Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join my colleagues in introducing the ``Caring for Children Act,'' which will ease the financial burden of child care for American families--for those parents who work, and for those who choose to stay home to raise their children for a period of time. The sponsors of this legislation recognize the importance of affordable quality child care to the successful development of our children. Our bill would expand the Dependent Care tax credit to make it more accessible to families who need it, double the authorization for the Child Care Development Block Grant, and provide grants to small businesses to create or enhance child care facilities for their employees. This bill also includes provisions from the proposal I introduced last year with my colleague, Congressman Jon Fox, ``The Affordable Child Care Act,'' which provides a tax credit for employers who provide on-site or site-adjacent child care to their employees in order to reduce the child care expenses of the employee. Not all families choose the same option for child care. Many families rely on relatives, centers operated by churches and other religious organizations, centers at or near their workplace, or make other arrangements to provide care for their children while they work. In light of the diverse needs for child care in America, this bill represents a good start toward expanding the choices for American parents. And, any such legislation must recognize that there is a need to provide some relief to families where one parent stays at home. The need for affordable and accessible day care is critical given the increasing numbers of working parents and dual-income families in the United States. According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1975, 31 percent of married mothers with a child younger than age one participated in the labor force. By 1995, that figure had risen to 59 percent. Almost 64 percent of married mothers and 53 percent of single mothers with children younger than age six participated in the labor force in 1995. The cost of child care for families is also significant. Licensed day care centers in some urban areas cost as much as $200 per week, and the disparity in costs and availability of child care between urban and rural grows greater every day. For families which need or choose to have both parents work outside the home, the burden of making child care decisions is great. These figures serve to underscore the need for action on the part of the Federal government to provide the necessary assistance to our nation's working families. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I am pleased that this legislation would build on an existing federal child care program by authorizing an additional $5 billion over five years to the Child Care Development Block Grant program, bringing total spending for this program to $2.5 billion annually by FY2002. The CCDBG program which works well in assisting low-income families acquire child care and helped over 93,000 Pennsylvania families last year. By increasing the authorization, we can help even more families without creating a new entitlement program. Our legislation will also require States to create and enforce safety and health standards in child care facilities, and provide money for the Department of Health and Human Services to disseminate information to parents and providers about quality child care, through brochures, toll-free hotlines, the Internet, and other technological assistance. The ``Caring for Children Act'' complements my recent efforts to assist working families in the context of welfare reform and children's health insurance. When Congress debated welfare reform in 1995 and 1996, I worked to ensure that adequate funds were provided for child care, a critical component for welfare mothers who would be required to work to receive new limited welfare benefits. I am pleased that the welfare reform bill that became law provides $20 billion in child care funding over a six year period. Similarly, I was pleased to participate in the bipartisan effort in 1997 to enact legislation to provide $24 billion over the next five years for States to establish or broaden children's health insurance programs. In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that it is critical that the 105th Congress not adjourn without enacting legislation to assist families in their ability to afford safe, quality child care for their children, either at home with a parent or another arrangement. Our legislation will provide peace of mind to millions of American families struggling to balance career and child raising. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation, and I urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I understand that S. 1575, which was introduced earlier today by Senator Coverdell, is at the desk. I now ask for its first reading.

