Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this resolution is being submitted on behalf of Senators Santorum, Feingold, Kohl, Jeffords, Leahy, Wellstone, Snowe, and Collins. It follows activity which Senator Santorum and I had undertaken in our State where the farmers have been very hard hit by low milk prices and rising costs of production, so that many, many farmers are near bankruptcy. It is my understanding that this is a national problem, not only a problem in Pennsylvania. On Monday of this week, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman went to northeastern Pennsylvania and heard from a large assembly of farmers, estimated at some 500, and heard firsthand the plight of those farmers, again, as I say representative of the Nation. We all know that we rely upon the farmers for our supply of food. We know how important milk is in that supply. And we have a large group of farmers who laid it on the line in very emphatic and dramatic terms about their impending bankruptcy, the hard times they were facing because the price of milk had dropped so precipitously from $15.37 per hundredweight in September to $11.34 cents per hundredweight in December 1996, all the time costs going up. In our inquiry on this issue, we found that a key ingredient on the pricing of milk was the price of cheese, and that the price of cheese had been established by the Green Bay Cheese Exchange, and that the price on the Green Bay Cheese Exchange might not be realistic of the accurate market price. If the price of cheese is raised by 10 cents, it means there would be a rise in the price of milk $1 per hundredweight. I do believe that the Secretary of Agriculture is sympathetic to this issue and would like to ascertain the accurate price of cheese. It is my thought, Mr. President, from all that I know, and it has to be verified, that the price of cheese is priced unreasonably low at this time by the Green Bay Exchange; therefore, the Green Bay Exchange's price of cheese is really not the price of cheese. This resolution maintains that it is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture should consider acting immediately pursuant to his legal authority to modify the basic formula price for dairy by replacing the national cheese exchange as a factor to be considered in setting the basic formula price. This resolution has been filed pursuant to the leadership initiated by my colleague, Senator Santorum, who traveled to northeastern Pennsylvania several weeks ago. I went this past Monday. And I think it will put us on a track to show that something can be done immediately. When I say immediately, within the course of the next several weeks. It had been my hope that we might have been able to make some modification in the price of cheese to have even faster action by the Secretary of Agriculture. But considering the fact that this resolution was drafted on Monday morning and has gone through considerable analysis by a number of Members of the Senate--and I thank my colleagues for their prompt attention to this issue--we are moving now very, very rapidly. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me point out that there was an extensive study of the Green Bay Cheese Exchange made at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture of the State of Wisconsin, and there were some indications there that because of the limited amount of cheese which was traded there, there was an opportunity to have a price established which was not genuinely a market price. The amount of cheese traded at Green Bay was less than one-half of 1 percent, and where you have such a limited exchange rate and with people at the scene who have a considerable interest in having a lower price of cheese, that result may not have represented the accurate market price of cheese. The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority unilaterally to make a modification on the price of cheese if he develops an evidentiary base from other transactions which lead him to conclude that is not the fair market price of cheese, and I believe that to be the case. The Secretary of Agriculture had previously initiated the process on informal rulemaking, which would take some considerable period of time. But he does have the authority. If we may vote at this time, Mr. President, I will conclude.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have checked with the managers of both sides and he has agreed to yield me 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for a period of up to 5 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak briefly on the issue of the pending nomination of Ms. Alexis M. Herman to be Secretary of Labor, and I urge that Ms. Herman be given a hearing on the subject so that there may be a determination, one way or the other, about her qualifications to be Secretary of Labor. I talked at some length to Alexis M. Herman yesterday. A request had been made by the White House for me to meet with her, perhaps in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the Department of Labor. And I met with Ms. Herman in the context of a number of questions that have been raised about her qualifications to be Secretary of Labor. There has been an issue raised about her handling of her position as liaison for public matters in the Office of Public Liaison, as to whether there had been some activities that went over the line in political activities or fundraising. I questioned Ms. Herman about that at some length, although not in a dispositive form. But it seems to me that she is entitled to be heard on the subject and to have a decision made one way or the other about whether she is qualified or disqualified. I questioned her about the circumstances where there was a coffee, which had started out in her department, where she had issued an invitation to Mr. Gene Ludwig, who was Comptroller of the Currency, to a meeting with bankers, at a time when she thought it was going to be a substantive meeting and it would not involve fundraising. Later, she found out that there were individuals from the Democratic National Committee who were involved, and she then did not attend the meeting herself, but had not informed Mr. Ludwig about the nature of the meeting in order to withdraw the invitation to him. There have been other questions raised about the Anti-Deficiency Act, and perhaps other matters. But I think it is very important when someone is nominated for a position and there is public controversy and public comment, that that individual have his or her ``day in court'' to have a determination made as to whether she, or he, may be qualified to handle the position. I thought it was very unfortunate, when Prof. Lani Guinier was nominated for a key position, Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice, that her nomination was withdrawn without having an opportunity for her to be heard. At that time, I met with her and read her writings and I thought she was qualified. But I thought, surely, there should have been a determination by the committee. I recall the withdrawal of the nomination of Zoe Baird, who was up for Attorney General of the United States, and I recollect when Judge Ginsburg had been nominated for the Supreme Court; neither of them had finished their hearings. I think it is very important, in the context where we are trying to bring good people into Government and, inevitably, they are under a microscope, which is the way it is, and that is understandable. But they ought to have a chance to be heard and have their day in court and have a chance to defend themselves and have the public know what has gone on. If they pass, fine, and if they do not, so be it. But they ought to have that opportunity. I respected the decision made by Judge Bork back in 1987 when he wanted the matter to go forward and to come to a vote so that there would be a determination, because I think it is very unfortunate and unwise that when somebody allows their name to be put forward and you have these allegations in the newspapers about misconduct or impropriety, the impression is left with the public that that is, in fact, the conclusion, if the White House withdraws the name--as the White House did with Prof. Lani Guinier--or if the person doesn't move forward to a hearing. I talked to my colleague, Senator Jeffords, who chairs the Labor Committee, and Senator Jeffords has advised me that he is reviewing the outstanding questions, and the prospects are that there will be a hearing. But after meeting with Ms. Herman and having some say over her Department's activities in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I did want to voice my sentiments on this subject to urge that her nomination go forward. I do not have a final view as to the merits, yes or no. But I think she is entitled to be heard. Aside from the allegations that have been made about her, she has a very distinguished record. She is a graduate of Xavier University and has worked in the public and private sectors. She has quite a distinguished record as a businesswoman, has served in the administration of President Carter, and has served in the current administration. She may well be qualified, or the contrary may be the case. But I think it ought to be heard so she can have a determination on the merits. I thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Dodd, for allowing me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. A point of information, Mr. President. Does that in any way prejudice my bringing it back to the floor when it has been cleared on both sides?

Mr. SPECTER. I understand that. I want to make a comment or two about it, and then I will make that unanimous-consent request. Mr. President, this resolution relates to a very urgent problem on milk pricing in the country, but especially in Pennsylvania, where Senator Santorum and I have been working with our farmers to try to find something to grant some immediate relief. This is a problem which exists nationwide, and we believe that we have found a way to deal with this issue in the short run as it relates to the price of cheese, which is an ingredient in establishing the price of milk. Yesterday, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman accompanied me to northeastern Pennsylvania. We have found that the Secretary has the authority unilaterally to change the price of milk if there is a different price for cheese other than that which has been established by the National Cheese Exchange in Wisconsin. This is a matter of some urgency, Mr. President, which is why I have discussed with the leadership the prospect of offering this resolution at this time. I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be taken up on a 20- minute time limit, 10 minutes equally divided, with the yeas and nays on the vote. I submit this resolution on behalf of myself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Leahy.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from West Virginia for that suggestion. I shall incorporate that in my next unanimous-consent request. I understand the reasoning of my colleague from Kentucky. We had circulated this yesterday, so I thought there had been ample time for clearance. It is my understanding that this is an issue which will not cause regional friction, as do so many issues on milk pricing. It is an adjustment on price which will benefit all regions. So it would not customarily draw the objection. I understand it has not been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed in the Congressional Record. And, the objection having been heard, I will reinstate the resolution at a time when it has been cleared. (The text of S. Res. 52 is printed in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk.

