[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S617-S620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator 
seeking recognition, this may be a good time for me to report briefly 
on the travels that I undertook from December 30 to January 13, when I 
visited the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague and found that this agency 
is moving forward with prosecutions on war crimes against humanity, 
arising out of the activities in Bosnia.
  It is my sense that after the first conviction, which has been 
obtained,

[[Page S618]]

the tribunal is on its way to establishing a very, very important 
international precedent. For the past decade-plus, many of us, 
including Senator Dodd, Congressman Jim Leach, myself, and others, have 
been working to try to bring an international criminal court into 
existence. It is my sense that if the War Crimes Tribunal is 
successful, we may have the most important institutional change in 
international relations in this century, if we can bring the rule of 
law into the international arena.
  I think it is very important that the outstanding indictments be 
served. In talking to the military leaders and NATO in Bosnia, I have 
been informed that we have the capacity to do so if the instructions 
are given. Up until the present time, the rule has been to serve them 
with warrants of arrest if our military groups come into contact with 
those under indictment, but they are not to make an effort to search 
them out. It is a delicate matter and has to be handled with discretion 
and with regard to not losing lives in the process of making the 
arrests. But, I think that ultimately those warrants of arrest do have 
to be served.
  We stopped in Bosnia and saw the activities there. Mindful of the 
President's recent request for an open-ended stay in Bosnia, we 
discussed with the military leaders and with some of the soldiers their 
sense as to what was going to happen there.
  The Congress has legislated to bring an end to the funding as of June 
30, 1998, with certain exceptions relating to a Presidential extension. 
But, it seems to me that it is necessary to have some idea as to how 
long we are going to be there. Those enmities and hatreds go back 
hundreds of years, and it is necessary, in my judgment, for us to have 
some idea as to how long we are going to stay there and how long it 
will take to accomplish that mission if we are, in fact, to remain 
there.
  The U.S. contingents are still much larger than any others. We have 
some 8,000 personnel--substantially larger than the French, British, 
Russians, or others--and there ought to be more of a burden sharing 
than is present now if the United States is to stay there.
  We traveled on to the Mideast where we had an opportunity to meet 
with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Syrian President Assad, Egyptian 
President Mubarak, King Hussein of Jordan, and other leaders. And, it 
is my sense that the Israeli-Syrian tract could be very close to 
resolution.
  Before going, on December 17, I met with President Clinton, told him 
of my itinerary, and urged him to become personally involved in the 
Syrian negotiations as he had been in the past. The parties were very 
close to a resolution of the dispute between Israel and Syria before 
the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. The President was personally 
involved in those negotiations. I believe that with an activist hand by 
the President, there could be a successful resolution there. It can't 
be said with certainty, but the parties were very close before Prime 
Minister Rabin was assassinated.
  I had an opportunity to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu and 
President Assad in August and November of 1996. At that time it seemed 
to me that the parties were far apart, with Prime Minister Netanyahu 
saying he wanted to negotiate for peace but would do so only if there 
was a clean slate and he had a new mandate. President Assad of Syria, 
on the other hand, said he, too, wanted to negotiate but would do so 
only if they would begin where the negotiations left off with Prime 
Minister Rabin.
  While the words were very similar, when I had a chance to talk to 
Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Assad last month, the music, it 
seemed to me, was a little bit different. Syria had a new set of 
problems with their economy, and Netanyahu faces a new set of problems. 
I think activist intervention by the President could well bring the 
Israeli-Syrian tract to a conclusion. It is certainly worth a try.
  As to the Palestinian-Israeli tract, it is much more complicated. 
But, here again I have urged the President to bring Mr. Netanyahu and 
Mr. Arafat into the same room, at the same time, to hear their 
complaints and to try to bring a resolution to those very serious 
problems.
  Part of the mission on this trip was to explore persecution against 
Christians and other religious groups. Our travels took us to Egypt, 
Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Saudi Arabia. The details are spelled out in a 
written report, which I shall file as well. But, it seems to me that 
the United States ought to take a stand on the legislation which has 
been introduced by Congressman Frank Wolf in the House and by myself in 
the Senate which would articulate the principles of religious freedom 
and impose sanctions on foreign governments which tolerate or encourage 
this kind of persecution.
  In Saudi Arabia, in talking to Prince Turki, I heard again that the 
Koran calls for the death penalty if someone changes from Islam to 
Christianity. I heard the same in Egypt, and found, in fact, that those 
who have converted from Islam to Christianity had been imprisoned. We 
heard many complaints talking to people who had been victims of 
persecution in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt. It is my hope that this issue 
will come to the Senate floor. I know it is on the majority leader's 
list to be considered by the Senate sometime between now and the 
spring.
  This is just a brief statement of some of the highlights.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the full text of the 
report, which incorporates two op-ed pieces that have been published in 
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Harrisburg Patriot-News, be printed 
in the Record as well.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Report on Foreign Travel