Mr. SPECTER. On behalf of Senator Lott, I now ask for a second reading and object to my own request on behalf of the other side of the aisle.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. As agreed to previously, tomorrow morning the Senate will debate, in executive session, the nominations of 3 judges. Also by consent, there will be 3 consecutive votes on the confirmation of those nominations following the weekly policy luncheons beginning 2:15 Wednesday afternoon. Following those votes, the Senate will be in a period for the transaction of morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate resolution No. 169, submitted earlier today by Senator Hatch and others.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble agreed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, January 28, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

Mr. SPECTER. I also ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. on Wednesday for the weekly policy luncheons to meet.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I ask unanimous consent that following the votes at 2:15 p.m., there be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senator Coverdell, or his designee, being recognized for the first 90 minutes and Senator Daschle, or his designee, being recognized for the next 90 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 8:30 p.m. this evening for the joint session of Congress. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the conclusion of the joint session, the Senate automatically stand in adjournment until 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 28.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed en bloc to the consideration of Senate resolution 166 and Senate resolution 167, which were submitted earlier today by Senators Campbell and Allard.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to these resolutions appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on statements made earlier today by Senator Leahy concerning Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Senator Leahy has challenged Mr. Starr on a number of items, matters of very substantial concern. I telephoned Mr. Starr to find out what the facts were. Both Senator Leahy and I are on the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over the Department of Justice and also the independent counsel. Senator Leahy began his presentation by noting that he had spent nearly a decade as a prosecutor, and I have a similar background, actually a little longer than a decade, but about the same. Senator Leahy then commented about his concern about law enforcement being nonpartisan and nonideological, and on the facts. I most certainly agree with Senator Leahy on his assertions to that extent. Then Senator Leahy proceeded to criticize Mr. Starr for conducting a partisan investigation, for making leaks to the press, by coordinating the investigation with what is going on in the civil case involving Ms. Paula Jones, and charging that there was a sting operation to engage the President of the United States in secretly recorded conversations. All of these are obviously very serious accusations. Mr. President, it seems to me that the current controversy involving the President and Ms. Monica Lewinsky is something that ought to be put behind the country at the earliest possible time. I made public statements last week when the President was questioned about this matter, while Chairman Arafat was in his office, and said that I thought it inappropriate to have that question and bad practice for the President to respond to that question, and made public statements last week and over the weekend about what I consider to be an unwise media frenzy on this matter--that we all ought to wait and see what the facts are before coming to any conclusions, and in the interim the President ought to be permitted to carry out his duties because they are very, very important duties. I agree with what Senator Leahy said when he recited the issues of foreign policy, Iraq, the State of the Union, and the matters which the President has to deal with. There have been many reports in the press about what Mr. Starr did and how he got into this investigation and whether his activities were an inappropriate extension of what he had been authorized to do prior to the time he took his first steps on this matter involving Ms. Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Starr told me this afternoon in a telephone conversation that he did engage in a consensual monitoring in the eastern district of Virginia on a conversation with Ms. Linda Tripp and Ms. Monica Lewinsky. It was a consensual monitoring because it was consented to by Ms. Linda Tripp. Mr. Starr told me that Ms. Linda Tripp had been a witness on independent counsel matters in the past involving the White House Travel Office and Mr. Foster, and that the consensual monitoring was undertaken to corroborate what Ms. Linda Tripp had told Mr. Starr independently. Mr. Starr said it was an appropriate exercise of his existing jurisdiction because in his investigation involving Mr. Webster Hubble, Mr. Hubble's situation involved a matter where an individual was involved in providing job arrangements for Mr. Hubble outside the District of Columbia with a certain prospective employer. Mr. Starr said that the same person was involved in providing a job opportunity for Ms. Monica Lewinsky outside the District of Columbia with the same prospective employer and that this connection was sufficient for Mr. Starr to proceed with this consensual monitoring, which Mr. Starr pointed out was done professionally by the FBI and, as Mr. Starr described it, in a completely appropriate manner. Mr. Starr advised that he then took this matter to the Department of Justice after he had completed the consensual monitoring. Mr. President, I will not become involved here in what the factual allegations are, what Ms. Tripp said or what Ms. Lewinsky said, because the issue which concerns me and the thrust of what Senator Leahy complained about is the propriety of Mr. Starr's activity, and that need not involve the allegations and the substance. I think there has already been enough talk about that, in any event. Mr. Starr then advised that he took the tape recordings to the Department of Justice, met with the senior attorney and the public integrity section. There was a collaborative determination between the Department of Justice and independent counsel as to who should carry out the further investigation. Mr. Starr advised that the Attorney General then asked the special court of the District of Columbia Circuit to specifically enlarge Mr. Starr's jurisdiction so that he could proceed with this investigation. Now, we all know that Attorney General Reno has been very circumspect in the independent counsel issue