Mr. SPECTER. I understand that. It requires a unanimous-consent now. It would require a unanimous-consent at that time. I just do not want to prejudice my position on bringing it back up. Whatever is the appropriate procedural call, I am prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I am not asking that all action be vitiated to the extent that the resolution has been sent to the desk, and that the discussion has been held. I understand that I may not proceed now except with unanimous consent, and unanimous consent has not been granted. I understand why unanimous consent has not been granted. So I do not think I can do anything further, but I do not want to withdraw anything either. Mr. President, the fact is, I have submitted the resolution for the Record. I do not know that I need to do anything else since an objection was heard and I cannot proceed unless there is unanimous consent, which there is not.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the dairy farmers of northeastern Pennsylvania, and for that matter the entire State of Pennsylvania, and for that matter the entire Nation, are suffering very materially because of low milk prices. It is a national calamity, where dairy farmers all across the country are facing the prospect of bankruptcy because the costs of producing milk have risen so tremendously and the price of selling milk has decreased very rapidly in the course of the past several weeks and several months. Because of this emergency state, Senator Santorum and I and others on the Pennsylvania delegation and really others in the Congress have been taking a close look at what is happening on the pricing of milk. This morning, the Secretary of Agriculture, Daniel Glickman, accepted the invitation from Senator Santorum and I and others in the Pennsylvania delegation to travel to Keystone College, located on the outskirts of Scranton, PA, to meet with and to hear the concerns of farmers. We had a very large crowd, hundreds of people. I am reluctant to say quite how many until I read tomorrow morning's newspapers, perhaps as many as 1,000 farmers. At that time, we heard the economic plight of the farmers in very graphic and very emphatic terms. The highlight of the meeting occurred when a woman named Mrs. Swetter made the point, very, very emphatically, about the imminent difficulties faced by the farmers and how answers were needed now. This Mrs. Patricia Swetter made that point with special gusto, as did quite a number of the other farmers who spoke at the hearing. Secretary Glickman responded that there would be an effort made to do what was possible now but commented about the difficulties of an immediate solution. That prompted a discussion on one point which I think has the prospect of doing something immediately, and that is delinking the price established by the Cheese Exchange out of Green Bay, WI, and have the Secretary of Agriculture develop an equivalent price for cheese. Now, some may wonder why the talk of a price for cheese on the discussion of a price of milk. The reason is that the price of cheese is a very key component in establishing the price of milk. For every 10 cents on an increase in the price of cheese, the price of milk goes up $1 per hundredweight. There have been some indicators that the price of cheese is not accurate as it has been currently established. The Secretary responded in a dialog that a number of us had--the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Glickman, the farmers who were there, myself--that he would be willing to work now to develop an equivalent price of cheese, so that we could have a reevaluation as to the price of milk. There has been some indication that there has been some manipulation of the price of cheese. It may be that this is a subject which ought to be a matter for a hearing by the Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee. It may also be that there ought to be a hearing from the Agriculture Subcommittee of Appropriations, or from the Agriculture Committee, on the pricing of milk, taking a close look at the issue of developing an equivalent price for cheese. I intend, Mr. President, to submit to the Senate a sense-of-the- Senate resolution to urge and/or direct the Secretary of Agriculture to move promptly on this issue of the price of cheese, with a view to having some immediate modification on the price of milk. Secretary of Agriculture Glickman has stated his willingness to do so, recognizing the plight of the farmers but, obviously, requiring a sufficient evidentiary base to be able to make that modification. So we are in the process now--my staff and I started in mid-morning-- to try to make the determination as to the price of cheese in America, because the price established by the so-called Green Bay Cheese Exchange is about one-half of 1 percent, and may well not--in fact, probably does not--reflect the price of cheese across the country. When we talk about helping the farmer, we talk about a great many items. We talk about increasing exports, which we are working on systematically, we talk about programs to increase cheese consumption at schools on programs purchased by the Federal Government. But the issue of milk pricing is something which requires our attention now. It is true that the Secretary of Agriculture has a second track to change the price of cheese under a procedure that calls for public hearings and inputs, but that doesn't eliminate the basic authority. The Secretary of Agriculture explained to me that he does have the power to go on a separate track and to unilaterally delete the price of cheese from the Cheese Exchange and to establish an equivalent price for cheese. That is a matter we are pursuing, and I think a sense-of- the-Senate resolution would be a very substantial impetus to move that process along. So I thank the Secretary for coming to northeastern Pennsylvania. He was up very, very early this morning. He had commitments back in Washington at noontime. I met him at the Scranton Airport shortly before 8 a.m. this morning. So it was an early start for him and for the rest of us and for all the farmers who appeared there. But I do think something material can be done to assist the farmers on this very important issue of milk pricing.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in favor of the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, this amendment has come up repeatedly during my tenure in the U.S. Senate, and I have consistently supported the balanced budget amendment because of my deep-seated view that the Congress needs this discipline if we are to balance the budget on a permanent basis. It is a very fundamental principle that people ought to live within their means--if you or I do not, we end up in the bankruptcy court--and that governmental entities must live within their means. The only exception to this issue of living within one's means has been the Government of the United States of America, which goes into further debt each year with deficits of $100 billion or $200 billion, or more, establishing a national debt in excess of $5 trillion. This issue came into sharp focus for me recently when my wife and I were blessed with two grandchildren. We would certainly never think of imposing our financial obligations on our grandchildren, or spending money on their credit cards for them to pay at some later date. But that is precisely what we have done as a society. We have undertaken a variety of methods to try to move toward a balanced budget with Gramm- Rudman and the so-called automatic sequestrations. That did not work. Nothing has worked, which is why I believe, in the final analysis, we need to move to the balanced budget amendment. We had the vote last year, coming within one vote of having the amendment pass. The President is opposed to the balanced budget amendment. But I do believe that just the pendency of the amendment has been a very substantial impetus moving the administration, the President, and the Congress to balance the budget without a constitutional amendment. President Clinton has laid before the Congress and the country what he submits is a plan to balance the budget by the year 2002. But the reality is, upon looking at the fine print, that it is unlikely to achieve that result because most of the cuts are in the last 2 years. When we come to that point, there is the inevitable impetus to eliminate those cuts. But to the extent that the pendency of the balanced budget amendment will move us to balance the budget without an amendment, that is so much to the good. Ideally, it would be preferable if we could balance the budget without having a constitutional amendment. But regrettably, that has not been our experience. It is always difficult to turn down worthwhile programs for Federal Governmental expenditures, and it is very, very difficult, painful, and really, at the present time, impossible to have tax increases with a Congress that is controlled by the Republicans and, I think, properly declining to even entertain tax increases. So when we do have the mandate of a balanced budget, it is apparent to everyone--it is apparent to all 535 Members of Congress, and it is apparent to our constituents. How frequently have we all heard the cry or the comment of a constituent coming to see us, ``I have a very important program that is meritorious and ought to be financed,'' and, at the same time, insisting that the taxes not go up and that the budget be balanced? I think it is important, Mr. President, as we go over this balanced budget amendment, that we allow sufficient flexibility for our Government to respond in times of crises or emergency. I share the concern that the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has expressed in offering his amendment. But I think that the underlying resolution covers the problem in the appropriate way by calling for a supermajority, or 60 votes, in order to waive the provisions of the balanced budget in the event that there is a recession, an economic crisis, which requires that. Therefore, I intend to vote against the Durbin amendment. There has been very considerable comment about whether Social Security ought to be excluded from the balanced budget amendment. After very considerable thought, Mr. President, it is my conclusion that Social Security should be excluded. I say that notwithstanding my recognition of the problems there will be to balance the budget now if we exclude Social Security. But I submit that it is an artificial way of balancing the budget, which says that we ought to make expenditures which are not in excess of our income if we include Social Security, because those funds really are a trust fund to pay Social Security recipients at a later day. So what we are doing is saying we are going to spend more money, which we really can't afford now, by invading the trust fund, and we will put off for tomorrow what we are not willing to face up to today, to find a way to pay the Social Security recipients when the due date arises. We know very well that the so-called baby boomers will present a charge on the Social Security trust fund at a later date--2020--which we will be unable to pay unless we find some way to raise taxes or some way to make other cuts which are unrealistic in the context of what we might expect at that time. It may be that in crafting a balanced budget amendment, excluding Social Security, we will have to implement it on a schedule which is realistic which will account for excluding those surplus funds at the present time. But when we talked about Social Security initially we were talking about an insurance fund concept. We were talking about setting aside the money in a way where it would be there to pay those benefits at the time when one reached the age for Social Security. So that it is my very, very strong view that as a matter of sound financing that Social Security ought to be excluded. And this body has responded on many occasions when that issue has been presented. My late colleague, Senator John Heinz, was one of the major exponents for taking Social Security offbudget--not the only exponent but I recall the eloquent speeches which he made. And I recall many sense-of-the- Senate resolutions where we talked about putting Social Security offbudget because it is a trust fund. I remember well during the tenure of James Baker, the Secretary of the Treasury, when there was an unusual invasion of the trust fund. I took the floor at that time and made a comment that there was really a fraudulent conversion which I believed was the case, and have analogized it to my experience as district attorney of Philadelphia when there was a trust fund and a fraudulent conversion. The people who took the money out of that trust fund were guilty of a criminal offense because, if it is set aside for a specific purpose and the trustee invades the fund for some purpose other than for which it was intended, that is a conversion and an invasion. So while I believe very strongly that we ought to have a balanced budget amendment, I think if it is to be realistic and not a double set of books that Social Security ought to be kept offbudget. Mr. President, I think that in constructing a timetable for a balanced budget amendment it is entirely possible to accommodate to the lesser amount of income which we have from Social Security payments in order to see to it that our current income aside from Social Security payments matches our current expenses, and that is the only way to truly have a balanced budget which I think we ought to have. And an amendment is the way to impose the discipline to be sure we will have it for the future. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to pay tribute to a very distinguished citizen of the world, Pamela Churchill Harriman, whose untimely death occurred yesterday in Paris, France, while she was performing her very distinguished duties as United States Ambassador to France. Ambassador Harriman had an illustrious career. She has graced Europe, she has graced the United States, and has capped an extraordinary life with very distinguished service for the past 4 years as our Ambassador to France, dealing, in fact, with some of the most difficult problems of the world, as we have tensions between the United States and France and the problems of NATO and a great many other issues. During the past several years, I have had the privilege to come to know Ambassador Harriman personally. I traveled to Paris in connection with my duties as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and found her knowledge, experience, and wisdom in that field to be very extensive and, candidly, it was somewhat of a surprise to find such depth and knowledge and understanding on the complicated matters which involve intelligence. She truly had an extraordinary life. Married to Randolph Churchill, the son of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, she was privy to some of the really fascinating and great events of the era. During the course of conversations with her, I was struck to hear her tell of being at Checkers, the home of the Prime Minister, one Sunday evening when the dinner was interrupted by a telephone call from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And she told the story about Prime Minister Winston Churchill telling the story of President Roosevelt telling to Churchill the United States was now in it with Great Britain, because the attack on Pearl Harbor had just occurred. And then her reminiscences about the events during the war. The Churchills had a basement at No. 10 Downing Street for when the air raids came on. They had tiered bunkers. They were not set up in very elaborate fashion. She slept in the lower bunk, pregnant at the time, and Sir Winston Churchill would come in, she recounted, at 2 a.m. and snore loudly, awakening everybody in the compound. When I heard of the news 2 days ago, I called Charge d'Affaires Donald Bandler to find out what her condition was. She finished an arduous day, was on her way for a swim in the Ritz Hotel and, before going into the water, had suffered a seizure. I had a chance to talk briefly with her son, Winston Churchill, who said at that point it was apparent that his mother would not survive. While talking with her about the events of being an ambassador, I was struck with the difficulties that Ambassadors of the United States are having around the world and took some of the information and made a statement on the Senate floor praising the work she was doing, illustrative of ambassadors generally, commenting about the need to support the State Department and the activities which ambassadors were performing. While there, I had an opportunity to stay in the Benjamin Franklin Room, a room of special significance to this Senator, Franklin being a Philadelphian really, not a Bostonian, and had an opportunity to get some of the memorabilia from the Ben Franklin Institute to send to Ambassador Harriman to furnish the Franklin Room in the style she wanted it to be. We have lost a really great world citizen with the passing of Ambassador Harriman. There is much more that could be said about her, in terms of her illustrious life. Many Senators knew her; most of Washington knew her. She was a great citizen of Great Britain, she was, in a sense, a citizen of France but, most of all, a great citizen of America. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the pending resolution because it focuses attention on the need for mammograms that would give the imprimatur of the U.S. Senate to this important medical testing device. I, with many other Americans, was very surprised when, on January 23, a report was issued questioning the advisability of mammograms with the essential finding that there was not enough evidence that women in their forties would benefit by advising them to have the x-ray test as part of routine health screening. The question which then came to my mind was whether there was enough evidence to conclude that women in their forties would not benefit from the mammograms as part of routine health screening. To articulate the conclusion in the form that there was not sufficient evidence to show that women would benefit is really not to answer the question, because where the evidence may be in doubt in the minds of some scientists, the practical sense conclusion is that there is very, very substantial evidence to show that mammograms are helpful and that underlying a decision not to have mammography is a question about cost-benefit ratio and a question about certain collateral issues, which need not necessarily be faced, as to whether there will be unnecessary biopsies. This matter struck home with me especially, because in 1993, when I sought an MRI examination of my head, I was told by the doctors that I did not need it. I then insisted on having it, and they found a potentially life-threatening problem, which was corrected after I got the MRI. There is an attitude in many quarters that unless the burden of proof rises to a certain level, and perhaps a very high level, these tests ought not to be given. I think that is the wrong standard of evaluation. Mammograms are expensive; MRI's are expensive. But I am convinced, from the work I have done as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, that we have enough mammography equipment and enough specialists and enough administrators and enough MRI machines, et cetera, to conduct the necessary tests. It may be necessary to do them in the evening. If an MRI costs $800 at a convenient time during the day, maybe it could be accomplished at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. for $50, with a margin of cost as to what it would take. When this report came down on January 23, 12 days ago, I immediately scheduled a hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services. Tomorrow we will be hearing from the people who came to the conclusion that mammograms are not warranted for women in their forties, and we will also be hearing from people who have reached the opposite conclusion. I think it is very significant that Dr. Richard D. Klausner, Director of the National Cancer Institute, expressed shock when he heard of this report that mammograms were not warranted for women in their forties. Dr. Bernadine Healy, former Director of NIH, made this succinct statement: ``What are they saying--that ignorance is bliss?'' Dr. Daniel B. Kopans of the Harvard Medical School said the committee's report was ``fraudulent,'' which was the way he termed it. And if you take a look at this issue historically, in 1977, the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society recommended that women 40 to 49 have mammograms only if their mothers or sisters had breast cancer. In 1980, the Cancer Society recommended that one- time mammograms for women 35 to 40 were warranted to establish a baseline for future measurements for women under 50. In 1983, the Cancer Society recommended that symptom-free women 40 to 49 have mammograms every 1 or 2 years. In 1987, the Cancer Institute adopted a working guideline to begin screening women age 40 with mammograms every 1 to 2 years. In 1989, those guidelines were officially adopted by a conference of leading cancer organizations. Then, in 1993, the National Cancer Institute changed the recommendation, saying ``Experts do not agree on the value of routine screening of mammography of women ages 40 to 49.'' They do not agree that women in that age category ought not to have mammograms. And I say on the face of this record with succinct evidence that women do benefit from mammograms. Even though there is conflicting evidence, we ought to err on the side of safety, and mammograms ought to be available. But when there is a national report questioning the value for women 40 to 49, immediately it is going to send shock waves to the women of America who will say, ``Well, maybe I do not really need a mammogram.'' It is very difficult to get some people to take medical tests because people very understandably, very naturally, are afraid of the results. If you have this conclusion from a group of experts that you really ought not to have it, that it is not a matter of necessity, then women are not going to take it. Where you have this kind of report too, those who are responsible for paying for mammograms are going to have a good reason to say, ``We are not going to cover mammograms for women in the 40 to 49 category.'' When we have the hearing in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services tomorrow it will be a rather unusual hearing as far as I am concerned. Most of the time we have these hearings to answer questions. This is one hearing that I am approaching with the fixed opinion from all that I have studied in the past to really find a direction so that the National Cancer Institute will take whatever steps are necessary to resolve this issue in favor of having mammograms. It is simply not sufficient to say on the evidence that when there is conflicting evidence we are going to reject mammograms for women in the 40 to 49 age category. In addition, I think that the National Cancer Institute ought to be doing more on multiinstitutional testing of MRI's on imaging. Last year, with the help of the Central Intelligence Agency and a special contribution made with the help of then-Director John Deutch, some $2 million was put up by the CIA for imaging processes on the proposition that if the CIA could image and detect through clouds and look to the Earth to find out what was going on that those processes could be helpful in the detection of breast cancer. So I compliment my distinguished colleague from Maine and my distinguished colleague from Maryland for their leadership. I would like to add that for the National Institutes of Health budget, specific research funding for women was added that Senator Harkin, then-chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, and I as ranking member, supported. I must say that I like it better to be chairman and have Senator Harkin as ranking member. But there has been very considerable attention to this issue not only by our very distinguished women Senators but many on the male side as well. I hope that the vote this afternoon--and I am confident that it will be, knowing our colleagues on issues of this sort--will be a resounding vote to send a message to the women of America that they ought to get mammograms, that they ought to protect their health, and that where it is an open question as to whether it is cost-effective, let us err on the side of taking the test. I say that with some substantial experience in the field of having undergone a test that the experts said I didn't need, which for me was a life-saving procedure. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address an ongoing threat to our Nation's security and prosperity, a threat with dual roots. In the precarious Middle East and right here at home there is reason for concern about our Nation's increased reliance on potentially unstable foreign sources of oil. I believe it is critical during the 105th Congress that we focus on efforts to increase energy conservation, particularly in the context of reauthorization of the Federal highway and transit programs. We must think back to the days of the gulf war and further back to the oil crises of the 1970's to better understand the entire picture. American consumers too often forget the interdependence of world events, particularly when it comes to our use of imported foreign oil. There are currently legitimate reasons to question whether instability in the Mideast will once again jeopardize our access to that region's oil resources, putting our economy and perhaps our national security at significant risk. By way of background, it is well known that the oil supplies in the Mideast are immense. An estimated 66 percent of the world's recoverable oil resources are found in the region. These supplies are critical to the United States as well as to our European allies. More than 20 percent of the oil we purchase comes from the Arab countries of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, commonly known as OPEC. Western Europe depends on the region for 25 percent of its oil consumption. These OPEC countries include alphabetically, Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. I have been troubled that U.S. imports of foreign oil continue to increase. Currently, the U.S. imports constitute more than 50 percent of the oil which we consume. According to the American Petroleum Institute, this equals more than 9 million barrels per day, with a 6- percent increase in the amount of imported oil since 1995 alone. That is cause for real concern. This is a huge jump from the 6 million barrels imported per day in 1973. Further, if these trends continue, analysts say that in 10 years we will look to these overseas sources for two-thirds of our energy needs. In part because of the ready availability of less expensive sources of foreign oil, it has not been cost effective for U.S. energy companies to increase domestic production. U.S. domestic production of oil continues to decline, with an estimated 17,000 U.S. oil wells ceasing production