Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the calls for Mr. Ken Starr to end his investigation and to urge the public and the media to give Mr. Starr an opportunity to finish his work, to put the issue on the back burner, to accord the President the presumption of innocence, to accord the same presumption to Mr. Starr-- put the matter on the back burner so that we can focus on the pressing problems of Iraq, the budget, the highway bill and the other important matters to come before the Government. There has been much questioning of why Ken Starr has taken so long on the investigation of the Whitewater matter and how he has jurisdiction over the incident involving Ms. Monica Lewinsky. There has not been an explanation, to the best of my knowledge, as to the activities of Mr. Starr which have been expanded so substantially and the kind of delays which have necessarily been involved in the work of independent counsel, something that I understand, having been district attorney of Philadelphia and having run a number of grand jury investigations. People wonder why Mr. Starr has moved from Whitewater to Ms. Lewinsky. The fact of the matter is that he has done so at the specific request of Attorney General Reno. We know how circumspect Attorney General Reno has been with the appointment of independent counsel. But he was asked to do so because matters came to light which suggested a connection with the way that Mr. Webster Hubble was offered employment outside of the District of Columbia, arranged by a certain individual with a certain firm outside of Washington, DC, and then the same offer was made to Ms. Lewinsky. When these matters were called to the attention of Attorney General Reno, she asked Mr. Starr to expand his jurisdiction. But that was not the first call for the expansion of Ken Starr's jurisdiction. He was appointed as independent counsel on August 5, 1994, to take over the investigation which had been conducted by independent counsel Robert Fiske which involved the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan matter which resulted in the conviction of three individuals, including the former Governor of Arkansas, Governor Tucker, and all aspects, including the alleged multimillion dollar fraudulent bankruptcy engaged in, again, by former Governor Tucker and two other individuals. Mr. Starr's jurisdiction was then expanded on May 22 of 1996 to investigate possible violations of Federal criminal law concerning the firing of White House Travel Office employees, a major investigation. Then another expansion of Mr. Starr's jurisdiction occurred on June 21, 1996, when he was asked to take over the investigation relating to matters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports for background investigations being turned over to the White House between December 1993 and February 1994, another highly controversial and complex matter. A third occasion was brought about where, again, Mr. Starr was asked to expand his jurisdiction on October 25, 1996, to determine whether White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum had violated Federal law before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. A fourth expansion of Mr. Starr's jurisdiction occurred on January 29 when he was asked to take a look at the issue as to whether Ms. Monica Lewinsky had suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses or otherwise violated Federal law. If you take a look at just one item on the agenda of what Mr. Starr has had, and that is the investigation of former Governor Jim Guy Tucker, that matter occurred on his jurisdiction on September 2, 1994, when the Department of Justice confirmed Mr. Starr's jurisdiction. On June 7, 1995, the Little Rock grand jury returned a three-count indictment against Governor Tucker. On September 5, 1995, the district court dismissed the indictment. Then it was not until December 12, 1995, that Mr. Starr argued the matter before the eighth circuit asking that the indictment be reinstated and that the judge be removed. On March 5, 1996, the Eighth Circuit reinstated the indictment and dismissed the judge. Between March and October of 1996, Governor Tucker and two other defendants took appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, which were not denied until October 7, 1996. On October 22, the case was assigned to another judge. The trial date was set on October 21 and an application for continuance was filed by Governor Tucker on October 31, and it was granted until March 17. Because of the limitation of time, I ask unanimous consent that the full chronology be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there have been frequent misunderstandings, as matters have been reported, one as recently as Senator Lott's--our distinguished majority leader--comments over the weekend talk shows with his statement about Mr. Starr ending his investigation being taken entirely out of context, something that Senator Lott has explained. Several weeks ago, I made a comment that I thought Attorney General Reno erred in appointing Mr. Starr to the Lewinsky matter because the American public would not understand why he was on the President's personal affairs after having started on Whitewater. No criticism at all of Mr. Starr, but it was my view that Mr. Starr would become a lightning rod for the investigation, taking focus away from the real subjects of the investigations. My comments were interpreted to be critical of Mr. Starr, which they, in fact, were not. I think it is true that Mr. Starr has not run a perfect investigation, and I commented publicly that it is not easy in the course of one of these complex matters, again relating to my own experience in operating grand juries as district attorney, when he brought before the grand jury certain witnesses on obstruction-of- justice charges, which seemed to me to be a misreading of the statute. But one thing that must be remembered is that the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno, has full authority to remove Mr. Starr or to limit his activities if she chooses to do so. In fact, her superior, the President of the United States, has the authority to order the removal of Mr. Starr, not saying he would do so in the light of our experience with the ``Saturday Night Massacre.'' But the Attorney General of the United States does supervise what is going on here and so does the three-judge court. Taken in its entirety, there is ample justification for the length of time which has been taken, and that if anybody other than Mr. Starr had been asked to take over the investigation relating to Ms. Monica Lewinsky on January 29, 1998, it would be hard to understand how anybody less than 2 months after that fact would be calling for him to terminate his investigation. So it is my hope that we will all take a deep breath, let Mr. Starr continue his investigation, put it on the back burner, take the pressure off the President, give him the presumption of innocence until the investigation is completed, and give Mr. Starr the similar presumption of propriety as to what he is doing so we can move forward to the very important business at hand in this country, including the ISTEA legislation. I note the hour of 10:45 has come. And ISTEA is the pending business which will occupy the country, much to the benefit of the country, contrasted with the matters relating to Mr. Starr and the President on that pending investigation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. The long and short of this, Mr. President, is that from September 2, 1994, until February 20, 1998, the case involving former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was pending with a whole series of complex legal maneuvers, until on February 20 of this year, former Governor Tucker entered a guilty plea and signed cooperative agreements. Without taking a look at the specifics, it is hard to see why Mr. Starr has taken so long. But this is just one item on the agenda, and the chronology shows why so much of the delay has occurred. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the chronology as to Ms. Susan McDougal be printed in the Record showing exhaustive applications from August 17, 1995, until March 9, 1998, involving the immunity grant and the refusal of that witness to testify.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains under the agreement?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge any of my colleagues who wish to speak on this resolution to come forth at this time. In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked by our distinguished majority leader to request that we now proceed to Calendar No. 322, relative to the war crimes, under the provisions of the consent agreement entered into on March 9, 1998.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the majority leader has asked me to express his intention to have a vote on this resolution occur tomorrow at around 9:30 a.m. and the majority leader notes that he will inform all Members as to when that vote is set by unanimous consent. The majority leader has also asked me to announce--if I may have the attention of the majority leader on this part--the majority leader has asked me to announce that there will be no further rollcall votes this afternoon. I hesitate to do that on my own, but, with Senator Lott here--and he says, now, the vote will be fixed with precision at 9:30 in the morning.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this resolution has been offered by Senator Dorgan and myself. The most expeditious way to move to the import of the resolution is to read the ``resolved'' clause. It is as follows: That the President should: (1) call for the creation of a commission under the auspices of the United Nations to establish an international record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein, and other Iraqi officials; (2) call for the United Nations to form an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other violations of international law; and (3) upon the creation of such an international criminal tribunal, take steps necessary, including the reprogramming of funds, to ensure United States support for efforts to bring Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials to justice. This move to try Saddam Hussein as a war criminal is the most recent in a series of moves to establish the international rule of law with an international criminal court. The antecedent for this activity lay in the international military tribunal at Nuremberg, which was convened to try individuals for crimes against international law committed during World War II. The Nuremberg tribunal provisions stated that: Crimes against international law are committed by men, not abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced. That statement is as valid today as it was in 1946. For more than a decade, many of us in the Congress of the United States have sought to create an international criminal court to deal with crimes against humanity and other international crimes. Senator Dodd and I have authored a series of resolutions in the U.S. Senate. In the House of Representatives, under the leadership of Congressman Jim Leach, a number of resolutions have been offered. The international criminal court is moving forward, with a realistic likelihood of the establishment of such an international criminal court in the not too far distant future. And, in the interim, the War Crimes Tribunal has been established by the United Nations to try crimes against humanity from the former Yugoslavia, the offenses committed in Bosnia and related territories, and for crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda. The War Crimes Tribunal is in existence. I have had the opportunity to visit it on three occasions to see the operation of the Tribunal. It would be merely an extension of the War Crimes Tribunal to include the import of the current resolution so that Saddam Hussein could be tried as a war criminal. The specifics are that in 1988 the Iraqi Government, under the direction of Saddam Hussein, carried out a systematic campaign to destroy the Kurdish population in Iraq. Kurdish leaders estimated the death toll of this campaign at between 50,000 and 182,000. On March 16, 1988, Iraqi aircraft bombed the city of Halabja, then in the hands of Iranian-supported Kurdish rebels. That bombing was with chemical weapons, and more than 5,000 women and children died in that attack. Iraqi chemical weapons were used in 1982 to 1984 in the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqis developed their proficiency in chemical weapons gradually during the war with Iran. The Iraqis initially used chemical weapons against the Iranians in 1982, and the next recorded deployment was in July 1983, when the Iraqis used mustard gas against an Iranian force. Large quantities of mustard gas were used in November 1983 and February 1984. They may also have used a nerve agent in the February 1984 attack. With respect to the Iraq-Kuwait crisis, from January 18, 1991, to February 25, 1991, Iraq fired 39 Scud conventional warhead missiles at Israel in 18 separate attacks, killing 2 persons directly, killing 12 people indirectly, and injuring more than 200 persons. On December 18, 1990, Amnesty International issued a report that stated Iraq tortured or executed hundreds of Kuwaitis suspected of conducting guerrilla warfare against Iraqi forces. Thousands of Kuwaitis were arrested for resisting Iraqi orders. Amnesty International also reported that some 312 premature babies died after the Iraqi troops stole their incubators. Iraq committed deliberate and calculated crimes of environmental terrorism in the region by its willful ignition of more than 700 Kuwaiti oil wells in February 1991. In the spring of 1993, the Government of Kuwait informed the U.S. administration that it had discovered evidence that Iraq sponsored an attempt to assassinate former President Bush and destabilize Kuwait during his April 14, 15, and 16 visit to Kuwait. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and other U.S. intelligence agencies were sent to Kuwait to conduct their own investigation and reported back to the President on June 24, 1993, that their findings confirmed the view that Iraq was behind the plot. Iraq denied that it attempted to assassinate the President. But the proof, being overwhelming, led the United States, on June 26, 1993, to launch 23 Tomahawk missiles at Iraqi intelligence headquarters. On June 28, 1993, President Clinton sent the Congress a letter describing the missile attack on Iraq being ``consistent with the War Powers Resolution.'' This is a very brief summary of the war crimes committed by Saddam Hussein and others. We have found on the international scene the conduct of Saddam Hussein to be reprehensible in many other respects. Saddam Hussein has flagrantly violated the U.N. resolutions, carrying the world to the brink of conflict and then backing down at the last minute. It would be a very salutary matter to have Saddam Hussein indicted and tried as a war criminal. It is obvious that taking Saddam Hussein into custody is a very complex matter and perhaps impossible without an enormous military force. By 20/20 hindsight, Saddam Hussein should have been taken into custody in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but that is 20/20 hindsight. There have been a number of calls to have Saddam Hussein toppled. