Arlen Specter

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. 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.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, next month our nation acknowledges the more than 4 million Americans who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and the 19 million who are their caregivers. National Alzheimer's month is a time to reflect on those who are afflicted as well as those who are dedicating their lives to eradicating this disease. I bring to your attention one of those who is committed to creating a world without Alzheimer's. His name is Dr. Steven DeKosky and since 1990, he has been an the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine where among other things, he directs the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. DeKosky's accomplishments are enormous as reflected in his curriculum vitae, which is some 36 pages long. If I tried to list all of his achievements it would fill dozens of pages of the Congressional Record. In the interests of the taxpayers, I'll mention only a few of Dr. DeKosky's contributions. As a renowned Alzheimer researcher, clinician and teacher, Dr. DeKosky is dedicated to finding answers to the Alzheimer's puzzle. To this end, he is active in basic and clinical research. His basic research is on the structural and neurochemical changes in human brains with dementia. His clinical research focuses on four key areas. One is to find ways of diagnosing the disease more effectively and differentiating it from other related diseases. A second area involves neuroimaging, which helps to confirm other diagnostic techniques, but also opens ``windows'' to the brain to enable scientists to understand the disease better. A third area of study, and one that is offering very exciting possibilities for treatment, is the assessment of genetic risk factors in Alzheimer's. Finally, he is involved in clinical trials to assess new medications for Alzheimer's disease. Dr. DeKosky is active in the American Academy of Neurology and the American Neurological Association. The latter organization honored him with its ``Presidential Award'' in 1988. He is listed in ``The Best Doctors in America.'' He serves on the editorial boards of the ``Archives of Neurology'' and the ``Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders: An International Journal.'' He also received a Teacher Investigator Development Award from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Despite his involvement in dozens of research projects and other academic pursuits, Dr. DeKosky contributes vast amounts of time as a volunteer to the Alzheimer cause. He currently chairs the national Alzheimer's Association's Medical and Scientific Advisory Council and is a member of the board of the Alzheimer's Association. He chairs the Professional Advisory Board of the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the Alzheimer's Association and was a founding member of the Lexington-Blue Grass Chapter of the Alzheimer's Association. Dr. DeKosky has a special gift as a communicator of science. Whether in the classroom or speaking to groups of family members in the community, Dr. DeKosky has a knack for making the complex seem simple. He expresses the enthusiasm and hope created by scientific research in Alzheimer's, which is offering promise to Americans of all ages that their future may not be blighted by this dread disease. And, he has a sense of humor and a healthy dose of humility, which allows him to ``connect'' to those to whom he speaks. Mr. President, I believe it is important to acknowledge the unsung heroes who are working tirelessly in laboratories and in the clinic to make our world less disease-prone. Dr. Steven DeKosky is one of those exemplary citizens who through his daily efforts is bringing about a better tomorrow.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with more that 4 million Americans suffering from Alzheimer's disease at a cost to our society of more than $100 billion annually, it is time we take a moment to reflect on the work of those who are dedicating their energies to helping do something about this terrible disease. One of those people is Ellen Berliner. Ms. Berliner, who lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, took care of her husband with Alzheimer's disease for 13 years. For those of us who have not been a caregiver for an Alzheimer patient, it is difficult to comprehend what the experience is like. It has been described as the ``36 hour day'' or the ``endless funeral'' because the demands are greater and more stressful than what most of us can deal with in a normal 24 hour day, and the losses and emotional strain are enormous. Ms. Berliner, like so many other Americans, stepped up to the challenge of caregiving and performed courageously out of love for her husband and her family. But, Ms. Berliner didn't stop there. Drawing on her pain and struggles as a caregiver, she decided to do something to help others. In 1988, she helped create the Greater Pittsburgh chapter of the Alzheimer's Association and became its founding Board President. In the past ten years, she has contributed more than 16,000 hours of volunteer service to the chapter and to the families in the greater Pittsburgh area. She has developed support groups and services to help families. She has been active in advocacy to help improve the policies that affect the lives of families and people suffering from Alzheimer's. And, she has stuffed envelopes and made phone calls to help raise the necessary funds to support the work of this important charity. Ms. Berliner has a long history of community service. In 1974 she co- founded the Women's Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh. The center, which provides a safe haven for battered women, was one of the first in the nation. For her work with battered women and for other community services, Ms. Berliner was nominated for the Jefferson Award of the American Institute for Public Service in 1992. In 1996, Ms. Berliner received the ``New Person Award'' given by the Thomas Merton Center for People Over 70. The award is given in appreciation of lifelong works for peace and social justice. Mr. President, I bring Ms. Berliner to the attention of this body because I believe we should shine a light on the good works of our citizens, heroic work really, that is done without personal gain and with no desire for public recognition. Our nation has grown strong because of people like Ellen Berliner who use their own time and resources to make life a little better for the rest of us. So, I say ``thank you'' to Ms. Ellen Berliner for helping the people of Pittsburgh deal with the devastation caused by Alzheimer's disease, and for being a role model to her peers and to future generations.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 5 minutes on the serious question of steel imports and introduce a piece of legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution Act of 1998, which authorizes the Secretary of Interior to enter into an agreement with the private, non- profit Valley Forge Historical Society to construct and operate this museum and visitor center within the boundaries of Valley Forge National Historical Park. I have worked closely with Congressman Weldon on this legislation, and the Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution Act included in the Omnibus National Parks and Public lands Act currently being considered in the House of Representatives. 