annually. U.S. industry claims that regulatory relief and tax measures are necessary to jump start domestic production again, and these are areas which we ought to consider. This is a field that I have some personal knowledge in, Mr. President, from my roots in Kansas where my father ran a junkyard and where he and my brothers bought oil wells for salvage and then flooded wells. We have a great source of supply from those wells and other production in the United States which we really ought to reexamine in the context of this major international problem. In an effort to protect ourselves against the disruption of oil supplies after the oil crises we faced in the 1970's, Congress established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That reserve was intended to minimize the effects of any disruptions from the import of oil, and by the end of 1989 that reserve held 580 million barrels. The first sale from that reserve occurred after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, demonstrating that the reserve can serve its intended purpose, because it was used at that time. The effectiveness of the reserve is measured by the number of days of net petroleum imports the reserve could supply in the event of an interruption in the supply of foreign oil. For example, in 1986 the reserve was said to contain 115 days of imports. By 1995, based on the decreasing U.S. production and a corresponding increase in foreign imports, the reserve was said to hold an amount comparable to 75 days of net imports. As if it was not sufficient to let the effectiveness of the reserve dwindle, last year in an unprecedented move, the Administration decided to sell approximately 25 million barrels of petroleum from the reserve to generate revenues, an amount equivalent to almost 3 weeks supply of imports from Saudi Arabia. That timing, I suggest, was less than prudent, particularly considering the state of affairs in the Mideast today which should highlight the dangers and disadvantages of reliance on Mideast oil. Saudi Arabia, in particular, poses a unique cause for concern. The sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital interest to the United States, as President Bush said in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait. If a hostile nation seized Saudi oil wells, the largest reserve in the world, the American economy and the world markets could tumble. More recent events are again drawing our attention to Saudi Arabia. Last week, Attorney General Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh publicly acknowledged what has been known for a long time; and that is that the Saudis are not cooperating with the United States investigation into the terrible terrorist attack at Dharhan on June 25 of 1996. We saw the terrorist attack on United States citizens in Riyadh in November of 1995. We saw the Saudi investigation. We saw the Saudi execution of four convicts, people they said were guilty, on May 31, 1996 without giving the FBI an opportunity to question those individuals. Now Director Freeh has been blunt about the lack of Saudi cooperation, and Attorney General Janet Reno said the same thing in public disclosures last week. It is in the interest of the United States, Mr. President, for our relationship with Saudi Arabia to continue, and we want to have a good relationship with the Saudis. But we have some 5,000 U.S. military personnel there. We have thousands of other U.S. personnel there. I think it is important for the Saudis to understand that continued United States cooperation requires fair treatment for our investigative efforts. Along a parallel line, it is important for the Saudis to understand that respect for United States personnel there, for their religious freedom, is of enormous importance. It was not too long ago, in the mid 1980's, when United States citizens were arrested in their households by the so-called ``religious police'' and held in detention. But this effort to maintain our relationship with the Saudis, while of enormous importance, requires that we focus on a potential problem of what we will do if the oil supplies from Saudi Arabia are in any way threatened. Mr. President, while our interest in reducing dependence on foreign oil is a difficult task, we can achieve meaningful reductions in energy consumption through prompt reauthorization of the Federal mass transit and highway programs contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, known as ISTEA, as well as enactment of an Amtrak reform bill and continued public policy initiatives to promote the use of clean burning alternative-fueled vehicles such as natural gas and electric cars. ISTEA is commonly referred to as the highway bill, but it does much more than pave roads. That legislation expands the mass transit formula and discretionary grant programs, authorizing some $31.5 billion over 6 years for public transportation. Other provisions established funding for bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. That bill revolutionized Federal spending on transportation infrastructure improvements by establishing the National Highway System, funding the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, granting States and local governments more flexibility in determining transit and highway solutions, and promoting new technologies such as intelligent transportation systems and magnetic levitation systems, which are also important alternatives to help us reduce dependency on foreign oil. The funding authority for ISTEA will expire on September 30 this year, therefore creating the necessity and an opportunity to focus national attention on the significant link between energy consumption and our transportation infrastructure. A Department of Transportation study of the 50 largest urban areas in the United States suggests that nearly 4 billion gallons of gasoline are wasted each year due to traffic congestion--approximately 94 million barrels of oil. There is much at stake, for the annual economic loss to business in the United States caused by traffic congestion is estimated in itself at $40 billion by the Federal Transit Administration. We will be correcting many problems if we work on mass transit and road improvements to reduce traffic congestion and also our dependence on foreign oil. Legislation to reauthorize Federal highway programs will provide an opportunity to improve existing roadways, construct more efficient bypasses and highway interchanges and generally reduce congestion in our cities and towns. Further, a key weapon in our effort to reduce our dependence on oil shipments from potentially unstable regions is public transportation and mass transit. Mass transit has developed to include traditional bus and subway lines, commuter rail, cable cars, monorails, water taxis, and several other modes of shared transportation. Public transportation is a lifeline for millions of Americans and deserves substantial funding for that reason alone. However, it deserves even greater funding when one considers that public transportation saves 1.5 billion gallons of fuel consumption annually in the United States and that each commuter who switches from driving alone to using public transportation saves 200 gallons of gasoline per year, according to government and private studies. Transit thus deserves a renewed and expanded Federal commitment as we begin consideration of the reauthorization of ISTEA. The additional benefits of reducing fuel consumption and improving the environment, not to mention the millions of Americans who are involved in the transit industry, provide extra reason to stop and explore the case for mass transit. In our States, citizens and communities depend on good public transportation for mobility, access to jobs and health care providers, environmental control, and economic stability. In the context of ISTEA reauthorization, I intend to work closely with my colleagues to ensure that sufficient funds are available for improving our transportation infrastructure, including both highways and transit. As a first step, I was pleased to join 56 of my colleagues in a recent bipartisan letter to Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici urging that the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution reflect the need for increased transportation funding. Further, I am currently working on legislation that reflects the energy and environmental benefits of public transportation by increasing funding for mass transit and preserving the elements of the transit program incorporated in the 1991 ISTEA law. The additional benefits of reducing fuel consumption and improving the environment will be present if we do have the highway-transit conservation ideas uppermost in our minds. Mr. President, I have taken some time today since we are in morning business and since there is not business at hand to speak on the subject of the interrelationship between the way we handle mass transit and oil conservation in the context of what is going on in the Mideast and very serious potential problems which we face there. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article in the New York Times from last Sunday be printed at the conclusion of my comments, entitled ``Oil Imports Are Up. Fretting About It Is Down,'' which summarizes some of the statistical basis for legitimate concern if we do not do something about those oil imports and if we do not focus on them. As the headline notes, fretting about oil imports is down. It is passe. We do remember those long lines, many of us do, in 1973, and we do see the problems in the Mideast and the issue of stability of the Saudi Government. This is the interrelation of problems which I think we have to address in a number of ways. We can address these problems through our foreign policy with the Saudis, and by trying to reduce dependency on foreign oil in a variety of ways, such as first, stimulating our domestic oil production consistent with environmental concerns, and second, reauthorizing the ISTEA programs, which will give us an opportunity to achieve some meaningful economies through mass transit.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Honorable William S. Cohen was a great Senator and I am confident that he will carry on his outstanding record in public service as Secretary of Defense. I compliment President Clinton both for his bipartisanship for nominating Bill Cohen and for his wisdom in selecting this man of unique ability and integrity. I have worked closely with Bill Cohen for the past 16 years and have found him to be brilliant, tenacious, honest, and hardworking. If Bill Cohen finds all the others in a Cabinet meeting about to make an erroneous decision, I am confident he will be smart enough and strong enough to persuade them to the correct course. I look forward to working with Secretary Cohen on many matters in the future.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for those generous comments. He and I cochaired the Children's Caucus in the early 1980's. And he mentioned that he and I cosponsored the first family leave act exactly 10 years ago at this time--it was in 1987-- which was very important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as has always been my practice on return home from official travels overseas, I have sought recognition today to record for the information of our colleagues and my constituents in Pennsylvania the results of my recess trip, from November 16 to November 24, to the North Atlantic Assembly and to the Middle East. As you know, the Senate delegation in November 1996 to the North Atlantic Assembly included 13 Senators during all or part of a full schedule of meetings in Paris and London, arranged and ably chaired by Senator Roth. Let me take a moment to note here the important news of Senator Roth's election as the President of the North Atlantic Assembly. Our delegation's mission began with a working flight to Paris early in the morning on Saturday, November 16. As the presiding officer knows how rare it is for eight Senators to share 7\1/2\ hours together-- especially in the absence of a telephone--I know you can appreciate the value of this group of colleagues being able to exchange views and form plans relevant to the 105th Congress. In Paris and, later in the week, in London, our Senate North American Assembly Delegation focused its work on the vital--but vexing-- questions of the purposes, the structures and the problems of transatlantic relations in the post cold war era. NATO has been perhaps the most successful international collective security arrangement in the world's history, ultimately achieving its once thought unattainable goal of containing and outlasting the empire of the former Soviet Union through a vigilant deterrence rather than actual conflict. It was this successful because it is more than a mutual defense pact. It is the coming together, across the Atlantic, of the power of the ideas of freedom and democracy. But NATO's very success in achieving its