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that insurgent forces within Iraq could lead a revolution. The United States could lend the Voice of America to those efforts. The United States could, consistent with international practices, support those who would move against Saddam Hussein, and in the context where action is contemplated against Saddam Hussein, a resolution for the trial of Saddam Hussein as a war criminal, the indictment itself, the trial, even if in absentia, could give the United States a high moral ground and warrant our action in toppling Saddam Hussein. I am joined at this time by my distinguished colleague, Senator Dorgan, who is a cosponsor of the resolution. I yield the floor to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since the vote is now set at 10:45, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Since the mid-1980's, I have worked with elected officials from Allegheny, Washington, and Fayette Counties, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and the Mon Valley Progress Council to obtain funds for the Mon Valley-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway project, which has tremendous economic development potential from West Virginia into Pittsburgh and to the Pittsburgh International Airport. The seven segments of the Expressway and the Beltway will cost $2.5 billion to complete ($1.8 billion Mon Valley-Fayette, $700 million Southern Beltway) and will include 92.5 miles of new toll road in the Pittsburgh region. One of the more notable aspects of this project is that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has committed to providing $2 billion, or 80 percent, of the $2.5 billion, which is highly commendable and unusual. While I recognize that you do not wish to earmark projects in the pending bill, or I would have proposed such an amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would welcome your assurance that in conference you will keep this project in mind as an example of a project that merits consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I congratulate my distinguished colleagues who have managed this bill, with special appreciation to Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Warner, Senator D'Amato, and others. But in the final analysis, I feel constrained to vote against the bill because it reduces the share of federal highway funds for my State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, under the formula. I will vote against the bill with reluctance, but I feel it important to register my disagreement, as will my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, with the hope that these disparities will be improved in conference. While opposing the bill for specific reasons, which I shall enumerate, there are many portions of the bill which I believe are very sound indeed as I will describe shortly. When one thinks of roads, highways, and bridges, one thinks of Pennsylvania. There are records of a public road in Philadelphia County dating back to 1696. Inspired by George Washington's own surveys as a means for western movement, one of the oldest highways in the nation is now U.S. Route 40 (the National Road), which passes through Somerset, Fayette, and Washington counties and was built between 1811 and 1818. And, the first privately built toll road, the Lancaster Pike, was constructed from 1792 to 1794. Now, as Pennsylvania prepares to enter the 21st Century, this legislation is of critical importance to the Commonwealth because it now has nearly 119,000 miles of public highways, with 27,183 miles eligible for federal highway funding and over 23,000 bridges over 20 feet in length which are eligible for federal rehabilitation and replacement funds (and of which 40 percent are classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete based on federal bridge criteria). There is much that is worthwhile in the ISTEA bill being considered by the Senate, including record levels of spending on highways and mass transit. Further, the bill contains funding for programs I support, such as the development of magnetic levitation transportation systems, innovative bridge research and development, and intelligent transportation systems. Nonetheless, I am greatly troubled that the pending bill would reduce Pennsylvania's share of the total highway formula from the 4.32 percent share under the original ISTEA law (FY92-97) to 3.79 percent. In actual dollars, Pennsylvania averaged $890 million annually through the original ISTEA law (including earmarked projects), whereas the Environment and Public Works Committee reported bill only provided Pennsylvania with an annual average from FY98-2003 of $836 million, an average reduction of federal spending of $53 million, making my State one of only two States to lose funds under the bill's new formula (Massachusetts being the other). Further, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and Secretary Brad Mallory, with whom I have discussed the pending legislation, S. 1173 puts Pennsylvania at a disadvantage because it folds the federal bridge program into a larger funding scheme and will result in less funding for rehabilitating our more than 23,000 bridges. At a time when my travels throughout the Commonwealth suggest that there has never been a greater need to invest in Pennsylvania's roads, highways, and bridges this bill would undermine our ability to meet pressing needs in the 67 counties which comprise the Keystone State. During the last few months, as the ISTEA bill was drafted, considered in Committee, and brought to the floor, much has been made about ``donor'' States, ``donee'' States, and concepts such as ``minimum allocation.'' Senators from States which have felt aggrieved under previous formula allocations have instituted regional warfare and sought to prevent States such as Pennsylvania from retaining their share of spending from the Highway Trust Fund. While I am sympathetic to any Senator's wish to maximize federal spending in his or her State, it is not logical to presume that there must be percentage equities involved in our nation's infrastructure spending. In our federal system, and with such a diverse nation, there will always be differences in how much the government provides. In Pennsylvania, we are fortunate not to have the kind of earthquakes which rock California and necessitate billions in Federal disaster assistance. Similarly, we do not begrudge the millions spent by the Federal government on Florida's efforts to restore the Everglades, or the federal tax credits which are designed to stimulate oil and gas production in Oklahoma and Texas. As I noted in my letters with Senator Santorum to Chairman Chafee, Chairman Warner, and Senator Baucus dated September 12, 1997, Pennsylvania's contribution to the Nation is often through its roads and highways, which serve a vital role in interstate commerce, connecting East and West, as well as North and South. For economic, environmental, and safety reasons, there is a tremendous need to rehabilitate Pennsylvania's highway system, and I am deeply concerned that the funding level envisioned in this bill is not adequate to the task. Since the bill has been pending, it has been improved to some degree by the adoption of provisions designed to increase spending from the