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 George Washington's 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 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. Currently, there is no museum in the United States dedicated to the American Revolution, and I believe it is important that Congress provide the authorization to bring this worthwhile project to fruition. 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, this legislation holds enormous potential for visitors, scholars, and researchers to the park. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution Act of 1998, which authorizes the Secretary of Interior to enter into an agreement with the private, non- profit Valley Forge Historical Society to construct and operate this museum and visitor center within the boundaries of Valley Forge National Historical Park. I have worked closely with Congressman Weldon on this legislation, and the Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution Act included in the Omnibus National Parks and Public lands Act currently being considered in the House of Representatives. 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 George Washington's 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 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. Currently, there is no museum in the United States dedicated to the American Revolution, and I believe it is important that Congress provide the authorization to bring this worthwhile project to fruition. 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, this legislation holds enormous potential for visitors, scholars, and researchers to the park. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak briefly in support of the International Religious Freedom Act, which was introduced today. Mr. President, this follows some 2 years of effort. This legislation, first introduced by Congressman Frank Wolf in the House and then introduced by myself in the U.S. Senate, seeks to put the imprimatur of the United States of America squarely in opposition to the religious persecution that is going on around the world. Again, the efforts have continued for 2 years. Recently, because of certain objections to the tough sanctions imposed in the bill introduced by Congressman Wolf and myself, compromise legislation has been crafted with the leadership of Senator Nickles, Senator Lieberman, Senator Coats, with my participation, which strikes out at religious persecution around the world. Freedom of religion is a basic American value; perhaps along with freedom of speech, the basic American value; perhaps even more important than any other value expressed in our Bill of Rights, because freedom of religion is the first item mentioned in the Bill of Rights. We have seen around the world egregious religious persecution with clerics being mistreated in China; with individuals being sold into slavery in Sudan. My own observations and investigation in Saudi Arabia, illustratively where Christians cannot have a Christmas tree in their window if it can be viewed by the outside; where Jewish men and women in the fighting forces in Tent City--where we have some 5,000 American personnel protecting the Saudis in the midst of a desolate desert--those Jewish military personnel are afraid to wear their dog tags, their identification being just too risky. In the Egyptian press Congressman Wolf and I have been vilified and chastised for our efforts to fight against religious persecution around the world. You can judge people by their enemies as well as by their friends. It is a tribute of a sort--also a tribute of a source--to be so chastised for speaking out against religious persecution. The bill, which was introduced today, Senate bill 1868, candidly, does not go as far as this Senator would have liked. My own view is that religious persecution ought to be met by very forceful sanctions. But the message was clear and unequivocal that the President's administration would not sign legislation with tough sanctions. It is regrettable that the almighty dollar continues to rule American foreign policy, and has limited the strike and has limited the resistance to religious persecution that we have articulated around the world. It would have been better for human rights to have tougher sanctions; it would have been a better statement of American values on human rights and freedom of religion and better to stamp out religious persecution to have been quite a lot tougher. But the reality is that we are about to the end of the 105th Congress, a week from today. Congressman Wolf and I have pressed this stronger, tougher legislation for a lengthy period of time, and if no action is taken by the end of the congressional session, then I think that is a signal for open season for those who practice religious persecution to keep it up. What has been crafted here is a compromise. We haven't compromised the principle, but we have adhered to the principle of compromise in crafting the legislation. It takes a very significant first step with the declaration by the U.S. Government that religious persecution is not to be tolerated. We will monitor the results, and, if necessary, we will be back with further legislation. I think this is a significant step forward. I compliment Congressman Wolf for his diligence over a long period of time. I compliment Senator Nickles and Senator Lieberman for their craftsmanship of working out this compromise bill, along with our distinguished colleague, Senator Coats, who commented at a press briefing a few moments ago that as a final act on a very, very distinguished career in both the House and the Senate, this bill is something to be recommended. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the bill, to join as cosponsors, but to certainly pass it before we end the 105th Congress so that it becomes the law of the land and it will strike a real blow for religious freedom around the world. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I was happy to read a recent article in the Washington Jewish Week, Guide to Jewish Life in Washington, 1998-1999, about Morrie Amitay and his tireless work toward improving the bonds between the United States and Israel. I have known Morrie since my earliest days on Capitol Hill and have had the opportunity to witness many of his accomplishments. Morrie's career is indeed impressive. During his years at Harvard Law School, Morrie developed a strong interest in United States foreign policy. This led to a career with the U.S. Foreign Service, where he served the U.S. embassies in both Italy and South Africa. Morrie's talents were quickly noted and he was promoted rapidly. In 1969, Morrie turned his attention to Capitol Hill where he took a position as a legislative assistant in the House of Representatives. In 1974, while working as an aide for Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Morrie was instrumental in crafting the Jackson-Vanik Amendment--part of the Trade Act of 1974--which provided for an increase of Jewish immigrants from the then-religiously oppressive Soviet Union, into the United States. Another significant achievement of Morrie's was to become executive director of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. During Morrie's tenure at AIPAC, the political action committee grew to be one of the most successful interest groups in Washington, D.C. His current work involves educating the American Jewish community on defense issues, and also strengthening the strategic ties between the defense establishments of the United States and Israel. This important work is accomplished through his position as vice chairman at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Mr. President, I am privileged to be a friend of Morrie Amitay and I am proud to stand before you today and recognize his successful career. I offer congratulations to Morrie and best wishes for the future.