original aim is the basis of the present quandary of the alliance. In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we must ask for many reasons--including our responsibility to wisely spend the American taxpayers' dollars--what is NATO for now, what countries should be a part of the alliance and what roles and burdens should be played and borne by the different members of the North Atlantic community. Our Senate delegation took up these questions--and many subordinate ones as well, including the allied operation in Bosnia and trade and economic relations across the Atlantic--with our European parliamentary colleagues, senior officials of the executives of France, Britain, and other allied nations, international business leaders and, of course, our American Ambassadors and their staffs. Apart from the formal itinerary of the entire delegation, I made a point to visit with Alan J. Blinken, the America Ambassador in Brussels, headquarters of the European Economic Community, to discuss the transatlantic trade situation and other matters, and to engage in substantive conversations with our Ambassador to France, Pamela Harriman, concerning a variety of security and international economic issues. At mid-week, specifically, from Tuesday, November 19 through Thursday, November 21, I split off from my North American Assembly colleagues for an individual visit to the Middle East. As the presiding officer is well aware, I have reported to the Senate and my constituents many times on my visits to the Middle East, visits I began making in 1964, some 16 years prior to my election to the Senate. As a Senator, I have traveled extensively in this vital, but deeply troubled, part of the world in order to better fulfill my responsibilities as a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations--where I have been a member since coming to the Senate-- and my roles as chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism and as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as my general duties as a Senator to be informed on a part of the world frequently requiring action by this body. This past August, the first visit to the Middle East I had made since the Israeli elections of May 1996, my trip became something more than a fact-finding assessment of the always changing situation in that part of the world when Prime Minister Netanyahu asked me to carry a message to Syrian President Assad concerning the Prime Minister's views on the reopening of peace talks between Israel and Syria and, in an even more time-sensitive vein, on Israeli thinking regarding Syrian troop movements occurring at that time in Lebanon and in areas of Syria near the Israeli controlled Golan Heights. As I stated on the floor upon my return at that time, I carried Prime Minister Netanyahu's messages to President Assad in Damascus and, following a substantive 3-hour exchange with the Syrian leader--with whom I have been meeting regularly since 1988--I returned to Israel to brief Prime Minister Netanyahu on President Assad's responses to the messages. In preparation for my joining the North Atlantic Assembly Delegation visit to Europe--because I would be half-way there, so to speak--I met here in Washington with the Syrian Ambassador to the United States, Walid Al-Moualem, to get an update from his perspective on the situation between Syria and Israel. Ambassador Al-Moualem told me that his government viewed my August round of talks between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Assad as having been helpful in deescalating the dangerous tensions, especially related to troop movements, between Israel and Syria and the Ambassador encouraged me to return to the region for another round of meetings aimed at helping the parties find a basis to reopen their peace negotiations. Now, I do not know if the Ambassador is correct in his characterization of my August meetings as helpful in reducing military tensions, but I told him that I obviously would make myself available to be helpful--without seeking either to displace the President or his representatives in this matter and without seeking to advance any personal agenda on the substance of an Israeli-Syrian peace--if both sides had an interest in my so doing. When consultations with Israeli officials, including a telephone conversation I had directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu, indicated a similar encouragement for me to make another visit to Israel and Syria as had been expressed by the Syrian Ambassador, I decided to make such a trip during a portion of the North Atlantic Assembly Delegation program in Europe. Naturally, and any press accounts at the time to the contrary notwithstanding, I and my staff both informed the State Department about my planned trip and received extensive briefings by relevant administration officials as to the Israeli/Syrian situation and administration policy on the matter. Mr. President, as you know, this sort of active involvement in foreign policy issues is, while--as I have already said--not meant to supplant the President, the Secretary of State or their representatives, a time-honored role for Members of the U.S. Senate, going back to such distinguished Senators as Arthur Vandenburg and William Fulbright. In any case, one could not responsibly pass up even a slight chance of being helpful in promoting peace between Israel and Syria when the alternative to peace could threaten dire consequences for us all. I met with Prime Minister Netanyahu at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, November 20 at his office in the Israeli Knesset Building. United States Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk was present. The Prime Minister told me that tensions with Syria have been reduced since the August/ September time period and that he wants to continue to de-escalate the saber-rattling. He asked me to convey this, and specifically that Israel has no aggressive intent against Syria, when I went on to see President Assad that afternoon. He noted as an exception to the reduction of military dangers attacks on Israeli forces in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah and asked me to convey his request to President Assad that Syria seek to stop the Hezbollah attacks. On the broader issue of reopening peace talks with Syria, Prime Minister Netanyahu told me to tell President Assad that he wishes to do so as soon as possible and that he is ready, willing, and able to be personally involved in such talks. He said that although there are clearly tough issues to be addressed in negotiating with Syria, he has a real sense that talks could be productive. Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated that any talks with Syria will be based on the framework for Arab/Israel peace established by U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 and by the terms of reference of the 1991 Middle East peace conference organized by President Bush in Madrid. The Prime Minister's willingness to state the basis of talks with Syria in this way is significant because it indicates an acceptance that such talks would be based on the formula standardly called ``land for peace.'' The Prime Minister held his ground, however, on what has been the Syrian demand that new talks begin where the old talks left off, that is that Prime Minister Netanyahu's government be bound as a condition for reopening talks by what the Syrians consider a commitment by the prior Israel governments of Prime Ministers Rabin and Peres to full withdrawal by Israel from the Golan Heights to the June 4, 1967 line. He stated that he would not and could not agree to talks with such a precondition. I flew on to Damascus that day and held a wide ranging, cordial but frank 3-hour meeting with President Assad, lasting from 1:20 p.m. to 4:20 p.m. Syrian Foreign Minister Sharra and United States Ambassador to Syria, Christopher Ross, were also present. I raised with President Assad the mounting evidence of Iranian and perhaps Syrian involvement in or connection to the dastardly act of terrorist murder against United States soldiers at Khobar Towers in Dharhan, in Saudi Arabia, on June 15, 1996. I reminded President Assad that the United States had responded militarily against Libya in 1986 when we received proof of Libyan responsibility for a bombing at a nightclub in Germany which killed two American servicemen. Our exchange on this subject was pointed but it was incumbent on me to take this opportunity of a face-to-face session at this time to reiterate that the United States cannot be targeted by terrorists with impunity. On the central purpose of the meeting, I regret to say I can report little progress, frankly less than I had hoped based on the encouragement I had received to make this visit and on public statements by the Syrian Foreign Minister about the possibility of renewing talks with Israel. President Assad did generally seem to share Prime Minister Netanyahu's desire to continue to ease and avoid military tensions which could lead to unintended hostilities. Although he denied having the ability to control Hezbollah activities in Lebanon, President Assad received this portion of Prime Minister Netanyahu's message positively and reiterated his own return message to the same effect. President Assad's position was unmovable, however, regarding the terms for the reopening of talks with Israel. The Syrian leader asserts with complete conviction that he will not restart talks without a prior reaffirmation by Israel of the pledge he says he received from the prior Israeli governments, and ratified in his view by the United States as participants in the talks, for full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. In his view the next round of talks are only properly about the details of security arrangements along the new border and the process of normalization between the countries, not on the territorial question itself. This is not a ``precondition'' for future talks, he argues, because Syria already obtained this commitment from Israel and the United States in the prior talks and that commitment binds Israel despite its change of government. I attempted to argue to President Assad that in any negotiation such as that between Syria and Israel, nothing is final until everything is final, and that in the absence of any signed document binding Israel as a state, the new Israeli government was not obligated by the negotiating position of a former administration. I also argued that Prime Minister Netanyahu's public comments accepting the land for peace framework for talks with Syria should be a sufficient basis to get back to the table and see what happens in that very different dynamic. I tried many formulations of these ideas but he would have none of it. I returned to Israel that evening and met again with Prime Minister Netanyahu, to brief him on my talks with President Assad, on the following morning, Thursday, November 21, 1996. While there is certainly a very sharp divide between the Israeli and Syrian leaders on the basis for a reopening of peace talks, I continue to believe that such a return to the negotiating table is not only essential, but possible if the American involvement in this process is taken to a new level. I came away from this round of meetings convinced that the logjam might be broken, but only with direct action by the President of the United States. The United States has been more than an observer or facilitator of the Israeli/Syrian peace process so far. We have been an indispensable party, viewed by both sides as the guarantor of the integrity of both the negotiating process and of any final outcome which might be achieved. If the different accounts of where the last round of talks left off and what that means for future talks are to be resolved, it will happen only with the most active American role at the highest level. Since my return, I have discussed with the President's National Security advisor--and CIA Director designee--Anthony Lake, and his Special Mid-East Envoy, Dennis Ross, and I intend to discuss with the President directly, my suggestion that President Clinton invite President Assad--who has never been to this country--and Prime Minister Netanyahu to a meeting in the Oval Office--not to conclude a final peace treaty at this time but simply to find a formula for the reopening of talks between their countries. While nothing is ever certain in such a difficult situation, I believe it would be productive for the President to raise the stakes of the peace process between Israel and Syria--as an Oval Office invitation would surely do--because the stakes of a continued state of war between these two countries remain so high. Mr. President, we must all continue to do all we can to find the path to a just and secure peace in the Middle East.