Highway Trust Fund. Initiated by the Byrd-Gramm amendment, which I cosponsored last Fall, this bipartisan effort to raise the highway funding levels in this bill met with some success. Particularly helpful was that the Byrd-Gramm amendment sought to increase funding for continued work on the Appalachian Regional Highway System, where Pennsylvania has the most miles of unfinished roads of any State included in the 13-State Appalachian region. On paper, the pending bill as amended by Senator Chafee's amendment suggests that Pennsylvania would receive an average of $955 million annually in highway apportionments, up from the $836 million figure in the version of the ISTEA bill reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. However, the funds added by the Chafee amendment (based on the Byrd-Gramm amendment) are all dependent on how high an obligation ceiling is set each year by the Appropriations Committee. If the obligation ceiling on spending is not set high enough in the annual Transportation Appropriations bill, the figures anticipated by the Chafee bill will not materialize and Pennsylvania will be hardpressed to match the annual receipts from the original ISTEA formula. I am hopeful that in conference, where we have Chairman Bud Shuster from Pennsylvania, the chair of the House authorizing committee, the formula allocation will be made more equitable for Pennsylvania. But in the interim, I believe that my vote necessarily should be cast against this bill. Mr. President, while I have specified portions of the legislation that I am opposed to, I do want to acknowledge the significant increases for mass transportation where, through the leadership of Chairman D'Amato of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, some $5 billion has been added to the $36 billion already in the bill, which will facilitate to a number of very, very important mass transit projects. Because this is a significant bill with many aspects worth commenting on, I wish to note a few of its highlights. First, I am very pleased that Chairman D'Amato has shown such leadership in crafting a $41 billion reauthorization of federal transit programs, including $17 billion for discretionary grants overall of which nearly $8 billion will be for New Starts such as the Schuylkill Valley Metro from Philadelphia to Reading, the rehabilitation of the light rail system in Allegheny County, and possibly a light rail system in the Harrisburg- Carlisle area. As a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and as the co-chair of the Senate Transit Coalition, I have worked hard for several years to increase funding on mass transit. Last July, I introduced my own transit reauthorization bill (S. 764), the Mass Transit Amendments Act of 1997, with Senators Santorum and Lautenberg to give the Banking Committee some idea of the bipartisan consensus for increased transit spending. Accordingly, I am very pleased that the Banking Committee title represents real increases in transit spending, particularly now that a bipartisan group of Senators succeeded in obtaining the additional $5 billion in negotiations with the Leadership and Budget Committee Chairman Domenici. Once the $24 billion was added for highways, it was imperative to increase transit's share as well, and I was pleased to join Senator D'Amato, Senator Santorum, and 21 other Senators in a letter dated February 24 to the Republican and Democratic Leaders in which we called for the historic balance between highway and transit spending to be observed. I am pleased that the Senate accepted by voice vote 2 days ago my amendment to establish a Reverse Commute Program as a discretionary grant administered by the Federal Transit Administration. Recently, I visited the Bala Cynwyd station, which would serve a proposed 62-mile light rail system running from the center of Philadelphia to Reading, PA, known as the Schuylkill Valley Metro. This project exemplifies the type of reverse commute system that is very important because it can take people who need jobs from the inner city to the suburbs where employers are in need of employees. I had first proposed a Reverse Commute Program in S. 764 and believed that it was a worthwhile addition to the Banking Committee bill. My amendment, offered with Senators Santorum, Moseley-Braun and D'Amato, authorized this new $100 million/year program and increased from $100 million to $150 million the authorization for the new access to jobs/ welfare to work program in the bill. The Reverse Commute Program is designed to facilitate access to suburban job opportunities for residents of cities, small towns, and rural areas. That is where mass transit can be most effective and where there is a great need for the federal government to stimulate the transportation marketplace. I am hopeful that this program will be preserved in conference and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the House accepts it. The transit provisions also include a fix in the formula by which the fixed guideway modernization funds are allocated, so that Pittsburgh's system gets an incremental adjustment it has sought since the 1991 ISTEA law was enacted. I am also pleased to note that this bill contains the text of legislation which Senator Moynihan and I have cosponsored which will provide funding for the development of magnetic levitation, maglev, which has enormous potential to benefit the United States. Recently, I visited a maglev trial run in Germany on a train which traveled about 250 miles an hour, a really exhilarating experience. Maglev could provide transportation, nonstop, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh in 1 hour 30 minutes. In 2 hours 7 minutes, the train could go from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and could make intermediate stops at Lancaster, Harrisburg, Altoona, Johnstown, Greensburg, and then a final destination in Pittsburgh, with enormous economic development for those communities. With a slightly increased timespan, it could go to the State College and Lewistown as well. The cost of maglev, as represented to me, is about $20 million a mile, so a 300-mile run, approximately, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh could be constructed at a cost of some $6 billion, which is not out of line when you consider the Los Angeles subway system is receiving a Federal allocation of some $3.1 billion of its $6 billion total cost. If we are to have economic expansion in the future, we do need to take care of the infrastructure. It ought to be noted that there are adequate funds to provide for this kind of funding in the highway trust fund, which has as its purpose highways, bridges and mass transit, to be used for that instead of being integrated into the overall budget to make the deficit look less problemsome. I have worked with MAGLEV, Inc. in Pittsburgh since the mid-1980's to obtain federal support for that company's effort to research and develop a maglev system in Pennsylvania. Now, we are at the brink of a maglev age, I believe, with MAGLEV, Inc. looking into a 60-mile route from Greensburg, Pennsylvania through Pittsburgh to the International Airport as its first segment at an estimated cost of $1.3 billion. Not only does maglev have the chance to revolutionize travel, it would mean billions of dollars in steel and construction materials and thousands of jobs for America's steelworkers and others who would fabricate the steel and concrete guideways. This bill provides a total of $30 million in contract authority in FY99 and FY2000 for capital assistance for development