       In accordance with my practice of reporting on foreign 
     travel, this floor statement summarizes a trip which I took 
     from December 30, l997 through January 13, l998 to fourteen 
     countries in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. My trip had 
     several purposes: to evaluate the work of the International 
     Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in The 
     Hague in prosecuting indicted war criminals and in laying 
     down the precedent for the establishment of a permanent 
     international criminal court, to evaluate the President's 
     request for an open-ended extension of time for the U.S. 
     military participation in United Nations Stabilization Force 
     operations in Bosnia, to assess the progress of the Middle 
     East peace process, and to gather information in support of 
     my legislation to strengthen U.S. policy against countries 
     that persecute religious minorities.


                    INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL

       The first phase of my trip involved a review of the 
     progress of the International Criminal Tribunal for the 
     former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in The Hague. This was my third 
     trip to that body in as many years, and its good work 
     reaffirmed my belief that the tribunal could well set the 
     stage for the creation of a permanent International Criminal 
     Court, which would do much to deter future crimes against 
     humanity.
       In The Hague, I met with the Tribunal's Chief Prosecutor, 
     Louise Arbour, and several American members of her staff, to 
     discuss pending prosecutions arising from war crimes in the 
     former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The prosecutors were much more 
     optimistic than they had been on my two previous visits in 
     1996. One assistant prosecutor, Ms. Patricia Sellers, 
     declared there had been more progress in international law in 
     the last four years than in the intervening 520 years 
     following the first conviction of a war criminal in 1474.
       The most tangible of the tribunal's successes was the 
     recent conviction, on eleven counts after a one-year trial, 
     of Dusko Tadic, charged with crimes against humanity under 
     the statutes of the International Tribunal and cruel 
     treatment of civilians as defined by the Geneva Convention of 
     1949.
       While the Tadic case is a start, it is important to note 
     that only 19 of the 79 defendants under indictment are in 
     custody. Most of the remaining defendants are at large in 
     Serb-controlled portions of the former Yugoslavia.
       On a later stop in Sarajevo, I saw that the multi-national 
     force in Bosnia faces a complicated task in taking some of 
     these major defendants, like Radovan Karadic and Ratko 
     Mladic, into custody. The current instruction is to arrest 
     indictees if observed, but not to hunt them down. Our 
     military commanders told me in Sarajevo that they have the 
     trained personnel to take them into custody if provided 
     sufficient intelligence information on their whereabouts.
       Some of the Congressional opposition to staying in Bosnia 
     could be overcome with a strategy to hunt down war criminals 
     as part of the SFOR mission, but this would present its own 
     set of problems. Our experience in Somalia was bitter when we 
     sustained extensive casualties in our unsuccessful effort to 
     take Mohammad Aidid into custody. Consideration should be 
     given to an arrest strategy if it could be accomplished with 
     minimal difficulty.
       A vastly preferable course to SFOR apprehension would be 
     for Serbia to honor its commitments under the Dayton 
     Agreement