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today Mr. S.W. ``Mel'' Melidosian is being recognized for his distinguished service in the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office and Insurance Center in Philadelphia, the place where much of his illustrious career has taken place. After an astounding 57 years of devoted service to our nation, this remarkable man continues to serve veterans and their families. I am certain that this august body will join me in commending Mr. Melidosian on this special day. Mr. Melidosian's service began in the Armed Services during World War II. From 1941 to 1946, he served as a U.S. Army Ordinance Management Officer at the European Theater Headquarters and on the faculty of the Ordnance School. From 1951 to 1953, he served at the U.S. Army Logistics Command, Korea and at the U.S. Army Frankford Arsenal. He began serving veterans at the Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) in 1946 in the Insurance Service but was recalled to active duty in Korea. In 1953, he resumed his VA job and in 1959, he was appointed Deputy Chief Insurance Director. From 1961 to 1984, he served as Director of the VA Regional Office and Insurance Center in Philadelphia, where he was instrumental in the installation of VA's first computer system for the Life Insurance Programs; consolidation of VA Regional Offices and Insurance Offices; creation of the Executive Program ``Leadership VA''; and test site development of the VA Compensation & Pension on-line computer system ``TARGET.'' Mr. Melidosian has received many awards, including the Presidential Rank Award of ``Distinguished Executive.'' He has been continually active in the government and the community as a lecturer and chairman or member of numerous boards and commissions. I extend my best wishes to Mr. Melidosian for his service to our Nation's veterans and for his continued health.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation creating a Valley Forge National Cemetery and calling on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to determine the feasibility of a national cemetery in southwestern Pennsylvania. This legislation specifically authorizes the Department of the Interior to transfer a portion of the Valley Forge National Historic Park to the Department of Veterans Affairs for establishment of a Valley Forge National Cemetery in Southeastern Pennsylvania. This new cemetery will be constructed and operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Cemetery System (NCS). The NCS was established by Congress and approved by President Lincoln in 1862 to provide for the proper burial and registration of graves of Civil War soldiers. The NCS currently operates 115 cemeteries throughout the nation and in Puerto Rico. Since its establishment, the National Cemetery System has been fulfilling one of our nation's most solemn obligations; it has provided for the proper burial of our nation's veterans. This mission is perhaps more important today than it has been in the entire history of the NCS. The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in a September 1997 report that the numbers of veteran deaths and interments performed by NCS continue to grow each year and are projected to peak between 2005 and 2010. This expected increase in workload has been reiterated by Mr. Roger Rapp, Acting Director of the National Cemetery System, at an April 29, 1998 hearing before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Benefits. According to Mr. Rapp, annual veteran deaths are expected to peak in 2008. With the fifth largest 65 and older veteran population in the country, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania faces many challenges in fulfilling the nation's solemn obligation to its deceased veterans and their families. Striving to meet these challenges, the NCS operates two Pennsylvania national cemeteries: Indiantown Gap National Cemetery and the Philadelphia National Cemetery. The Indiantown Gap National Cemetery is a 677-acre cemetery, which opened in 1982 and is expected to remain open until 2030 under estimated rates of interment. The Philadelphia National Cemetery opened in 1885 with 13 acres, reached casket capacity in 1962 and is expected to reach cremation capacity in 1999. A Valley Forge National Cemetery would provide the Philadelphia area with new gravesites and alleviate the need for families to travel over two hours to the Indiantown Gap National Cemetery. I am informed that the land to be transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs does not contain any historical markers and is a suitable site for such an important facility. Also, there is no national cemetery in the southern or western parts of Pennsylvania, where the veteran population is heavy. In an effort to address the burial needs of these veterans, I have included a provision in the Senate legislation requiring the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs within 90 days of enactment on the feasibility of establishing and operating a national cemetery in Southwestern Pennsylvania. The House legislation, H.R. 4365, introduced by my good friend, Congressman Jon Fox, is co-sponsored by the entire Pennsylvania delegation. I join my House colleagues in introducing this legislation for consideration in the Senate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation creating a Valley Forge National Cemetery and calling on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to determine the feasibility of a national cemetery in southwestern Pennsylvania. This legislation specifically authorizes the Department of the Interior to transfer a portion of the Valley Forge National Historic Park to the Department of Veterans Affairs for establishment of a Valley Forge National Cemetery in Southeastern Pennsylvania. This new cemetery will be constructed and operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Cemetery System (NCS). The NCS was established by Congress and approved by President Lincoln in 1862 to provide for the proper burial and registration of graves of Civil War soldiers. The NCS currently operates 115 cemeteries throughout the nation and in Puerto Rico. Since its establishment, the National Cemetery System has been fulfilling one of our nation's most solemn obligations; it has provided for the proper burial of our nation's veterans. This mission is perhaps more important today than it has been in the entire history of the NCS. The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in a September 1997 report that the numbers of veteran deaths and interments performed by NCS continue to grow each year and are projected to peak between 2005 and 2010. This expected increase in workload has been reiterated by Mr. Roger Rapp, Acting Director of the National Cemetery System, at an April 29, 1998 hearing before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Benefits. According to Mr. Rapp, annual veteran deaths are expected to peak in 2008. With the fifth largest 65 and older veteran population in the country, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania faces many challenges in fulfilling the nation's solemn obligation to its deceased veterans and their families. Striving to meet these challenges, the NCS operates two Pennsylvania national cemeteries: Indiantown Gap National Cemetery and the Philadelphia National Cemetery. The Indiantown Gap National Cemetery is a 677-acre cemetery, which opened in 1982 and is expected to remain open until 2030 under estimated rates of interment. The Philadelphia National Cemetery opened in 1885 with 13 acres, reached casket capacity in 1962 and is expected to reach cremation capacity in 