as to appointment and as to extending jurisdiction--that has been a subject matter which has been talked about on this floor a great deal, to a substantial extent by this Senator. But the facts as Mr. Starr outlined them are that he proceeded in this way just as outlined, which is entirely appropriate because of the connection between what happened with Ms. Monica Lewinsky and what happened with Mr. Webster Hubble. That was obviously approved by Attorney General Reno when she then acted on information which Mr. Starr brought to her to request the special court of the District of Columbia Circuit to enlarge Mr. Starr's jurisdiction. I asked Mr. Starr further about the other statements which Senator Leahy had made. I now quote from the transcript: Senator Leahy: I look at the continuing and very selective leaks and tactics employed by Mr. Starr's office over the last few years and particularly over the last few days. I asked not only Mr. Starr about the leaks, which he emphatically denied, but also about the composition of the personnel who were handling this sensitive material, and Mr. Starr gave me some substantial detail about the attorneys who were on the matter in terms of their backgrounds and in terms of their professionalism, which Mr. Starr says is the effort made and he thinks is always the effort made, to avoid the leaks. We all know in Washington, DC, or for that matter, any place, the difficulty of establishing leaks, but if someone makes a contention, as Senator Leahy does, as to leaks, the question is, what is the proof of those leaks. Mr. Starr made an emphatic denial regarding the leaks, and spoke of the professionalism of the people that have the confidential information. Senator Leahy went on to say earlier today, ``I have seen reports of two weekends ago that he,'' referring to Mr. Starr, ``was intent on conducting a sting operation to engage the President of the United States in secretly recorded conversations. Have we sunk this low, Mr. President, that we would do things like this?" I asked Mr. Starr about that, and he emphatically denied it. I, too, have seen press reports about the proposed sting operation, but I think it is very important that as we accord the President the presumption of innocence and as we look for proof before coming to any judgments about anyone, that the same thing apply to Mr. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, and that a serious accusation about the sting operation ought to have some authentication and verification before it is made on the floor of the U.S. Senate. At least that is my opinion. Senator Leahy went on earlier today saying, ``I have seen complaints,'' he is referring to Mr. Starr, ``he sought to curse a young woman''--I asked Kenneth Starr about that, and again he denied it in absolute terms--``and threatened her mother and father if she did not cooperate.'' Again, Mr. Starr denied that in absolute terms. Senator Leahy then went on to say, ``Mr. Starr's office seems oddly coordinated to aid the civil lawsuit against the President involving the Miss Paula Jones case.'' Again I asked Mr. Starr about that, and it has been denied. Mr. President, I make these comments after talking to Kenneth Starr, particularly to state for the record exactly how Mr. Starr got into this matter on the consensual monitoring. A consensual monitoring under Virginia law is appropriate when one party to the conversation agrees to it so that in the action by Mr. Starr and the FBI agents in recording the conversation of Ms. Monica Lewinsky and Ms. Linda Tripp, where Ms. Linda Tripp has consented to it--that was a lawful consensual monitoring--and as explained by Mr. Starr, the nexus or connection justifying his conduct was because the same person had suggested providing a job opportunity for Ms. Monica Lewinsky with the same employer who had made similar activity with respect to Mr. Webster Hubble. It would be my hope that as this matter proceeds, that there would be a toning down of the decibel level and a real effort made to find out what the facts are before accusations are made against anybody. I think that applies to President Clinton, as I said so last week and over the weekend, and applies to Mr. Starr, and there has been a concern expressed that there is now an orchestrated effort made to discredit Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. I do not know whether that is true or not. There have been a number of statements coming out, but whatever the charges and accusations that were made against anybody--President Clinton, Independent Counsel Starr, anyone--they ought to be backed up by the facts and not a recitation of something that appeared in the newspaper where we know of the questionable reliability of what appears in the press. The real issue here is not necessarily what Mr. Starr has done but what the underlying facts are on the substantive matter at issue. If Mr. Starr has acted in an inappropriate manner, that can be reviewed at some time. When you deal with issues such as those involved here, we are not looking at a respective criminal case where the admissible evidence is judged on certain standards. We are looking at a real determination to find what the facts are so that we can make a determination as to what ought to be done in this matter. It is my view that once the facts are asserted, there will be general agreement about what the conclusions ought to be. But it is not the Independent Counsel's conduct at issue here. I think the Independent Counsel ought to conduct himself in a manner which comports with the manner of decency. That is his job and responsibility. Also, I think that he is entitled not to be vilified in newspaper headlines or newspaper stories. But the facts ought to be ascertained. The facts as Mr. Starr outlines them to me justify the steps that he took. That is not my view alone; that is corroborated by what Attorney General Reno has done in the case. Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 28, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the executive calendar: No. 454, Ann Aiken; No. 486, Barry Silverman; No. 488, Richard Story. I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 2 hours for debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member. I further ask consent that at 2:15 on Wednesday the Senate proceed to 3 consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations. I finally ask consent that following the votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I compliment our colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden, for their initiative in moving to end the practice of a hold. For those watching, if anyone, on C-SPAN2 at the moment, a hold is a Senate procedure which is secret, where the Senator says that matter may not move without notifying me. The final days of the session are sufficient to stop any action on an individual by a statement that there be insistence on debate, where there is no time for votes, or when we are not having them, as we have not had any for the past several days. I intend to join Senator Grassley and our Republican caucus to try to end this pernicious practice. It simply ought not to prevail in an open society and in an open setting. If someone has an objection to some individual or to some bill, I think it only right that the individual stand up and state the objection. I do thank my colleagues who had objected to Judge Massiah- Jackson for being forthright in discussing the matter with me, and I understand an honest difference of opinion. I respect that difference of opinion. I don't agree with it, but I do respect it, so long as you have an opportunity to discuss the matter, to find out what is happening and we can try to do something about it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. This is the end of our first session of the 105th Congress, and I congratulate our colleagues both in the House and the Senate on doing the country's business and being out by Thanksgiving. I think that is an accomplishment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I have sought recognition today to comment about the pending judicial nomination of Judge Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson who has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Massiah-Jackson currently serves on the court of common pleas of Philadelphia County where she has been a State court judge for the past 14 years. I believe Judge Massiah-Jackson should be confirmed, and regrettably that will not happen today, which is the last day of the session, because two of our colleagues have insisted on rollcall votes, and one colleague insisted on an opportunity to debate the nomination beyond a rollcall vote. It appears virtually certain, if not certain, that there will be no rollcall votes today, our last day in session, because our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, had announced that he would not have rollcall votes unless he gave Senators who are widely dispersed at this time an opportunity to come back, and therefore the business of the Senate is going to be completed by voice votes. I do not question the judgment of my colleagues to ask for rollcall votes, although customarily we do not have rollcall votes on district court nominees. Perhaps it would be sufficient for individual Senators to note their objection for the record. These two Senators have already noted their opposition to Judge Massiah-Jackson on the rollcall vote in the Judiciary Committee where she was recommended for nomination by a 12 to 6 vote. Judge Massiah-Jackson had substantial Republican support in the committee and she has the support of my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, as well as myself, the two home State senators. It is the practice for the caucus to rely upon home State senators on matters involving U.S. district court judges. Judge Massiah-Jackson has been questioned on two intemperate remarks which she made, one which she thought was under her breath, and has acknowledged her error, and I think it fair to say that if two intemperate remarks were disqualifiers or a disqualifier from being a Federal judge or a U.S. Senator, for most positions, perhaps all positions of responsibility, nobody would hold any job of responsibility because intemperate remarks escape all of us from time to time. She has apologized. The Senator who presided at her hearing noted with some acknowledgment the sufficiency of that particular apology. Judge Massiah-Jackson has been questioned about sentencing. She has tried more than 4,000 criminal cases. There were 95 appeals taken and she was reversed in some 14 cases, which is a pretty good record. Her rating on the standard for judges on compliance with the sentencing guidelines is well within the norm of her contemporaries. She had a rating in the 72- to 82-percent compliance at a time when the compliance of other common pleas judges was in the 70- to 86-percent range. She had questioned, from time to time, certain police officers. I was district attorney of Philadelphia for 8 years following being an assistant D.A. for some 4 years, and while I was district attorney I ran tough investigating grand juries where there was evidence of narcotics violations, narcotics corruption within the police department. There have recently been a spate of many reversals and Federal investigations by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. So it is not unusual to have questions about police conduct following on the old statement that there are some bad apples in the barrel. I think in totality, Judge Massiah-Jackson's record is a very good one. I am disappointed she will not be confirmed because we have just had the swearing in of circuit Judge Midge Rendell, and we are now planning the swearing in of Judge A. Richard Caputo in Wilkes-Barre and former State court Judge Bruce Kaufman in the Eastern District. I am sorry Judge Massiah-Jackson will not be sworn in before the end of the year to take on the very substantial duties of helping the backlog in the Eastern District. I do thank my distinguished and majority leader, Senator Lott, for agreeing to list Judge Massiah- Jackson on the second day when we return. We are due to come in on January the 27. That is expected to be the night of the State of the Union speech, and Senator Lott has told me that he will schedule Judge Massiah-Jackson for floor debate and a vote on the day we return. It may be that there will be two other judges in a similar position, so I thank Senator Lott for his assistance there, and I thank him, also, for aiding me in the determination of Senators on our side of the aisle who have so-called holds.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, for those very erudite and profound remarks. The U.S. Senate is graced by two women Senators, Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Susan Collins. I know that Senator Margaret Chase Smith is a role model for them as she is a role model for so many in America--men as well as women. It is with some frequency I quote her famous dictum, to distinguish between the principle of compromise and the compromise of principle. I think with the qualities of Senator Collins and Senator Snowe, they would be in the U.S. Senate even without Senator Margaret Chase Smith blazing the trail for them in Maine, but it didn't do them any harm. That was an extraordinary statement. I have had the good fortune to work with both Senator Collins and Senator Snowe on a little Wednesday lunch group and on the Governmental Affairs Committee. Senator Collins has done outstanding work on the Governmental Affairs Committee and I think there is more coming.

