States has many of the tools at its disposal to protect our steel industry from unfair and illegally dumped steel; therefore, I submitted Senate Concurrent Resolution 121 on September 29, 1998, to call on the President to take all necessary measures to respond to the surge of steel imports resulting from the Asian and Russian financial crises. Specifically, the resolution called on the President to: pursue enhanced enforcement of the U.S. trade laws; pursue all tools available to ensure that other nations accept a more equitable sharing of these steel imports; establish a task force to closely monitor U.S. imports of steel; and, report to Congress by January 5, 1999, on a comprehensive plan to respond to this surge of steel imports. I am pleased to state that as of today's date, twenty-nine of my Senate colleagues have joined me in sponsoring this resolution. While this resolution is an appropriate way for Congress to express our concerns and request immediate actions by the administration to respond to the steel import crisis, I think it is also important to give the administration all the necessary tools to fight the surges of foreign steel. After reviewing the U.S. trade laws with Senator Rockefeller, we discovered that our laws regarding safeguard actions actually put the United States at a disadvantage in the international trade arena. Safeguard actions, or section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, provide a procedure whereby the President has the discretion to grant temporary import relief to a domestic industry seriously injured by increased imports. Our laws in this area are actually more strict than those agreements made during the Uruguay Round negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). That agreement, which the Senate considered and passed on December 1, 1994, established the World Trade Organization (WTO) to administer these trade agreements. One such trade agreement established rules for the application of safeguard measures. The agreement provides that a member of the WTO may apply a safeguard measure to a product if the member has determined that such product is being imported into its territory in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products. The comparable U.S. statute, referred to as section 201, goes further than this agreement by requiring that foreign imports are the substantial cause of the injury. It just does not make sense to hinder the administration by placing this additional burden on it in evaluating a claim of injury due to surges of imports. We need to level the playing field so that all countries are playing by the same rules. This oversight is one example of the technical corrections that must be made to U.S. trade laws to bring them in line with WTO's rules. Specifically, the bill that Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today, the Trade Fairness Act of 1998, makes three technical changes. First, it removes the requirement that imports must be a ``substantial'' cause of the serious injury by deleting the word ``substantial.'' The WTO's Safeguards Agreement does not require that increased imports be a ``substantial'' cause of serious injury. This change will lower the threshold to prove that the influx of imports were the cause of injury to the affected industry and will make U.S. law consistent with the WTO rules. Second, the legislation clarifies that the International Trade Commission (ITC) shall not attribute to imports injury caused by other factors in making a determination that imports are a cause of serious injury. This provision will require the ITC to evaluate causation to determine which factors are causing injury. If serious injury is being caused by increased imports, whether or not other factors are also causing injury, safeguard relief is justified. This provision is a more faithful implementation of the GATT Agreement and will prevent circumstances such as a recession from blocking invocation of Section 201 by the administration. Finally, this legislation brings the definition of ``serious injury'' in line with the definition codified in the GATT Agreement. The bill strikes the definition of serious injury and replaces it with the WTO's language regarding evaluation of whether increased imports have caused serious injury to a domestic industry. Specifically, it states ``with respect to serious injury'', the ITC should consider ``the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms; the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports; changes in the levels of sales; production; productivity; capacity utilization; profits and losses; and, employment.'' These factors are important guidance to the ITC in evaluating a petition of serious injury. Again, I think it is appropriate to be consistent with the WTO language as America increasingly interacts on a global scale. The U.S. steel industry has become a world class industry with a very high-quality product. This has been achieved at a great cost: $50 billion in new investment to restructure and modernize; 40 million tons of capacity taken out of the industry; and a work force dramatically downsized from 500,000 to 170,000. With these technical changes, the Administration will be armed with ammunition to bring a self-initiated Section 201 action on behalf of the steel industry that has been harmed not only by the onslaught of cheap imports on a daily basis but by U.S. law that has prevented swift and immediate action by the U.S. government. This legislation is essential to allow the President to respond promptly to the current steel import crisis. It will allow steel companies to compete in a more fair trade environment, preventing bankruptcies that would cause the loss of thousands of high-paying jobs in the steel industry. Too many steelworkers have lost their jobs due to unfair cheap imports. Mr. President, to summarize, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, Senator Santorum, Senator Hollings and myself, to try to deal with a very serious surge of steel imports into the United States, which is threatening to decimate the steel industry and take thousands of jobs from American steelworkers in a way which is patently unfair and in violation of free trade practices. It is obvious that the matter is a sensitive one where imports are coming from Russia illustratively. The Russians are having enormous economic problems, and they are dumping steel in the United States far below cost to try to remedy their economic situation. Sympathetic as we may be to the problems of the Russians, when they dump, unload steel in the United States far under their cost, it violates international trade laws and it violates the trade laws of the United States. To reiterate our meeting yesterday was one where those of us in Congress on the steel caucus asked the administration to take administrative action. We have requested a meeting with the President for tomorrow before the session ends to try to persuade him to take this action. Our requests are not protectionism. They are not protectionism because they come within the definition of ``free trade'' where our laws are defined consistent with GATT and the World Trade Organization to prohibit subsidized goods and dumped goods from coming into this country. Again, the legislation we are proposing today would remove the requirement that imports must be a substantial cause of the serious injury and only require that the damages be caused by the imports, by striking the word ``substantial,'' which is consistent with GATT, and with the World Trade Organization. We have a higher standard than we have to. Our laws ought to be changed to eliminate ``substantial cause'' to ``cause in fact.'' Secondly, this bill would change the existing law by not seeking an excuse where there are other factors which may result in the imports. A third part of the bill changes the definition of ``serious injury'' to include a consideration by the International Trade Commission of factors such as the rate and amount of increase of imports of the product, the market share taken by the increased imports, changes in level of sales, profits, losses, production, productivity, capacity, utilization, and employment. Stated succinctly, what we are seeking to do is to amend existing trade laws to conform to international rules of the World Trade Organization and GATT so that we may see to it that our own steel industry is not victimized by foreign imports and is not victimized by standards under our own trade laws, which are tougher and more stringent than international trade laws. We realize that in introducing this legislation today that it cannot be enacted before the end of the session. But we do want to make a point with the administration as to where we are heading in the future--a resolution which was introduced which has some 29 cosponsors in the U.S. Senate. The House of Representatives has a similar resolution. There are more than 100 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is our hope that the administration will provide some relief which will be fair, equitable, and just. In the absence of relief by the administration, then it will be necessary for the Congress to move ahead in a more forceful manner. I have introduced legislation over the past decade which calls for a private right of action, which I believe is the realistic answer, where an injured party could go into the Federal court and get injunctive relief which would be immediate. Under the trade actions which have been filed by the United Steelworkers and by quite a number of companies, filed on September 30, it is possible under a complicated timetable to grant relief effective as of November 20 where duties would be imposed to try to stop this flooding and this dumping in U.S. markets. In the interim, the President could act, and in the interim, the Congress ought to consider ways to amend our trade laws so that we are not at a disadvantage in dealing with this very serious problem to our steel industry, which is so important for national defense and domestic purposes, and so important for the steelworkers themselves where the number of steelworkers has declined from some 500,000 to 163,000 at the present time. It is an urgent matter. The Congress ought to consider it. The administration ought to act on it. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the adoption of legislation to bring fairness to our trade laws.