1999. A Valley Forge National Cemetery would provide the Philadelphia area with new gravesites and alleviate the need for families to travel over two hours to the Indiantown Gap National Cemetery. I am informed that the land to be transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs does not contain any historical markers and is a suitable site for such an important facility. Also, there is no national cemetery in the southern or western parts of Pennsylvania, where the veteran population is heavy. In an effort to address the burial needs of these veterans, I have included a provision in the Senate legislation requiring the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs within 90 days of enactment on the feasibility of establishing and operating a national cemetery in Southwestern Pennsylvania. The House legislation, H.R. 4365, introduced by my good friend, Congressman Jon Fox, is co-sponsored by the entire Pennsylvania delegation. I join my House colleagues in introducing this legislation for consideration in the Senate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address my colleague, Chairman Stevens, concerning funding for a ship disposal initiative in the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Appropriations Act. At my request, funds were provided in the Senate bill for this program and I'm pleased to note that the conference report has preserved the Senate funding level of $7.5 million. This initiative has been crafted to address the Department of Defense Interagency Ship Scrapping Review Panel's recommendations for a pilot program. It was my understanding that the $7.5 million provided under Operation & Maintenance for a ship disposal initiative would be used to implement a demonstration project at the Navy's only two fresh water reserve basins, where more than 300,000 tons of ships slated for scrapping are stored, and that these funds will be distributed evenly between the two sites--the Delaware River and the James River--for the first year of this demonstration project. Earlier this year, I spoke with Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell and officials of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation regarding their needs as we move ahead on revitalizing the Philadelphia Navy Shipyard. A key element of their plan is to demonstrate a ship scrapping project that assures responsible environmental health and safety management while reducing government costs for managing decommissioned ships.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to offer a bipartisan Senate concurrent resolution addressing the current steel import crisis, which has been brought about due to the Asian and Russian financial crisis. On Thursday, September 10, 1998, as chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, I joined Congressman Regula in convening a joint meeting of the Senate and House Steel Caucus with executives from a number of the nation's largest steel manufacturers and members of the United Steelworkers of America to learn more about the current influx of imported steel into the United States. At that meeting, I expressed my profound concern regarding the impact of our steel companies and steelworkers of the current financial crisis in Asia and Russia, which have generated surges in U.S. imports of Asian and Russian steel. According to the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), 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. As Hank Barnette, Chief Executive Officer of Bethlehem Steel, wrote 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, which enormous subsidies to foreign steel producers have continued. As one example, Mr. Barnette cited the Commerce Department's recent 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 plate steel, which 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 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 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, 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. We have many of the tools we need at our disposal to protect our steel industry from unfair and illegally dumped steel, and we must act now. At the caucus meeting, I noted my intention to once again seek enactment of my longstanding proposal to establish a private legal right of action for aggrieved steel companies and steelworkers where they can prove harm caused by illegal dumping of foreign goods. This resolution calls on the President to take all necessary measures to respond to the surge of steel imports resulting from the Asian and Russian financial crisis. Specifically, the attached resolution calls 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. 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. This resolution is essential to respond promptly to the current steel import crisis and prevent the loss of thousands of high-paying jobs in the steel industry. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting adoption of this resolution.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that accurately states our agreement. For technical reasons, I will withdraw the amendment and it will become a part of the bill as if voted on and passed as part of the managers' package. I concur with what my colleague just articulated.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 3645 (Purpose: To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide for the recovery of non-pecuniary damages in commercial aviation suits) Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, Senator Lott and myself, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment clarifies the 1920 shipping law known as the Death on the High Seas Act which has been interpreted to prohibit families of victims, such as those who were on TWA Flight 800, from seeking relief for other than pecuniary damages. This amendment is a modification of Senate bill 943 which I had introduced earlier with the following cosponsors Senators Santorum, D'Amato, Lautenberg, Inhofe, Gramm of Texas, Hutchison of Texas, Moynihan, Wellstone, Dodd, Feinstein, Torricelli, Murray, Durbin, Moseley-Braun, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Robb and Levin. We have not had an opportunity to circulate this amendment, but I do think it would have very broad support since those cosponsors supported the broader legislative proposal contained in Senate bill 943. Mr. President, we are submitting this compromise amendment in order to move ahead to obtain some possible compensation for damages beyond pecuniary damages. Specifically, the families of victims of plane crashes more than 3 miles off our shores will be able to sue not only for economic losses such as the lost salary of a deceased spouse, but also for non-economic losses such as loss of companionship, loss of care, and loss of comfort. The amendment provides that a court can make an award for nonpecuniary damages which shall not exceed the greater of the pecuniary loss sustained or a total of $750,000 per victim. This amendment is retroactive to the crash of TWA 800, which tragically took 230 lives on July 17, 1996. The hardest hit community in the TWA 800 crash was Montoursville, PA, which lost 16 students and 5 adult chaperones from the local high school who were participating in a long-awaited French club trip to France. It was the parents of some of these children who first contacted our office about introducing legislation to allow them to seek compensation other than for pecuniary losses, which they believed courts would not provide. Mr. President, under this amendment, the loss for noneconomic damages will be the greater of the pecuniary loss sustained for a total of $750,000 per victim. Illustratively, if the