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President I would like to enter into a colloquy with Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens concerning Federally Funded Research and Development Centers. Is it the chairman's understanding that it was the intent of Congress to exempt Federally Funded Research and Development Centers [FFRDC's] from the provisions of section 8041 of the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Appropriations Act which reduce funding for advisory and assistant services by $300,000,000? This exemption is necessary because FFRDC funding is specifically reduced by $71,800,000 in section 8035 of the same act.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to join Senator Biden in introducing the Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act of 1998. The purpose of this bill is to build on legislation we passed last Congress and provide education benefits to the families of slain or disabled State and local public safety officers. Last year, Congress passed the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act. This law provides for the education of the spouse and dependent children of Federal law enforcement officers who die or are totally disabled in the line of duty. I was moved to introduce last year's legislation after meeting with the widow of Mr. Bill Degan, the U.S. marshal who was killed in the tragic incident at Ruby Ridge. Mrs. Karen Degan, his widow, brought to my attention the fact that the families of slain Federal law enforcement officers were not eligible to receive the educational benefits which the Government gives to the families of slain soldiers in our armed services. My legislation eliminated this disparity. The program we created last year, however, is only available to the children of Federal law enforcement officers. Yet the idea behind the law applies equally to all public safety officers, Federal, State, or local. When someone gives his or her life protecting the safety and well-being of the general public, it is the very least we can do to ensure that the officer's children and/or spouse can continue on the educational path they would have followed had their parent or spouse not been killed in the line of duty. Today we seek to remedy this disparity between Federal and non- Federal officers by introducing the Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act of 1998. This legislation will extend these same educational benefits to the dependents of all public safety officers-- Federal, State, county and local law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and fire and rescue personnel--who have given their lives in the line of duty. Under this bill, the Attorney General will administer a program which will provide up to $4,485 per child, per year to attend a 4-year college. This is the same amount of educational assistance the Federal Government provides to the dependents of slain or disabled veterans and Federal law enforcement officers. I would note that this program is subject to appropriations and does not constitute an entitlement. I would prefer that we did not have to worry about death and disabling injuries for public safety officials, but it is a fact of life that every year there are tragic losses. We are obligated to remember the families of those officers who have paid the ultimate price to keep our streets and homes safe.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to join Senator Biden in introducing the Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act of 1998. The purpose of this bill is to build on legislation we passed last Congress and provide education benefits to the families of slain or disabled State and local public safety officers. Last year, Congress passed the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act. This law provides for the education of the spouse and dependent children of Federal law enforcement officers who die or are totally disabled in the line of duty. I was moved to introduce last year's legislation after meeting with the widow of Mr. Bill Degan, the U.S. marshal who was killed in the tragic incident at Ruby Ridge. Mrs. Karen Degan, his widow, brought to my attention the fact that the families of slain Federal law enforcement officers were not eligible to receive the educational benefits which the Government gives to the families of slain soldiers in our armed services. My legislation eliminated this disparity. The program we created last year, however, is only available to the children of Federal law enforcement officers. Yet the idea behind the law applies equally to all public safety officers, Federal, State, or local. When someone gives his or her life protecting the safety and well-being of the general public, it is the very least we can do to ensure that the officer's children and/or spouse can continue on the educational path they would have followed had their parent or spouse not been killed in the line of duty. Today we seek to remedy this disparity between Federal and non- Federal officers by introducing the Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act of 1998. This legislation will extend these same educational benefits to the dependents of all public safety officers-- Federal, State, county and local law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and fire and rescue personnel--who have given their lives in the line of duty. Under this bill, the Attorney General will administer a program which will provide up to $4,485 per child, per year to attend a 4-year college. This is the same amount of educational assistance the Federal Government provides to the dependents of slain or disabled veterans and Federal law enforcement officers. I would note that this program is subject to appropriations and does not constitute an entitlement. I would prefer that we did not have to worry about death and disabling injuries for public safety officials, but it is a fact of life that every year there are tragic losses. We are obligated to remember the families of those officers who have paid the ultimate price to keep our streets and homes safe.