of a maglev system selected after a careful review by the Transportation Secretary, and more than $900 million in authorizations of appropriations in the outyears. While I would have preferred more contract authority, given the difficulties of obtaining substantial appropriations, it is important that this transportation bill recognize that the future of transportation may well be maglev and it merits an investment at this time. This bill, therefore, represents a real breakthrough for the efforts of MAGLEV, Inc. in Pittsburgh and others who support this new technology. I am pleased to note that the Senate accepted by voice vote my amendment, cosponsored by Senators Moynihan and Santorum, to extend eligibility for federal funding assistance to the pre-construction planning activities associated with maglev projects in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. I intend to fight to retain this amendment in conference with the House of Representatives and to work with the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that these funds are made available expeditiously to qualified entities, such as Pittsburgh's MAGLEV, Inc., which are well on their way to bringing this technology from the drawing boards to reality. It is also significant that the ISTEA bill includes a $100 million program for innovative bridge research and construction, which I sought with my colleagues on the Senate Steel Caucus in a letter to Chairman Chafee dated July 25, 1997. Our nation's bridges are rapidly deteriorating, presenting serious safety concerns to the traveling public and forcing restrictions on bridges unable to accommodate heavy vehicles. The need to invest more heavily in bridge infrastructure is clear, and this program will fund basic and applied research designed to develop innovative, cost-effective steel bridge applications to improve lifespan and performance, as well as fund field testing of this research. As we consider the ISTEA II bill, I remain convinced that Congress needs to do more to spend the funds which have accumulated and will continue to accumulate in the Highway Trust Fund and the Mass Transit Account. In 1991, during consideration of the original ISTEA bill, I offered an amendment to take the transportation trust funds off-budget for the purpose of ensuring that all federal gas tax receipts are spent on transportation infrastructure and not used to mask the true size of the deficit. In June, 1991, my amendment was defeated by a 29-69 vote, failing to obtain the 60 votes needed to waive the limitations of the Budget Act. Perhaps that amendment was ahead of its time, given the more recent success of Congressman Shuster in lining up support for his off-budget proposal. I believe that when Americans pay at the pump, either as individuals or on behalf of businesses, there is an understanding that their fuel taxes will be spent on improving the roads and bridges on which they are driving and improving mass transit. Accordingly, I am hopeful that my colleagues will soon entertain a proposal to take the transportation trust funds off budget or, at the very least, ensure that prospectively every dollar which comes in is spent on improving our transportation infrastructure. Among the positive elements of this bill which deserve commendation are the increases in funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) improvement program by an average of 18 percent over current levels. These funds are available with substantial flexibility to the State to provide to communities for projects reducing traffic congestion, such as the Pittsburgh Airport Busway, a significant mass transit project undertaken by the Port Authority of Allegheny County which will have a positive impact on air pollution in that region. I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment by Senator Jeffords which will establish a new grant program to preserve and rehabilitate our nation's historic covered bridges. In many parts of Pennsylvania, such as Berks County, covered bridges are tourist attractions which generate economic growth and necessary means of transportation for residents. Many are in substandard condition and these funds are intended to preserve this important element of our culture. Mr. President, reauthorizing the 1991 ISTEA law also provides Congress an opportunity to single out vital highway and transit projects throughout the nation for special funding. There are many, many projects which deserve such consideration, and, as I did in my Senate Floor statement of June 18, 1991, I think it worthwhile to comment on a few in my State of Pennsylvania. I cannot cover them all, of course, in these remarks, but the following highway and transit projects are indicative of the needs we have across the Commonwealth for improved, safer roads and for new public transportation facilities. Examples of Key Pennsylvania Highway and Transit Projects Schuylkill Valley Metro--At a time when we need to do more to facilitate travel from downtown metropolitan areas to suburban job centers, I am pleased that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is working with the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA) to develop light rail or commuter rail service between Philadelphia and the Reading area. This project involves the construction of a 62-mile corridor between Philadelphia and Wyomissing, via Norristown, Phoenixville, Pottstown, and Reading. The new rail line would stop at 28 stations and serve an estimated 30,500 passengers/day if light rail, or 20,800 if commuter rail. I visited one of the proposed stations in Bala Cynwyd on March 2, 1998, and believe that the Schuylkill Valley Metro exemplifies the type of transit project for which the New Starts account was developed. Total project cost estimates are $720 million for light rail ($576 million federal share) and $403 million for commuter rail ($322.4 million federal share). Frankford Transportation Center--On May 12, 1997, I joined Congressman Robert Borski at the site of the proposed Frankford Transportation Center, which is the final piece of SEPTA's Frankford Elevated Reconstruction project, the largest capital project in SEPTA's history. SEPTA seeks $112 million in federal funds for this $140 million project, which would include construction of a new transit center and parking facilities at the Bridge-Pratt Terminal and the realignment and rehabilitation of the elevated guideway between Dyre Avenue and Bridge Street. A new terminal will serve elevated, bus, and trackless trolley passengers, taking thousands of cars off Philadelphia's streets each day. Route 309 Improvements/Montgomery County--For many years, there have been far too many accidents along Route 309 in suburban Montgomery County, particularly in the vicinity of the Fort Washington Interchange. Based on my recent visit in February, 1998, where Congressman Jon Fox and I were briefed by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, I believe that we are now in a position to initiate and complete substantial improvements to 10.2 miles of Route 309 from Greenwood Avenue to Welsh Road during the five years covered by the ISTEA bill. PennDOT has already undertaken some preliminary engineering work and this $188 million project ($97 million federal share) would include pavement reconstruction, lengthening of acceleration and deceleration lanes, widened shoulders, replacement of signs and guide rails, and drainage improvements. As someone who travels regularly on Route 309, I urge my colleagues to designate this highway as a high priority for federal