pecuniary loss to an individual was $1 million, then that individual could obtain $1 million for nonpecuniary damages. But if the pecuniary damages are less than $750,000, the maximum that an individual can take would be $750,000. I offer this amendment, Mr. President, to make the best of what I consider to be a less-than-desirable situation. I am philosophically strongly opposed to caps on damages. I believe that there is very substantial evidence that corporate America has disregarded damages to victims on a calculated pecuniary evaluation as to what will cost them the least money. Illustrative of that is the famous Pinto case where Ford decided to leave the gas tank in the back of the car because it would cost $11 or $12 to move it to a safe position; and there was a calculation, as disclosed in the files of the Ford Motor Company, that that judgment was made because it would be cheaper to pay the damages than it would be to change the location of the gas tank. I have some detailed knowledge of recent litigation involving Ford Motor Company where there was a defective brake at issue. It was acknowledged to be defective and the National Transportation Safety Board said it was defective, and there were efforts made to get Ford to recall it, but Ford did not recall it, again, obviously, because the costs they calculated would be less onerous from a financial point of view to allow that danger to remain. A young child aged 3 was killed as a result of that incident. And there are many, many cases--case after case--the tobacco cases, which were recently illustrative, where there is a calculation made by the corporation to give false information for pecuniary gain, which would warrant punitive damages; cases involving IUDs where there were known defective instrumentalities; cases involving flammable pajamas where children were burned; many, many cases which have led me to conclude that there really ought not to be caps. I have had some experience as a litigator, mostly on the defense side, some for claimants for personal injuries, but mostly on the defense side with the firm of Barnes, Dechert, Price and Rhoads, later known as Dechert, Price and Rhoads of Philadelphia, and have seen this issue from both sides of the fence. But it is not possible to move ahead on the FAA reauthorization bill, which is an appropriate spot to have this aviation amendment, without tying up this important legislation. We have had a series of meetings with interested parties and had an amendment to the Death on the High Seas Act been enacted which would have had unlimited damages, there was the announced intent to filibuster the bill. However, the pending FAA bill really needs to be enacted because it contains very substantial money for airport construction across my State of Pennsylvania and throughout America. So this is a compromise which can be worked out. The figure moved from $250,000 for nonpecuniary damages to $600,000, to the greater of the pecuniary loss or $750,000. I think that the figure is too low as it stands now, but this is the best that can be obtained today. I would note that in offering this amendment today, I make the pledge that if we fail to remove them in Conference on the FAA bill, I will introduce legislation in the next Congress to take the caps off because I think one day there will be a Congress which will be sympathetic to eliminating such caps. When there was a threat of a filibuster, that was on the basis that a Death on the High Seas Act amendment might be enacted without any cap at all. The whole issue of product liability is a complex issue. And there are some who think that it ought to be curtailed to some substantial extent and others who think that it ought not to be curtailed. But this does advance the position of families of individuals who have met with tragic death. And it is not uncommon in our Congress and our U.S. Senate that we reach compromises and live to fight another day to push the principles that we believe in. But this is the best that can be done. In conversations with my constituents and interested parties there is, I think, a sense that this is a desirable consequence today, the $750,000 in noneconomic damages, and that we will look to another day to try to remove the caps altogether. I want to comment briefly about what I consider to be a very serious potential problem for the Senate procedurally on what has occurred in this matter with respect to what amendments are in order under our rules and what notification Senators like me receive on that matter. It was well known by all of the interested Senators--the majority leader's office, the managers of the bill, and others--that an amendment on Death on the High Seas would be offered. Then there was a unanimous consent request where the matters that could be presented were limited. At that time, the technical consideration was raised as to what was a relevant amendment, which challenged the ingenuity of the Parliamentarian as to what is relevant in technical Senate rules. Had there been any doubt in my mind that this amendment was to be challenged on the basis of relevance, and all the interested parties knew what it was, it would be a relatively simple matter for me as a Senator having a right to object to a unanimous consent agreement and to have this specific amendment protected so that I would not face a technical challenge on relevancy. I brought that issue to the attention of the distinguished majority leader and said if we were starting to parse semicolons in this body we would have to have a lot of Senators on the floor to protect their interests on unanimous consent agreements, because it was plain that this amendment was to be offered. Our distinguished majority leader thought my point was well taken. Thereafter, there was another unanimous consent agreement entered into on the floor of the Senate without ``hotlining''--and I don't know that anybody listening to C-SPAN2 cares about it, but the Senators do care--and hotlining is a procedure where Senators' offices are called and told this unanimous consent agreement is to be entered into, which is more than an announcement on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which may be noted or may not be noted. This Senator did not have notice about a limitation on the amendments which were to be limited in the FAA bill under the unanimous consent agreement. Here again, all the parties were on notice that this was an issue which this Senator intended to pursue. Now, I have made it plain in my discussions with the interested parties and the majority leader that I understood the importance of this FAA bill, that I would not take steps which would tie the bill up and that I was prepared to try to reach an acceptable compromise as to a figure on noneconomic damages. However, this experience has taught me something new. From what I have seen in the Senate up to this point, there is a recognition of what Senators intend to offer and there is notification so that Senators can appear and protect their technical interests. I am not claiming it is prejudice because, as I repeat, I was prepared to accept this compromise. But to be put in a position where, had I chosen not to do so, to have been foreclosed under these circumstances, I think, would have been an inappropriate limitation on my rights to offer a broader amendment. If I must take the position of filing an objection to every unanimous consent agreement, that is an alternative that I would not like. But, that may be necessary if we are not to have our interests protected and to be notified where our interests are known--to come and make sure our amendments can be offered. I speak about that at some great length because I am very concerned about what has happened in this case. I cannot be more emphatic in saying I disapprove of the procedures which were followed here. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for those kind remarks. I thank him for saying the Senator from Pennsylvania has done a good job. If I can attract the attention of the Senator from Washington, I think he has done even a better job. He and I were elected in 1980 and have served in this body for some considerable period of time, and we are lawyers. It may be unwise to make that kind of admission publicly on C-SPAN2, but we are lawyers. We have many discussions and we agree most of the time. I heard Don Meredith, the legendary quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys, make a comment about lawyers one day. He said, ``99 percent of the lawyers give the rest of them a bad name.'' Senator Domenici, who is listening, is also a lawyer and, with some frequency, he disagrees with the legal profession. We will continue to take up these issues. This is the conclusion for today. The bill will now go to conference and, in conference, on the House side there has been a decision that the Death on the High Seas Act should not apply to any aircraft accidents. It should apply only to other instrumentalities, but not to airplanes. That will be a matter for conference. If the House should prevail, then the objectives of this Senator would have been accomplished because there would be no limitation on damages because the Act would be inapplicable to airline crashes. With respect to the TWA 800 incident, it ought to be noted that the federal district court, the trial court, has recently ruled that the limitation of the Death on the High Seas Act does not apply because, while it was outside of 3 miles, it was within 12 miles, and a certain action by President Reagan extended that definition of our waters to a 12-mile limit. But that hasn't been ruled upon by the court of appeals, nor by the Supreme Court. So that district court judge's ruling may change. There are issues that are yet to be resolved in conference and also in the courts on this matter. In conclusion, I think we have advanced the matter. It is in accordance with the traditions of the Senate to try to reach an accommodation and move the legislation forward and reenter the fray and rejoin the issue at a later date. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for those comments. He has done an outstanding job as chairman of the Commerce Committee on this bill and on other matters. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to express the view that Congress should make our inquiry into possible impeachment of President Clinton as bipartisan as possible, nonpartisan, fair, and judicious. There is an abundance of evidence that the American people deplore excessive partisanship in general and oppose any kind of partisanship where we are dealing with a matter which is judicial or quasi-judicial. I recall an admonition from my father years ago. When in a partnership situation he said, ``Arlen, don't make it 50/50; give 60 percent. It will look like 50 percent to your partner. If you give 50 percent, it will look like 40 percent.'' That bit of advice which my father gave me as to a partnership arrangement, I think, is applicable to relationships or arrangements of many kinds. I think it is very important that there be a real effort on the part of Republicans, because we Republicans are in control, to not press for every bit of advantage. I believe that the proceedings in the House were off to a good start when there was a vote of 363-33 to release the Starr report, with about two-thirds of the Democrats voting in favor of a release of the report. It seems to me where we have a proceeding like impeachment, which is really judicial, that it ought to be bipartisan or nonpartisan. With respect to the playing of the tapes of President Clinton, it has been my preference that the approach be somewhat different from that which was undertaken by the House of Representatives. The playing of those tapes, I think, would have been subject to no criticism at all had the House moved ahead with an impeachment inquiry, either in a preliminary stage or after the signing in a more formalistic sense to have impeachment hearings. Then it would have been in the regular course of business in regular order to see the tape of the President so that the Members of the House could make an evaluation of the evidence as to what to do next. Then where those hearings would be public, with the availability of the President's tape, his deposition before the grand jury would have come into the public domain in a matter of due course, and then as a regular proceeding with the hearings of the House of Representatives so that the House would have obviated the controversy and the concern of whether there was an inappropriate release of the President's tapes. Once the hearings start, even in a preliminary sense, the House Members have an obligation to see what the evidence is. Similarly, with the release of other evidence, such as the testimony of Ms. Monica Lewinsky yesterday, that testimony is appropriate in regular course, but there is bound to be some concern raised when it is released en masse and not as a part of a regular proceeding by the House of Representatives. From my days as district attorney of Philadelphia, which was a quasi- judicial position, a district attorney--a public prosecutor--is part advocate and part judge. The expression is made as to the district attorney being a quasi-judicial official. I found it very important in the cases which I tried personally and in the administration of the office to exercise great care to be fair with the defense, both in terms of proceedings generally and in the presentation of evidence at trial. The juries in a criminal case, like public opinion generally, have a sense as to fairness, and it builds up, I found, the credibility of the prosecutor not to be looking for every slight advantage in the course of either investigation or trial. The impeachment proceedings, it seems to me, are really totally judicial in nature. The articles of impeachment have been analogized to a bill of indictment, but I think they are not really a bill of indictment in a criminal proceeding; or it may be argued that a bill of indictment before a grand jury is judicial in nature. However, I hope that when we in the Congress vote in this body, when responsibilities come to the Senate, or in the other body, the House of Representatives, that there will be an approach which is bipartisan and nonpartisan. We are proceeding in a matter of the utmost, utmost gravity, the potential for impeachment of the President of the United States, and I think the American people will demand and are entitled to that kind of bipartisanship. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor the memory of Senator John Heinz by designating the Veterans Medical facility in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, as the H. John Heinz III Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Recognition of the distinguished work of Senator Heinz has been memorialized in a variety of ways. This designation of the Veterans Center pays tribute to his outstanding work for America's veterans. Senator Heinz, a veteran himself, made many contributions to this nation and to America's veterans. H. John Heinz III was born on October 23, 1938 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. While he grew up in San Francisco, California, he spent many summers in Pittsburgh with his father who was chairman of the H.J. Heinz Company founded in 1869 by the Senator's great-grandfather. John graduated from Yale University with honors in 1960 and piloted a single-engine plane through Africa and the Middle East, ending up in Sydney, Australia working as a salesman for a truck company. He entered Harvard Business School in 1961 and the following year worked for the summer with the Union Bank of Switzerland in Geneva. While in Switzerland he met his future wife, Teresa Simoes Ferreira, who was attending graduate school in Geneva. He received his Master's degree in Business Administration from Harvard in 1963. After enlisting in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, John Heinz served on active duty in 1963 at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. For the remainder of his enlistment, he served with the 911th Troop Carrier Group based at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport. As an Airman Third Class, he received a U.S. Department of Defense citation for suggestions to improve the management of parts and supplies, saving the Air Force $400,000 annually. With the rank of staff sergeant, he received an honorable discharge from the Air Force Reserves in 1969. In 1964, John Heinz served as a special assistant to Senator Hugh Scott (R-PA) in Washington, D.C. and as assistant campaign manager in Senator Scott's successful reelection bid. Returning to Pittsburgh, he was employed in the financial and marketing divisions of the H.J. Heinz Company from 1965 to 1970. He married Teresa in 1966, and they subsequently had three sons: Henry John IV, Andre, and Christopher. He taught at the Graduate School of Industrial Administration at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh during the 1970-71 academic year. Senator Heinz was a stalwart of the Republican Party, contributing generously of his time, talents and efforts by campaigning for others. He was active in the campaigns of Governor William Scranton for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1964, Judge Maurice B. Cohill for Juvenile Court in 1965, Richard L. Thornburgh for Congress in 1966, Robert Friend for County Controller in 1967, and John Tabor for Mayor in 1969. He chaired the Pennsylvania Republican platform committee hearings in 1968, won election as a delegate at the Republican National Convention in the same year (and again in 1972, 1976, and 1980), and chaired the Pennsylvania Republican State Platform Committee in 1970. Upon the sudden death in April 1971 of Congressman Robert J. Corbett (R-PA), John Heinz pursued the unexpired term and won, making him the youngest Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives at 33 years old. In November 1972 and 1974, John Heinz was re-elected to the House. When Senator Hugh Scott announced his retirement in December 1975, Senator Heinz, George Packer and I ran for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in the April 1976 primary. After Senator Heinz won that primary contest, I endorsed him at a major rally in September 1976 in Delaware County at the kick off of his campaign in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Senator Heinz defeated Congressman William J. Green III and took his seat in the United States Senate on January 3, 1977. In his capacity as Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Heinz gave me tremendous support and was instrumental in my election to the United States Senate in November 1980. Thereafter, Senator Heinz and I established a very close friendship and working relationship. Although I cannot personally attest to all other Senate relationships, I believe that our cooperation and coordination was as close as any two Senators from the same state in the Senate's history. When one of us was unable to attend a specific event, the other was always ready, willing and able to take his place. We discussed the pending international, national and state issues incessantly. On the late night sessions, and there were many, I would drive John home in my aging Jaguar leaving him off in the alley behind his home in Georgetown. On one occasion in 1982 we had a lengthy discussion about the upcoming vote the next day on a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I laid out my reasons for opposing the amendment and John gave me his reasons for supporting it. I found his arguments so persuasive that I voted for the constitutional amendment for the balanced budget the next day. I was surprised to find that he voted against it. We had a good laugh on that exchange of views and our reciprocal change of positions. Senator Heinz and I made it a practice to inform and invite the other to all of our events. On April 3, 1991, our paths crossed in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where he had scheduled a meeting with a group of doctors. I accepted his invitation and recall his warm greeting when Joan and I arrived to join the discussion. He kissed Joan on the cheek and joked with me about calling her ``blondie.'' We parted that day and that was the last time I saw John Heinz because he had the fatal air crash the next day, April 4, 1991, in a small plane from Williamsport, Pennsylvania, to Philadelphia. Senator Heinz was an extraordinary man and a great Senator. The designation of the Veterans Medical Center in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, is an appropriate additional tribute to his memory. Senator Heinz' work on behalf of the citizens of Pennsylvania, young and old, will long be remembered. He was a tireless advocate for seniors, working to ensure the long-term viability of the Social Security system. He fought to protect Medicare and Medicaid patients. He authored the Age Discrimination and Employment Amendments of 1985, protecting the employment rights of our nation's seniors. He authored a bill to strengthen the U.S. job training program for displaced veterans in the work force. For military families, he worked to ensure that the children of service members were adequately cared for. He worked on behalf of U.S. workers and businesses in an increasingly international marketplace. He also played an important role in ensuring appropriate environmental protections in Pennsylvania and across the nation. John Heinz had a remarkable career of public service. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I ask my colleagues to support this measure naming the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, after our departed colleague, Senator H. John Heinz III. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to honor the memory of Senator John Heinz by designating the Veterans Medical facility in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, as the H. John Heinz III Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Recognition of the distinguished work of Senator Heinz has been memorialized in a variety of ways. This designation of the Veterans Center pays tribute to his outstanding work for America's veterans. Senator Heinz, a veteran himself, made many contributions to this nation and to America's veterans. H. John Heinz III was born on October 23, 1938 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. While he grew up in San Francisco, California, he spent many summers in Pittsburgh with his father who was chairman of the H.J. Heinz Company founded in 1869 by the Senator's great-grandfather. John graduated from Yale University with honors in 1960 and piloted a single-engine plane through Africa and the Middle East, ending up in Sydney, Australia working as a salesman for a truck company. He entered Harvard Business School in 1961 and the following year worked for the summer with the Union Bank of Switzerland in Geneva. While in Switzerland he met his future wife, Teresa Simoes Ferreira, who was attending graduate