[[Page S619]]

     to cooperate in apprehending the Tribunal's indictees. After 
     discussing this matter with the Supreme Allied Commander, 
     Europe, General Wesley Clark in The Hague, I requested and 
     obtained a meeting with Slobodan Milosevic, President of the 
     Yugoslavian Federation, who had been labeled a war criminal 
     by Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger in December 1992. 
     Fifteen minutes out of Belgrade on a special flight, I was 
     told Milosevic had suddenly caught the flu.
       In my testy substitute meeting in Belgrade with Yugoslavian 
     Foreign Minister Zivadin Jovanovich, I pressed Yugoslavia to 
     turn over several defendants in his country and to help 
     apprehend Karadic and Mladic. I was not surprised by his 
     refusal. While in Belgrade I heardthat many there are worried 
     about the Tribunal's recently adopted procedure to obtain 
     sealed indictments. Some ranking Serbian or Yugoslavian of 
     officials may travel to a jurisdiction where an arrest 
     warrant, based on a sealed indictment from the War Crimes 
     Tribunal, could be served with a one-way ticket to custody at 
     The Hague.
       Later stops on my trip validated the importance of the 
     International Tribunal's example to maintaining international 
     stability. In Ethiopia, Yemen and Eritrea, I heard 
     considerable interest in the tribunal's work on Rwanda war 
     crimes. The U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia expressed concern 
     about the slow progress of the tribunal on the Rwanda 
     indictments. Yemeni Foreign Minister Al-Iryani expressed 
     satisfaction that 23 individuals are in custody on charges of 
     war crimes in Rwanda.
       Eritrean Foreign Minister Haile Weldensae told me that 
     successful prosecutions against Rwanda defendants would help 
     bring peace to that country which still suffers from 
     massacres. Yemeni President Salih cautioned against the 
     tribunal's handling of the Rwanda prosecutions without a 
     better understanding of African problems. But the his Foreign 
     Minister struck a positive chord, saying the Rwanda tribunal 
     ``will absolutely deter'' future atrocities and that it would 
     set a ``very good precedent that no one should get away from 
     war crimes.''
       From my review of the tribunal's progress, it is clear that 
     it faces many hurdles: the body has only one courtroom (with 
     a second under construction), and is frequently undercut by 
     France and Yugoslavia in carrying out its work. The 
     tribunal's budget has been increased, but still will have 
     grossly insufficient resources to carry out its vital 
     mandate. Only resources, perseverance and strong 
     international backing will enable the War Crimes Tribunal to 
     make a success of its unique opportunity to extend the rule 
     of law against international criminals.