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today principally to lend my support to the nomination of the Honorable Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State. It is a historic and fitting occasion that this will be the first vote in the U.S. Senate in the 105th Congress. I have come to know Ambassador Albright in her work at the United Nations, and have a very high regard for her competency. And I am pleased that the President has made this historic appointment because she is the first woman who will have this very important position. She has an extraordinary record in academia: president of the Center for National Policy; a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University; a senior fellow in Soviet and Eastern European affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; served on the National Security Council staff; has excellent academic credentials from Wellesley; also a masters and doctorate from Columbia University; and, perhaps most importantly is a graduate of the Senate family, having served as chief legislative assistant to Senator Edmund Muskie. I had occasion to work with Ambassador Albright on a number of matters. One of the most important was working with her on the War Crimes Tribunal, where the United States has played an active role in bringing to justice the international criminals from Bosnia and Rwanda. She accompanied me in a meeting which I had several years ago with then Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and there has been really good cooperation from the U.S. Government on that important matter. I have had an occasion to visit the War Crimes Tribunal on two occasions; to visit with our staff there, and also the judges. She has played a very important role in promoting the War Crimes Tribunal. It is my hope that Secretary of State Albright will pursue an activist foreign policy and will lend the prestige and the power of the United States to solve complex international problems, one which I refer to--and only one for the brevity of time--which involves the efforts to bring conciliation between the Governments of India and Pakistan. About a year and a half ago Senator Brown and I were traveling in India and met with Prime Minister Gowda, who commented about his interest in having the subcontinent nuclear free. We then discussed the matter with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. The ministers of those two countries have not met. Senator Brown and I wrote to the President urging that he invite them to the Oval Office. I mention that only as an illustration of what I am hopeful Secretary of State Albright will activate on U.S. policy. I think it is important for the United States to remain active internationally. She has an extraordinary background having been born in Czechoslovakia and having come to this country at the age of 11, and is also known to be fluent in four languages. So I am pleased to lend my support to her nomination today. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I was pleased to support yesterday as an original cosponsor Senate Resolution 15 which proposes to double appropriations for medical research over the next 5 years. That is a lofty goal. I subscribe to that goal. During my tenure in the U.S. Senate I have served on the Appropriations Committee and on the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services and the funding responsibility for the National Institutes of Health. I am pleased to note that, notwithstanding very severe budget constraints over the years, the subcommittee has consistently raised the funding, whether it was Senator Weicker, Senator Chiles, or Senator Harkin, or under my stewardship as chairman. When I joined the committee in 1981 the appropriations were $3.6 billion. That has now risen to $12.7 billion. Since I became chairman in 1996 we raised the funding by 5.7 percent, and in 1997, fiscal year 1997, 6.9 percent, some $820 million to a total now of $12.7 billion dollars. When the resolution calls for doubling NIH spending within 5 years, that is a very, very tough goal and a very, very tough objective to me. That would really call for an increase of expenditures of about $2.5 billion a year. My own view is that it would be a priority worth meeting to reach the goal of $2.5 billion a year if the allocation to the subcommittee did permit that. But I have grave doubts that will be possible, although it is as I say a lofty goal. We do need more grants in that field. There are some 27,000 grants now in operation. But only a fraction of the applications receive the grants, and there are many worthwhile grants that ought to be accepted. There have been tremendous advances in breast cancer and prostate cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and many, many more. What I want to say today and do say is that as chairman of the subcommittee I am prepared to commit to an increase in the next year's budget of 7.5 percent, which would amount to some $950 million. In making that statement, I want to emphasize how difficult it will be to reach $950 million and a 7.5-percent commitment. But in articulating, stating that view, that is a strong stretch, considering the funding and the allocation which is present for the subcommittee which I chair. So I invite my colleagues to look toward alternative methods of financing if we are to be able to meet the $2.5 billion mark, which we really ought to do. But I did want to make a statement today, following the introduction of the resolution yesterday, that there is the commitment that I am prepared to undertake the 7.5-percent figure or $950 million.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for those generous comments. He and I cochaired the Children's Caucus in the early 1980's. And he mentioned that he and I cosponsored the first family leave act exactly 10 years ago at this time--it was in 1987-- which was very important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the start of the 105th Congress gives those of us in the Senate and the House a new opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of the American people. It is a chance for us to learn from the past concerning how to best respond to the challenges that are before us and forge important alliances to enable us to pass legislation that is important to the American people. One of our first priorities must be additional reforms of our Nation's health care system. In the 104th Congress, I was pleased to cosponsor the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, better known as the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill (S. 1028). There is no question that Kassebaum-Kennedy made significant steps forward in addressing troubling issues in health care. The bill's incremental approach to health care reform is what allowed it to generate consensus support in the Senate; we knew that it did not address every single problem in the health care delivery system, but it would make life better for millions of American men, women, and children. There is much more that needs to be done. Accordingly, today I am introducing the Health Care Assurance Act of 1997, which, if enacted, will take us further down the path of incremental reforms started by Kassebaum-Kennedy. It is my firm belief that the best approach to addressing our Nation's health care problems is to enact reforms that improve upon our current market based health care system without completely overhauling our current system. My bill is intended to initiate and stimulate discussion in order to move the health care reform debate forward. I welcome any suggestions my colleagues may have concerning how the bill can be improved, as long as such suggestions are consistent with the incremental approach to reform that has proven to be the only way to obtain successful health care reform. I want to note at the outset that through a State-run voucher system, my legislation would address health care coverage for the first time for the vast majority of the 10 million American children who lack health care insurance today. My proposal is compassionate and efficient and will preserve patient choice as its hallmark.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will deal with the plight of our nation's cities and Washington's increasing neglect of them. There is an urgent need to improve our urban economies and the quality of life for the millions of American who live in our cities. My proposal, the ``New Agenda For Aiding America's Cities Act of 1997'' is based on legislation which I introduced in the 103rd and 104th Congress along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, and I am pleased she is again joining in this effort. The bill constitutes an effort to give our cities some much-needed attention, but reflects the federal budget constraints which govern all that we in Congress do these days. This bill, based in significant part on suggestions by Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell and the League of Cities, offers aid to the cities without increasing federal expenditures and by re-instituting important cost-effective tax breaks which have been discontinued. If we are to really address many of the very serious social issues that we face--unemployment, teenage pregnancy, welfare dependency, and other pressing issues--we cannot give up on our cities. There must be new strategies for dealing with the problems of urban America. The days of creating ``Great Society'' federal aid programs are clearly past, but that is no excuse for the national government to turn a blind eye to the problems of the cities. The goals of this initiative have strong bipartisan support as indicated during the vice-presidential debate in the 1996 campaign, where both the Republican and Democratic candidates spoke of the need to focus our economic resources in our nation's urban areas. The recent November elections reaffirm the basic principle of limited government. Limited government, however, does not mean an uncaring or do-nothing government. The impact of last year's welfare reform legislation also requires close scrutiny on what will be happening to America's big cities. Urban areas remain integral to America's greatness as centers of commerce, industry, education, health care, and culture. Yet urban areas, particularly the inner cities which tend to have a disproportionate share of our nation's poor, also have special needs which must be recognized. We must develop ways of aiding our cities that do not require either new taxes or more government bureaucracy. I commend the Mayor of Philadelphia, Edward Rendell, for his efforts to revitalize America's cities. Collaborating with the Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, he proposed in 1994 a ``New Urban Agenda.'' Much of that proposal is the basis of this legislation. As a Philadelphia resident, I have first-hand knowledge of the growing problems that plague our cities. As of 1990, Philadelphia had over 300,000 individuals in poverty. Reflecting on my experience as a Philadelphian, I have long supported a variety of programs to assist our cities, such as increased funding for Community Development Block Grants and legislation to establish enterprise and empowerment zones. To encourage similar efforts, in April, 1994, I hosted my Senate Republican colleagues on a visit to explore urban problems in my hometown. We talked with people who wanted to obtain work, but had found few opportunities. We saw a crumbling infrastructure and its impact on residents and businesses. We were reminded of the devastating effect that the loss of inner city businesses and jobs has had on our neighborhoods in America's cities. What my Republican colleagues saw then in Philadelphia is the urban rule across our country and not the exception. There are many who do not know of city life, who are far removed from the cities and would not be expected to have any key interest in what goes on in the big cities of America. I cite my own boyhood experience illustratively: Born in Wichita, Kansas, raised in Russell, a small town of 5,000 people on the plains of Kansas, where there is not much detailed knowledge of what goes on in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or other big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Detroit or Chicago. Those big cities are alien to people in much of America. But there is a growing understanding that the problems of big cities contribute significantly to the general problems affecting our nation and have an economic impact, at the very least, on our small towns. For rural America to prosper, we need to make sure that urban America prospers and vice-versa. For example, if cities had more economic growth, taxes could be reduced on all Americans at the federal and state level because revenues would increase and social welfare spending would be reduced. What are the problems? Crime for one. Take the Bloods and the Crips gangs from Los Angeles, California, and similar gangs; that are all over America. They are in Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Des Moines, Iowa; Portland, Oregon; Jackson, Mississippi; Racine, Wisconsin; and