construction funds in this bill. Interstate 95/Pennsylvania Turnpike Interchange--For those of us who live and travel extensively in the Philadelphia area, it is still hard to believe that there is no connection between Interstate 95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, two of the most significant highways in the Northeast. At long last, this legislation offers us the chance to construct an interchange, which will reduce congestion on local roadways, facilitate the movement of goods through Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and reduce motorist confusion when traveling from one of these roadways to the other. This $572 million project ($337 million federal share) would entail construction of a high-speed interchange, widening sections of the Turnpike and I-95 near the interchange from four to six lanes, modification of toll facilities, and increasing the capacity of the Delaware River Bridge through construction of a new parallel structure. On February 18, 1998, I joined Congressman Jim Greenwood in visiting the site of the proposed interchange and came away even more impressed than before by the need for funding this vital project in Bucks County. Philadelphia International Airport--There are plans to construct a new $300 million international terminal at the Airport, which is expected to generate 3,000 jobs and more than $3 billion in economic activity. This project is critical to the Airport's emergence as a major international gateway, and I am hopeful that the final bill will include funds for roadway and ramp improvements involving Interstate 95 and local roads, which will cost an estimated $90 million. Mon Valley-Fayette Expressway/Southern Beltway--Since the mid-1980's, I have worked with elected officials from Allegheny, Washington, and Fayette Counties, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and the Mon Valley Progress Council to obtain funds for this very important project, which has tremendous economic development potential from West Virginia into Pittsburgh and to the Pittsburgh International Airport. The seven segments of the Expressway and the Beltway will cost $2.5 billion to complete ($1.8 billion Mon Valley-Fayette, $700 million Southern Beltway) and will include 92.5 miles of new toll road in the Pittsburgh region. To date, $24 million in federal funds have been allocated for the entire project. Some of the segments have recently entered the initial construction phase, while others must still undergo environmental studies. In the economically depressed areas of Southwestern Pennsylvania, a highway project of this magnitude, linking Interstate highways in the region for commerce and tourism, will bring new opportunities for growth and economic expansion. Now, more than ever, Congress needs to recognize the potential of this project and provide the funding necessary to complete construction once and for all. Allegheny County--Stage II Light Rail Transit--Allegheny County has made a real investment in mass transit in recent years, particularly on the Airport Busway/Wabash HOV project, which I have been pleased to support as a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. The next significant undertaking by the Port Authority of Allegheny County is a project to reconstruct 12 miles of its 25 mile light rail system, including upgrading the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley lines to light rail standards, as well as the addition of 2,500 park and ride spaces and the acquisition of 27 new light rail vehicles. I met with local officials and the leadership of the Port Authority on February 20, 1998 at South Hills Junction and believe that this $493 million project ($394 million federal share) deserves full consideration for funding within the transit New Starts account. This is especially true when one notes that the Stage II project is expected to carry 25,000 riders daily by 2015 and thus remove 2,000 daily automobile trips from local roads. North Shore Central Business District--City and regional planners in Pittsburgh have proposed the development of a complete transportation improvement package, including transit, roadway, pedestrian and parking that accommodates both the access and connectivity needs of existing activities in the district and the needs of several proposed development projects. Working with the Port Authority of Allegheny County, local economic development leaders believe that a fixed guideway transit system and intermodal facility is an essential part of any plan for this part of Pittsburgh. Initial estimates are that $190 million are needed for this project. U.S. Route 219--``Continental One''--Another matter of great importance, from a safety and economic development perspective, is the effort to upgrade the U.S. Route 219 corridor throughout Pennsylvania as part of a long-term project to create the Continental One superhighway and NAFTA trade corridor from Canada to Mexico. Route 219 stretches 199 miles through Pennsylvania from Maryland to New York via Somerset, Cambria, Clearfield, Jefferson, Elk, and McKean Counties. The 1991 ISTEA law provided $89 million in federal funds for Route 219 projects, as I had urged in my Senate floor speech of June 18, 1991. Since then, I have met with the U.S. Route 219 International Trade and Travel Corridor Coalition in Washington and have spoken to local officials and countless Pennsylvanians who support improvements to Route 219 which are necessary to establishing a major trade corridor and generating substantial economic development in the region. Although the total price tag for upgrading the entire Route 219 corridor of $3.4 billion is too much to obtain in this one piece of legislation, I believe Congress should provide substantial funds for engineering and construction of high priority segments within the Route 219 corridor. Wilkes-Barre Intermodal Transportation Center--I have been pleased to work for more than one year with Wilkes-Barre Mayor Tom McGroarty, who first proposed this to me and Congressman Paul Kanjorski in February, 1997. This $17.3 million transportation center ($13.8 million federal share) would coordinate multiple modes of transportation by combining a bus terminal for Luzerne County Transportation buses and inter-city buses, as well as a taxi loading area and a park-and-ride lot. Having visited the site in April, 1997 and in February, 1998, I am confident that the Center will increase downtown economic development by providing additional parking, improve safety by loading and unloading passengers in a designated area, and reduce traffic congestion by encouraging the use of mass transit. I was pleased to obtain $1.5 million for this project in the FY98 Transportation Appropriations Act for initial engineering and design work and believe that it merits designated funds in this ISTEA legislation. Erie East Side Connector--In 1991, I was pleased to join with then- Congressman Tom Ridge in support of $7.5 million specifically included in the original ISTEA law for preliminary engineering and environmental impact statement for the Erie East Side Connector project. Construction of this project will cost $94 million and involves a new 4-lane highway to connect the Bayfront Parkway in the City of Erie to I-90 at Exit 9. This project has the support of Congressman Phil English and local officials because it will help stimulate economic growth on Erie's East side and represents a missing link in the region's transportation infrastructure. Allentown American Parkway--This $35 million project involves a 1.6 miles controlled access, four-lane highway and new bridge connecting both the Allentown central business district and the riverfront area of the city to U.S. Route 22 and the Lehigh Valley International Airport. The goal would be to relieve congestion on the three existing river crossings and spur economic development in the area. Pittston Airport Access Road--In August, 1997, I toured the site of this proposed $8.3 million project ($6.6 million federal share), which would create a new 1.6 mile access road connecting the main entrance of the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport to several commercial and industrial sites on airport land and on two industrial tracts southeast of the Airport. Both Congressman Paul Kanjorski and I agree that this project merits ISTEA funding because the benefits of building this road include reduced traffic congestion and improved public safety and the prevention of traffic accidents such as those that have occurred along several narrow and winding roads near the industrial development. Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway--Congressman McDade has been active in the House of Representatives in support of a $2.2 million project to construct a new ramp between Exits 56 and 57 on Interstate 81 in Lackawanna County as an extension of the $360 million Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway project. The proposed on-off ramp will improve traffic conditions on I-81 and provide more direct access to the 180-acre Viewmont Mall/Viewmont Commerce Center and Dickson City Crossings. In addition, it will provide access to 450 acres of adjacent property. Local officials support the project because it will reduce traffic congestion and facilitate development at these commercial facilities, creating an estimated additional 1,700 full-time and part- time jobs in the area. U.S. Route 222 (Berks County)--Throughout parts of Berks County, it is well-recognized that there is a need for improvements to U.S. Route 222, which are estimated to cost $195 million. In the 1991 ISTEA law, we were able to obtain $6.6 million for the Warren Street Bypass Extension North project, which is being used at present for construction that should be completed in November, 2000. Three other segments of U.S. Route 222 deserve consideration for special priority in this bill, including the Warren Street Bypass Extension South, Lancaster Pike Reconstruction (widening and reconstructing four miles of Route 222 from Grings Hill Road to the Berks/Lancaster County Line), and construction of a new interchange between Route 222 and State Route 183 in the City of Reading. U.S. Route 30--Lancaster County is one of the fastest growing counties in population and economic growth throughout Pennsylvania and its infrastructure needs to keep up with increased demands. For several years, there has been an effort to improve Route 30, particularly for safety concerns. Specifically, the $86 million Route 30 Bypass multi- lane highway project will be the final connecting link across Southeastern and South Central Pennsylvania, with the ``East'' Section stretching from U.S. Route 222 to PA Route 340 in Manheim and East Lampeter Townships and the City of Lancaster, and the ``West'' Section stretching from PA Route 741 to PA Route 72 in East Hempfield and Manheim Townships and the City of Lancaster. Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport Access Road--I have met regularly with representatives from Lycoming County and the City of Williamsport on their transportation needs, particularly for improvements in the vicinity of the Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport. In the House, Congressman McDade has sought an earmark for $12 million in federal funds toward the $15 million project cost to construct a new access road from Interstate-180 to the Airport. The primary objective is to improve access to the Airport (which is essential to its ability to grow as a regional transportation hub), provide development opportunities on lands adjacent to the Airport, and to coordinate these improvements with a levee system around the Borough of Montoursville to provide flood protection.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, on April 18, 1998, the Pennsylvania American Legion will honor its State Commander, Louise Chase, a World War II Navy veteran, who was elected Commander at the conclusion of the 79th convention on July 20, 1997. She is the first woman commander of the Department of Pennsylvania in its 80 year history. In 1979, Commander Louise Chase was elected as the Department of Pennsylvania's first woman vice commander. She has served twice as District Commander. Her Legion service also includes terms as Adjutant of Philadelphia County and the Eastern Judicial Section, two terms as Post Commander and 12 years as Adjutant of Tioga Post 319. She has also served as the organization's state legislative chairman and twice as chairman of the Select Committee on Economics and Benefits, as well as chairman of several other committees. She is one of only two Pennsylvania Legionnaires to have served on committees of the two National Conventions held in Pennsylvania. She served for 16 years as the Eastern Regional Vice Chairman of the United States Service Academies Selection Committee for Senators John Heinz and Harris Wofford. Commander Chase served in the U.S. Navy, with duty posting in Washington, D.C. during World War II. Her family has a long tradition of service to America dating from the Civil War, including her brother Tom who saw sea duty with the U.S. Navy off Cuban waters during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Her late father personally worked with the original astronauts while they were in training at the Johnsville Naval Air Development Center in Warminster, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Her business career includes serving as controller and office manager of Philadelphia's prestigious Germantown Cricket Club for 13 years; controller of a construction company, plus manager of two of its high rise apartment buildings for 10 years; and manufacturers' representative for paper container companies for five years. She recently retired as an international marketing representative of a major computer manufacturer. Her husband, Joseph, was Pennsylvania American Legion Commander in 1991-1992. The two live in Horsham, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Madam President, I congratulate Commander Louise Chase for her service to the veterans of Pennsylvania. I am certain that the Testimonial Dinner being held in her honor on April 18, 1998 will be a fitting tribute to her years of service to The American Legion, veterans, and to her country.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to speak in support of the Jeffords-Specter amendment, which establishes a federal grant program to preserve our Nation's historic wood-covered bridges for future generations. There are 526 covered bridges nationwide, and almost 90 percent are in a critical state of disrepair. Pennsylvania enjoys the most covered bridges of any state, with 167. Unfortunately, the vast majority are either closed, or have weight limitations placed upon them to forestall further deterioration. Aside from the aesthetic reasons for repairing these bridges, there are safety implications as well for those who travel across them each day. The wood-covered bridges which dot the landscape across rural America serve as more than simply a tourist attraction. They are in essence a bridge to our past which allows us to better understand how previous generations worked to expand this Nation's transportation infrastructure and link communities together. It would indeed be a tragedy to allow them to simply waste away. It is estimated that approximately $344 million will be needed to bring all of our Nation's covered bridges up to standard. Our amendment would authorize $25 million each year over a period of seven years to restore and maintain these bridges, which are over 50 years of age. This would provide states with a much-needed dedicated source of funding to be used strictly for covered bridge preservation. As a member of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I will work with my colleagues to ensure a steady funding stream once this program is authorized by passage of this amendment. If we do not act now, these national treasures will be lost forever. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this issue. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in support of the amendment I have offered with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Moynihan and Santorum, which clarifies that pre- construction planning activities are eligible for funding under Section 1119 of the bill, which establishes a magnetic levitation transportation technology deployment program. I have long supported the concept of maglev systems, where through the use of magnetic levitation, the passenger cars are propelled above a steel and concrete guideway at speeds as high as 300 miles per hour. In January, 1998, I rode the maglev being developed by Thyssen in Lathen, Germany at 422 kilometers per hour and it was exhilarating to be in a kind of mass transit which goes so fast. I am committed to bringing this technology to Pennsylvania, where it will create thousands of manufacturing jobs for steelworkers and high tech firms. It would be a tremendous boon to the economy of every stop along the line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. People could go from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh in one and a half hours non-stop, revolutionizing our transportation system. Or, there would be intermediate stops in Harrisburg, Lewisburg, Altoona, Johnstown, and Greensburg, adding only about 40 minutes to the trip. Section 1119 of the pending bill reflects the provisions of the maglev funding bill introduced by Senator Moynihan, which I cosponsored, and would fund the capital costs associated with 1 maglev project chosen by the Secretary of Transportation. The bill includes $30 million in contract authority and more than $900 million in authorizations of appropriations for the outyears. However, in the absence of our amendment, the bill does not provide specific financial assistance for pre-construction planning activities. There are several States which have groups currently exploring the feasibility of maglev projects and which need federal assistance for pre-construction planning, feasibility studies, final design work, and environmental impact statements. States showing interest include California, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. The Specter-Moynihan amendment amends the bill to clarify that pre- construction planning activities are eligible project costs and that the Secretary may make grants to more than one maglev project for such pre-construction planning costs. Without such funds, it is unclear whether any project will be ready for the capital assistance envisioned in the current bill. Our amendment would make eligible for federal funds pre-construction planning activities include: (1) preparation of feasibility studies, major investment studies, and environmental impact statements and assessments as required by state law; (2) pricing of final design, engineering and construction activities; and (3) other activities necessary to provide the Secretary with sufficient information to evaluate whether the project should receive financial assistance for final design, engineering, and construction activities. I am particularly hopeful that this amendment will ultimately help MAGLEV, Inc., a nonprofit consortium in Pittsburgh, which has licensed the German technology and plans to build a state-of-the-art steel fabrication facility capable of constructing the steel guideways needed for a maglev system, which has the potential to create hundreds of jobs in the region. The first planned maglev system segment could be from Westmoreland County into downtown Pittsburgh and on to the Pittsburgh International Airport, at a projected cost of $1.3 billion. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this amendment is preserved in conference with the House and thank them for allowing it to be included in the bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1745, a proposed bill to provide flexibility in the order in which the Board of Veterans' Appeals of the Department of Veterans Affairs hears and considers appeals. The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated August 7, 1997. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1744, a proposed bill to redesignate the National Cemetery System of the Department of Veterans Affairs as the ``National Cemetery Administration'' and the Director of the National Cemetery System as the ``Assistant Secretary for Memorial Affairs.'' The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated September 17, 1997. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1743, a proposed bill to authorize memorialization of deceased spouses and surviving spouses of veterans and deceased members of the Armed Forces whose remains are not available for interment. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 24, 1997. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1746, a proposed bill to remove a statutory provision requiring a specified number of full-time equivalent positions in the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs. The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated August 7, 1997. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be pritned in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1745, a proposed bill to provide flexibility in the order in which the Board of Veterans' Appeals of the Department of Veterans Affairs hears and considers appeals. The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated August 7, 1997. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1744, a proposed bill to redesignate the National Cemetery System of the Department of Veterans Affairs as the ``National Cemetery Administration'' and the Director of the National Cemetery System as the ``Assistant Secretary for Memorial Affairs.'' The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated September 17, 1997. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1743, a proposed bill to authorize memorialization of deceased spouses and surviving spouses of veterans and deceased members of the Armed Forces whose remains are not available for interment. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 24, 1997. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 1746, a proposed bill to remove a statutory provision requiring a specified number of full-time equivalent positions in the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs. The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated August 7, 1997. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be pritned in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside for consideration of an amendment I am about to submit.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the pending amendment.