                                 BOSNIA

       The second phase of my trip involved evaluating the 
     President's recent decision to stay to stay in Bosnia 
     indefinitely in the face of the Defense Appropriations Act 
     cutting off funding for our military operations there on June 
     30, l998. Clearly, Congress and the President may be on a 
     collision course on this matter. Evaluating our policy in 
     Bosnia took me to Sarajevo, Belgrade and Italy to meet in the 
     field with our troops and with military leaders from the U.S. 
     and NATO Commands.
       In Sarajevo, I asked our troops to estimate how long we 
     would need to stay there to avoid the resumption of bloodshed 
     which would happen if they left on Congress's schedule. A 
     frequent answer was a generation, given the intensity and 
     longevity of the religious and ethnic hatreds between the 
     Muslims, Croats and Serbs. Command Sergeant Major Selmer 
     Hyde, a Pittsburgh native, pointed out that Muslims in 
     Sarajevo choose to walk up a high hill adjacent to the city 
     over a winding dirt trail rather than using a new macadam 
     road traveled by Serbs and Croats.
       There was considerable Congressional opposition to 
     President Clinton's deployment of U.S. troops for one year in 
     early l996 as part of a multi-national force, and even more 
     skepticism when he extended their stay by 18 months shortly 
     after the 1996 Presidential election. In articulating the 
     three U.S. objectives for an indefinite stay in Bosnia, the 
     President twice refers to European security and once to the 
     rule of international law. While obviously important, those 
     reasons do not measure up to ``vital'' U.S. national 
     interests as defined by the historic Senate debate involving 
     Senators Nunn, Warner, Moynihan, myself and others on the 
     Congressional resolution to authorize the use of force in the 
     Gulf War in January 1991.
       There is no doubt about the potential dire consequences if 
     the fighting resumes among the Muslims, Serbs and Croats. The 
     battle may spill into Macedonia. Germany and other European 
     countries would likely be flooded with refugees. The entire 
     region would be de-stabilized.
       But there is significant question as to how far can U.S. 
     military resources be stretched on the current $268 billion 
     defense budget. In the mid-1980s, those appropriations 
     approximated $300 billion, which would exceed $400 billion in 
     1998 dollars. The top U.S. military brass in Bosnia and NATO 
     had no response to my questions on priorities in deciding how 
     to spend among Bosnia, Korea, Iran, Iraq and the world's 
     other hot spots.
       The other nations insist on U.S. leadership. The U.S. has 
     about 8000 soldiers in the Bosnia force, compared to 
     approximately 2500 Germans, 5100 British, 3200 French, and 
     1400 Russians. Most of those nations are AWOL when it comes 
     to supporting the U.S. on tough sanctions against Iraq or on 
     our efforts to isolate Iran, and France has chosen not to let 
     its officers testify in front of the International Criminal 
     Tribunal in The Hague. This is particularly outrageous given 
     that General Shinseki's multi-national staff told me 
     that successful prosecution of tribunal inductees forms a 
     lynchpin of future Bosnian stability.
       In the field, our Bosnian troops express mixed sentiments 
     on our continuing role there. While there is pride on 
     preserving the peace and noting some improvements, most say 
     we will have to be there for decades.
       Doing our part does not mean doing more than other major 
     European nations. This is not the Cold War where the U.S. 
     squared off against the USSR and our dominant role in NATO 
     protected our vital national interests. Obviously, Bosnian 
     stability is of much greater concern to the European nations 
     than it is to the U.S.
       If we are to stay, we should (1) get greater commitments 
     from the other major powers--Great Britain, France, Germany, 
     Italy, etc; (2) secure agreement from those nations to share 
     on stabilizing the other world hot spots; (3) obtain real 
     cooperation from the Serbs, Muslims and Croats on taking into 
     custody defendants under indictment by the War Crimes 
     Tribunal; and (4) set a time-table on benchmarks for progress 
     which would permit a reduction and, ultimately, a withdrawal 
     of U.S. personnel in Bosnia.
       Congress is prepared to be cooperative, but there are 
     important issues and interests which must be addressed to our 
     satisfaction. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, on 
     which I serve, should not and will not issue a blank check on 
     Bosnia.