Martinsburg, West Virginia. They are literally everywhere, big city and small city alike. According to the National League of Cities 1992 report, ``State of America's Cities,'' 397 randomly selected municipal leaders said that after overall economic conditions, crime and drugs were the second and third items that had caused their cities to deteriorate the most in the prior five years. In Atlanta, the number of crimes per 100,000 people was 17,067, making it number one in 1995. We have all heard of that unenviable moniker for our nation's capital--the ``murder capital.'' Not just municipal leaders voice concern about crime's impact. Mr. Scott Zelov, President of VIZ Manufacturing in the Germantown section of Philadelphia, told my staff that his workers can't even walk to work in safety anymore, making it difficult for him to retain his employees and to continue to stay in business, causing him to consider moving out of the city to a safer location or even closing his business altogether. Dan DeRitis, owner of Sisko, Inc., a property management and development company in the University City section of West Philadelphia, wrote to me to tell me while he has been a resident and business owner in West Philadelphia for more than twenty years, and while the city had been good to him and his family in the past, recently, he has had reason to fear for the safety of his children, his employees and ultimately, his business. He looks desperately for reasons to stay, but everyday it gets harder and harder. Joblessness and a less skilled work force is another problem. To facilitate economic development and job creation in the United States, I supported the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which contained such provisions as the Job Training Partnership Act and the Targeted Job Tax Credit. As Congress put the final touches on that legislation, I circulated a joint letter from several Senators to then-Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich recommending spurring job creation and economic growth in our cities through several urban initiatives such as: a targeted capital gains exclusion, commercial revitalization tax credit, historic rehabilitation tax credit, and child care credit. As part of that effort, on December 19, 1995, I arranged a meeting between Majority Leader Dole and Mayors Edward Rendell of Philadelphia, Thomas Menino of Boston, Richard Daley of Chicago, and Victor Ashe, of Knoxville, Tennessee, to discuss their top tax priorities, which were reflected in the joint letter to the Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich. In that meeting the Mayors stressed the necessity of strengthening economic growth in our urban centers to impact directly on social ills identified with weak economic infrastructures. These problems include poverty, crime, and joblessness. Census data from 1990 shows that many of our urban centers suffered from critically high poverty rates as of 1989. As of 1990, New York City led the way, with 1.3 million individuals in poverty. My home of Philadelphia had 313,374 individuals in poverty at that time. These facts emphasize the need for more efforts to be focused on strengthening our inner city businesses which, in turn, will boost local economies and serve to provide more jobs, reduce poverty and, hopefully, reduce crime. I have previously introduced legislation to provide targeted tax incentives for investing in small minority- or women-owned businesses. Small businesses provide the bulk of the jobs in this country. Many minority entrepreneurs, for instance, have told me that they are dedicated to staying in the cities to employ people there, but continue to confront capital access issues. My ``Minority and Women Capital Formation Act of 1993'' would have helped remove the capital access barriers, thereby enabling these entrepreneurs to grow their businesses and payrolls. Municipal leaders are stressing many of the same concerns that business people are voicing. In a July, 1994 National League of Cities report dealing with poverty and economic development, municipal leaders ranked inadequate skills and education of workers as one of the top three reasons, in addition to shortage of jobs and below-poverty wages, for poverty and joblessness in their cities. They said, according to the survey, that more jobs must be created through local economic development initiatives. This ``skills deficit'' is highlighted in an urban revitalization plan prepared in 1991 by the National Urban League called ``Playing to Win: A Marshall Plan for America's Cities.'' The report cites a statistic by the Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills which showed that 60 percent of all 21-25 year-olds lack the basic reading and writing skills needed for the modern workplace, and only 10 percent of those in that age group have enough mathematical competence for today's jobs. The economic problems our cities are facing are not easy to deal with or answer. In a report by the National League of Cities entitled ``City Fiscal Conditions in 1996,'' municipal officials from 381 cities answered questions on the economic state of their cities. In response to state budgetary problems, 21.7 percent of responding cities reduced municipal employment and 18.5 percent had frozen municipal employment. Nearly 6 out of 10 cities raised or imposed new taxes or user fees during the past twelve months. These numbers are of concern to me and I believe they highlight the need for federal legislation to enhance the ability of cities to achieve competitive economic status. An added concern is that city managers are forced to balance cuts in services or enact higher taxes. Neither choice is easy and it often counteracts municipal efforts to retain residents or businesses. One issue, in particular, that is hurting many cities is the erosion of their tax bases, evidenced particularly by middle-class flight to the suburbs. Mr. Ronald Walters, professor of Political Science at Howard University, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in April 1993, stated that in 1950, 23 percent of the American population lived outside central cities; by 1988, that number was up to 46 percent. In an October 9, 1994 article in The Washington Post Magazine, David Finkel profiled Ward 7 of Washington, DC and wrote that Ward 7 lost 13,000 residents between 1980 and 1990 alone. He noted further that the population decline in Washington, DC has averaged 10,000 people a year since 1990. This trend continues into 1997. These losses are devastating, not only to the financial stability of the city, but to the social fabric as well. On the financial side, statistics show that those people fleeing cities were earning an average of $30,000 to $75,000 a year. On the social side, roughly half of these are African-American middle-class families. By losing this critical demographic group, the city loses much of what makes it strong. Eroding tax bases are also caused by job-flight and job loss. Professor Walters testified that Chicago lost 47 percent of its manufacturing jobs between 1972 and 1982. Los Angeles lost 327,000 jobs, half of which were in the manufacturing sector. More recently, according to Census data, New York City had only 11.4 percent of its population employed in manufacturing. According to Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel in a March, 1994 USA Today Magazine article, since the 1970's more than 50 Fortune 500 company headquarters have fled New York City, representing a loss of over 500,000 jobs. It is clear that the social fabric of our cities is also deteriorating. The issues of infant mortality and single-parent families are tragic problems that plague American urban areas. According to 1990 Census data, Washington, DC ranked first out of 77 cities for infant death rates per 1,000 live births in 1988. Detroit led the same number of cities in the percentage of one-parent households in 1990 at 53 percent. When I traveled to Pittsburgh in 1984, I saw one-pound babies for the first time and I learned that Pittsburgh had the highest infant mortality rate of African-American babies of any city in the United States. It is a human tragedy for a child to be born weighing 16 ounces with attendant problems that last a lifetime. I wondered, how could that be true of Pittsburgh, which has such enormous medical resources. It was an amazing thing for me to see a one-pound baby, about as big as my hand. Indeed, our cities are desperate, and the issues are heavy. Historically, cities have been the center of commerce and culture. Surrounding communities have relied on a thriving, growing economy in our metropolitan areas to provide jobs and opportunities. As I have noted though, over the past several decades, America's cities have struggled with the loss or exodus of residents, businesses and industry and other problems. The resulting tax base shrinkage causes enormous budget problems for city governments. Across the country, cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and the District of Columbia have experienced the flight of major industries to the suburbs. As a result, city residents who remain are faced with problems ranging from increased tax burdens and lesser services to dwindling economic opportunities, leading to welfare dependence and unemployment assistance. In the face of all this, what do we do? The federal government has attempted to revitalize our ailing urban infrastructure by providing federal funding for transit and sewer systems, roads and bridges. I have supported this. For example, as a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and as co- chair of an informal Senate Transit Coalition, I have been a strong supporter of public transit which provides critically needed transportation services in urban areas. Transit helps cities meet clean air standards, reduce traffic congestion, and allows disadvantaged persons access to jobs. Federal assistance for urban areas, however, has become increasingly scarce as we grapple with the nation's deficit and debt. Therefore, we must find alternatives to reinvigorate our nation's cities so they can once again be economically productive areas providing promising opportunities for residents and neighboring areas. I believe there are ways Congress can assist the cities. In 1994, Mayor Rendell came up with a legislative package which contains many good ideas. I have since added and revised provisions to take into account new developments at the federal, state and local levels. First, recognizing that the federal government is the nation's largest purchaser of goods and services, this legislation would require that no less than 15 percent of federal government purchases be made from businesses and industries within designated urban Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. Similarly, it would require that not less than 15 percent of foreign aid funds be redeemed through purchases of products manufactured in urban Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. I presented this idea to then-Treasury Secretary Bentsen at a March 22, 1994, hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. The Secretary responded favorably. I have also written to several mayors across the country regarding this concept. By letter dated July 28, 1994, Miami Mayor Stephen P. Clark responded: ``Miami's selection as a procurement center for foreign aid would be a natural complement to our status as the Business Capital of the Americas.'' Miami has a wide range of businesses, such as high-technology firms and medical equipment manufacturers that would benefit from this provision. And by letter dated April 6, 1994, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Mayor Stephen R. Reed wrote: ``Many of our existing businesses would no doubt seize upon the opportunity to broaden their market by engaging in export activity triggered by foreign aid vouchers. . . Therefore, in brief, we believe the voucher proposal has considerable merit and that this city would benefit from the same.