school in Geneva. He received his Master's degree in Business Administration from Harvard in 1963. After enlisting in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, John Heinz served on active duty in 1963 at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. For the remainder of his enlistment, he served with the 911th Troop Carrier Group based at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport. As an Airman Third Class, he received a U.S. Department of Defense citation for suggestions to improve the management of parts and supplies, saving the Air Force $400,000 annually. With the rank of staff sergeant, he received an honorable discharge from the Air Force Reserves in 1969. In 1964, John Heinz served as a special assistant to Senator Hugh Scott (R-PA) in Washington, D.C. and as assistant campaign manager in Senator Scott's successful reelection bid. Returning to Pittsburgh, he was employed in the financial and marketing divisions of the H.J. Heinz Company from 1965 to 1970. He married Teresa in 1966, and they subsequently had three sons: Henry John IV, Andre, and Christopher. He taught at the Graduate School of Industrial Administration at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh during the 1970-71 academic year. Senator Heinz was a stalwart of the Republican Party, contributing generously of his time, talents and efforts by campaigning for others. He was active in the campaigns of Governor William Scranton for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1964, Judge Maurice B. Cohill for Juvenile Court in 1965, Richard L. Thornburgh for Congress in 1966, Robert Friend for County Controller in 1967, and John Tabor for Mayor in 1969. He chaired the Pennsylvania Republican platform committee hearings in 1968, won election as a delegate at the Republican National Convention in the same year (and again in 1972, 1976, and 1980), and chaired the Pennsylvania Republican State Platform Committee in 1970. Upon the sudden death in April 1971 of Congressman Robert J. Corbett (R-PA), John Heinz pursued the unexpired term and won, making him the youngest Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives at 33 years old. In November 1972 and 1974, John Heinz was re-elected to the House. When Senator Hugh Scott announced his retirement in December 1975, Senator Heinz, George Packer and I ran for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in the April 1976 primary. After Senator Heinz won that primary contest, I endorsed him at a major rally in September 1976 in Delaware County at the kick off of his campaign in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Senator Heinz defeated Congressman William J. Green III and took his seat in the United States Senate on January 3, 1977. In his capacity as Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Heinz gave me tremendous support and was instrumental in my election to the United States Senate in November 1980. Thereafter, Senator Heinz and I established a very close friendship and working relationship. Although I cannot personally attest to all other Senate relationships, I believe that our cooperation and coordination was as close as any two Senators from the same state in the Senate's history. When one of us was unable to attend a specific event, the other was always ready, willing and able to take his place. We discussed the pending international, national and state issues incessantly. On the late night sessions, and there were many, I would drive John home in my aging Jaguar leaving him off in the alley behind his home in Georgetown. On one occasion in 1982 we had a lengthy discussion about the upcoming vote the next day on a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I laid out my reasons for opposing the amendment and John gave me his reasons for supporting it. I found his arguments so persuasive that I voted for the constitutional amendment for the balanced budget the next day. I was surprised to find that he voted against it. We had a good laugh on that exchange of views and our reciprocal change of positions. Senator Heinz and I made it a practice to inform and invite the other to all of our events. On April 3, 1991, our paths crossed in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where he had scheduled a meeting with a group of doctors. I accepted his invitation and recall his warm greeting when Joan and I arrived to join the discussion. He kissed Joan on the cheek and joked with me about calling her ``blondie.'' We parted that day and that was the last time I saw John Heinz because he had the fatal air crash the next day, April 4, 1991, in a small plane from Williamsport, Pennsylvania, to Philadelphia. Senator Heinz was an extraordinary man and a great Senator. The designation of the Veterans Medical Center in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, is an appropriate additional tribute to his memory. Senator Heinz' work on behalf of the citizens of Pennsylvania, young and old, will long be remembered. He was a tireless advocate for seniors, working to ensure the long-term viability of the Social Security system. He fought to protect Medicare and Medicaid patients. He authored the Age Discrimination and Employment Amendments of 1985, protecting the employment rights of our nation's seniors. He authored a bill to strengthen the U.S. job training program for displaced veterans in the work force. For military families, he worked to ensure that the children of service members were adequately cared for. He worked on behalf of U.S. workers and businesses in an increasingly international marketplace. He also played an important role in ensuring appropriate environmental protections in Pennsylvania and across the nation. John Heinz had a remarkable career of public service. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I ask my colleagues to support this measure naming the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Aspinwall, Pennsylvania, after our departed colleague, Senator H. John Heinz III. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the D'Amato amendment to limit fees charged by financial institutions for the use of automatic teller machines is a very close question, in my opinion, because it pits the consumer's interest in avoiding potentially excessive bank charges against existing market forces where ATM machines provide significant convenience for the depositor's access to cash. On this state of the record, I do not believe that there has been a showing of excessive charges on the part of the banks. This issue might well be revisited in the Banking Committee with hearings, as opposed to being a floor amendment on this bill where the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, did not have the benefit of an evidentiary record on the issue of excessive charges. On the other hand, I do believe that there is substantial benefit and convenience to the consumer who has access to a cash withdrawal, far from home, at unusual hours and under circumstances where it is a significant convenience to be able to get the cash. I know that when I go to a convenience store, for example, to buy milk, and pay a higher price, I dislike it; but I am mindful of the fact that it is late at night or I don't have to stand in a long line in a supermarket or it is on my way home. So, I grin and bear the somewhat higher charge. In addition, there may be substantial merit to the contention that if the Congress acts to affect the market on this issue that the ATM machines will not be available or may be very few in number to reduce this convenience. Accordingly, on this state of the record, on a very close question, I am voting against the D'Amato amendment.