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter and the letters from Mayor Clark and Mayor Reed be included in the Record at the end of my statement. The second major provision of this bill would commit the federal government to play an active role in restoring the economic health of our cities by encouraging the location, or relocation, of federal facilities in urban areas. To accomplish this, all federal agencies would be required to prepare and submit to the President an Urban Impact Statement detailing the impact that relocation or downsizing decisions would have on the affected city. Presidential approval would be required to place a federal facility outside an urban area, or to downsize a city-based agency. The third critical component of this bill would revive and expand federal tax incentives that were eliminated or restricted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Until there is passage of legislation on the flat tax, which would provide benefits superior to all targeted tax breaks, I believe America's cities should have the advantages of such tax benefits. These provisions offer meaningful incentives to business to invest in our cities. I am calling for the restoration of the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit which supports inner city revitalization projects. According to information provided by Mayor Rendell, there were 8,640 construction jobs involved in 356 projects in Philadelphia from 1978 to 1985 stimulated by the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. In Chicago, 302 projects prior to 1985 generated $524 million in investment and created 20,695 jobs. In St. Louis, 849 projects generated $653 million in investment and created 27,735 jobs. Nationally, according to National Park Service estimates for the 16 years before the 1986 Act, the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit stimulated $16 billion in private investment for the rehabilitation of 24,656 buildings and the creation of 125,306 homes which included 23,377 low and moderate income housing units. The 1986 Tax Act dramatically reduced the pool of private investment capital available for rehabilitation projects. In Philadelphia, projects dropped from 356 to 11 by 1988 from 1985 levels. During the same period, investments dropped 46 percent in Illinois and 92 percent in St. Louis. Another tool is to expand the authorization of commercial industrial development bonds. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, authorization for commercial industrial bonds was permitted to expire. Consequently, private investment in cities declined. For instance, according to Mayor Rendell, from 1986--the last year commercial development bonds were permitted--to 1987, the total number of city-supported projects in Philadelphia was reduced by more than half. Industrial development or private activity bonds encourage private investment by allowing, under certain circumstances, tax-exempt status for projects where more than 10 percent of the bond proceeds are used for private business purposes. The availability of tax-exempt commercial industrial development bonds will encourage private investment in cities, particularly the construction of sports, convention and trade show facilities; free standing parking facilities owned and operated by the private sector; air and water pollution facilities owned and operated by the private sector; and, industrial parks. The bill I am introducing would allow this. It would also increase the small issue exemption--which means a way to help finance private activity in the building of manufacturing facilities--from $10 million to $50 million to allow increased private investment in our cities. A minor change in the federal tax code related to arbitrage rebates on municipal bond interest earnings could also free additional capital for infrastructure and economic development by cities. Currently, municipalities are required to rebate to the federal government any arbitrage--a financial term meaning interest earned in excess of interest paid on the debt--earned from the issuance of tax-free municipal bonds. I am informed that compliance, or the cost for consultants to perform the complicated rebate calculations, is actually costing municipalities more than the actual rebate owed to the government. This bill would allow cities to keep the arbitrage earned so that they can use it to fund city projects and for other necessary purposes. My legislation also provides important incentives for businesses to invest and locate in our nation's cities. Specifically, the bill includes a provision which I have advocated to provide a 50 percent exclusion for capital gains tax purposes for any gain resulting from targeted investments in small businesses located in urban empowerment zones, enterprise communities, or enterprise zones. I also want to note that the exclusion would extend to any venture funds that invest in those small businesses, which is critical because venture funds are often the lifeblood of a small business. This is one of the incentives I recommended to Senator Dole in December, 1995 for inclusion in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 which was later vetoed by President Clinton. A targeted capital gains exclusion will serve as a catalyst for job creation and economic growth in our cities by encouraging additional private investment in our urban areas. A fourth provision of this legislation provides needed reforms to regulations concerning affordable housing. This legislation provides language to study streamlining federal housing program assistance to urban areas into ``block grant'' form so that municipal agencies can better serve local residents. Affordable housing is not currently widely available to most low income families. According to the National Housing Law Project, in 1996, only one in four families were eligible to receive HUD assistance. The bill would improve the circumstances of public housing tenants by encouraging the location of newly built units on the lots of demolished older housing and allowing the original residents to move into the new units. This provision will contribute to community stability and promote urban renewal. Last, this bill helps urban areas by taking several important steps toward reforming the current Superfund law. First, the legislation authorizes a federal brownfields program to help clean up idle or underused industrial and commercial facilities and waives federal liability for persons who fully comply with a state cleanup plan to clean sites in urban areas pursuant to state law, provided that the site is not listed or proposed to be listed on the National Priorities List. The Environmental Protection Agency currently operates this pilot program under general authority provided by the Superfund law. My legislation would make this a permanent program and substantially increase the funding levels from $36.7 million to a $50 million authorized level for FY'98. The EPA could expend funds to identify and examine potential idle or underused Brownfield sites and to provide grants to States and local governments of up to $200,000 per site to put them back to productive use. One such grant has been used to great success by Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, and I hope this provision will generate additional success stories of redeveloping urban brownfields. The Brownfields program allows sites with minor levels of toxic waste to be cleaned up by State and local governments with federal and non- federal funds. Companies and individuals who are interested in developing land into industrial, commercial, recreational, or residential use are often reluctant to purchase property with any level of toxic waste because of a fear of being saddled with cleanup liability under the Superfund law. Through expanded Brownfields grants, cleanup at such sites will be expedited and will encourage redevelopment of otherwise unusable urban property. My bill would also waive federal liability for persons who fully comply with a state cleanup plan to clean sites in urban areas pursuant to state law, providing that the site is not listed or proposed to be listed on the National Priorities List. Many states, including Pennsylvania, have developed their own toxic waste cleanup programs and have done good work to clean up many of these sites. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge has developed an extensive plan, where contaminated sites are made safe based on sound science by returning the site to productive use through the development of uniform cleanup standards, by creating a set of standardized review procedures, by releasing owners and developers from liability who fully comply with the state cleanup standards and procedures, and by providing financial assistance. However, the efforts of states like Pennsylvania are often stifled because the federal government has not been willing to work with the States to release owners and developers from liability, even when they fully comply with the state plans. This section of my bill only applies only to sites that are not on the National Priorities List. These are sites that the state has identified for which the state has created a comprehensive cleanup plan. If the federal government has concerns with the cleanup procedure or the safety of the site, then the government has full authority to place that site on the National Priority List. The plans, like that developed by Governor Ridge, deal with sites not controlled by the Superfund law. By not allowing the individual states to take the initiative to clean up these sites, and by not providing a waiver for federal liability to those who fully comply with the procedures and standards of the state cleanup, the federal government chills the efforts of the states to work to clean up their own sites. This provision takes a significant step toward encouraging states to take the responsibility for their toxic waste sites and to encourage the effective cleanup of these sites in our nation's urban areas. In the 103d Congress, my ``New Urban Agenda Act'' (S. 2535) contained a section that would eliminate unfunded federal mandates based on legislation I cosponsored in the 103d Congress (S. 993) which was introduced by my distinguished colleague from Idaho, Senator Dirk Kempthorne. There is no longer a need to include that provision in my urban agenda bill because Congress enacted the unfunded federal mandates bill in February, 1995. Mr. President, it may well be that America has given up on its cities. That is a stark statement, but it is one which I believe may be true--that America has given up on its cities. But this Senator has not done so. And I believe there are others in this body on both sides of the aisle who have not done so. As one of a handful of United States Senators who lives in a big city, I understand both the problems and the promise of urban America. This legislation for our cities is good public policy. The plight of our cities must be of extreme concern to America. We can ill-afford for them to wither and die. I am committed to a new urban agenda that relies on market forces, and not welfare-statism, for urban revitalization. I invite the input and assistance of my colleagues in order to fashion a strong approach assisting the cities with their pressing problems. I ask unanimous consent that my bill be printed in the Record as if read, along with an Executive Summary. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Executive Summary new agenda for aiding america's cities act of 1997 A. Promote Urban Economic Development through Empowerment and Enterprise Zones. Requires a portion of federal and foreign aid purchases (not less than 15 percent) to be from businesses operating in urban zones, and commits the government to purchase recycled products from businesses operating in urban zones. B. Locating/Relocating Federal Facilities in Distressed Urban Areas. Requires an urban impact statement, with Presidential approval, that details the impact on cities of agency downsizing or relocation. Under the bill, a ``distressed urban area'' follows HUD's definition, namely any city having a population of more than 100,000. C. Revives and Expands Federal Tax Incentives. Expands the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit which was reduced in 1986. It would restore the issuance of tax-free industrial development bonds and would allow cities to keep the arbitrage earned from the issuance of tax-free municipal bonds. Currently, local governments are required to rebate to the federal government arbitrage earned from the issuance of tax-free municipal bonds, and often spend more on compliance than on the actual rebate. D. Contains Incentives for Businesses. To encourage businesses to invest and locate in our nation's cities, provides a 50 percent exclusion for capital gains tax purposes for any gain resulting from targeted investments in small businesses located in urban empowerment zones, enterprise communities, or enterprise zones. The exclusion also extends to any venture that invest in those small businesses. E. Lifts Federal Restrictions on Community-Based Housing Development. To boost the efficiency of regional housing authorities, a study would be done to streamline current and future housing programs into ``block grants.'' The bill would also allow the reconstruction of new units on demolished sites, and relocate the original tenants to the newly constructed units. F. Reforms Superfund Law to Encourage Industrial Cleanup. Authorizes an expanded federal brownfields grant program to help clean up idle or underused industrial and commercial facilities. Also provides regulatory relief by waiving federal liability for businesses and individuals that fully comply with a state cleanup plan to clean sites in urban areas pursuant to state law, provided that the site is not listed or proposed to be listed on the National Priorities List.