                           MIDDLE EAST PEACE

       The third phase of my trip involved assessing Middle East 
     regional stability and the progress of the peace process. 
     Toward this end, l met in Israel with Prime Minister 
     Netanyahu and various members of the Knesset, in Syria with 
     President Assad and Foreign Minister Shara, in Jordan with 
     King Hussein and Crown Prince Hassan, on the West Bank with 
     Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat and Minister of 
     Education Hanan Ashrawi, in Eritrea with Foreign Minister 
     Weldensae, in Yemen with President Salih and Foreign Minister 
     al-lryani, in Saudi Arabia with Saudi Intelligence Director 
     Prince Turki and U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Rayburn and 
     in Egypt with President Mubarak.
       Before I left I had a talk with President Clinton and urged 
     him to become more involved in the Mideast peace process, 
     particularly on the Israeli-Syrian track. After meeting with 
     Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Assad, I am convinced 
     that if the President of the United States became personally 
     involved on that track, there could be some real movement.
       In talking to President Assad and Prime Minister Netanyahu 
     on trips to the area in August and November, 1996, President 
     Assad's position was that he's not going to resume 
     negotiations unless Israel agrees to start off where Prime 
     Minister Rabin left off, and Prime Minister Netanyahu 
     contended that he had a different mandate from the Israeli 
     electorate. This time, I noticed the same words, but somewhat 
     of a difference in tone. I firmly believe that progress could 
     be made on this track with direct Presidential involvement.
       On the question of the Golan, I raised with President Assad 
     the issue of submitting the return of the Golan to an Israeli 
     referendum as part of any agreement with Israel. While 
     initially President Assad considered this a matter purely for 
     Israeli domestic consumption, after we talked for a while, he 
     acknowledged that it could form a part of a future 
     arrangement. If the sticking point of the status of Golan 
     were decided directly by the Israeli electorate referendum, 
     this would allow Prime Minister Netanyahu to negotiate with 
     Syria, notwithstanding his ``mandate.''
       As I did in the past, I also raised with President Assad 
     the issue of Israeli MIAs and I was told that the Syrians 
     have made continuing efforts. I had raised that in the past, 
     and they say they have not been able to find anything to this 
     point. I raised a number of other MIA issues; I've been asked 
     by the U.S. Embassy not to discuss those issues in detail, 
     but I did raise them all. I was assured that work is being 
     done on them.
       By contrast with the Israeli-Syrian track, the Israeli-
     Palestinian peace talks are much more difficult. There are a 
     lot of people in the region who contend that Prime Minister 
     Netanyahu has not kept his promises on the Israeli-
     Palestinian process. Prime Minister Netanyahu insists that he 
     has kept his promises. I believe that bringing both sides 
     together in this atmosphere is going to take a lot of work. I 
     was glad to see the President bring both Prime Minister 
     Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat to meet with him in Washington 
     last week, but I wish that more could have been attained by 
     way of tangible progress during their visits. I feel that a 
     similar Oval Office dialogue between Prime Minister Netanyahu 
     and President Assad would prove more fruitful because the 
     Israeli-Syrian track appears not as intractable.
       As ever, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism represents the 
     greatest threat to regional security in the Middle East, and, 
     in light of this, my visit to Saudi Arabia was especially 
     instructive. I visited thousands of U.S. airmen living in 
     tents at the remote Prince Sultan Air Base, to which our 
     forces were sent

[[Page S620]]

     following the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers in Dhahran in 
     June 1996. Their living quarters made the Allenwood Federal 
     Prison in Pennsylvania look palatial.
       I had met with FBI Director Louis Freeh before departing, 
     and discussed, among other issues, the level of Saudi 
     cooperation with our counter-terrorism effort. In Riyadh, I 
     met with Saudi Intelligence Director Prince Turki, and 
     strongly objected to the Saudis' refusal to honor their 
     commitment to allow the FBI to question suspects in the 
     Khobar Towers bombing. Prince Turki replied that Saudi 
     national sovereignty entitled his government to handle the 
     matter as it chose. This is particularly irksome, given the 
     sacrifices that our troops are making in the region to 
     provide the Saudi government protection from Iraq.


                     FOREIGN RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

       The fourth phase of my trip involved gathering information 
     on foreign religious persecution. Worldwide persecution of 
     religious minorities, focused particularly on Christians in 
     Muslim countries China and Tibet, led last year to the 
     introduction of the Specter-Wolf bill which would create a 
     U.S. office to monitor such persecution and impose trade 
     sanctions on countries which systematically persecute any 
     religious group.
       Toward the goal of fact-finding, I met with religious 
     leaders and governmental officials in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, 
     Ethiopia, and Eritrea and Yemen. I had wanted to visit Sudan 
     to investigate persecution of Christians by the 
     fundamentalist Islamic Sudanese government, but was told by 
     the State Department that Sudan was unsafe for American 
     delegations. I did meet with the Sudanese government-in-exile 
     in neighboring Eritrea, and discussed reports of Sudanese 
     persecution with His Holiness Abuna Paulos, the Patriarch of 
     the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and with the leadership of the 
     Ethiopian Supreme Islamic Council in Addis Ababa.
       My fact-finding corroborated the widespread reports of 
     bias, mistreatment and even persecution of religious 
     minorities in the Middle East and Africa.
       Egyptian President Mubarak and Saudi Arabian Intelligence 
     Director Prince Turki told me that public intolerance toward 
     non-Muslim religions springs from the Koran. Conversion from 
     Islam to Christianity or any other religion carries the death 
     penalty under Muslim laws that are based on teachings of the 
     Koran.
       I heard conflicting statements in Saudi Arabia about 
     whether the death penalty is actually imposed on conversion. 
     One U.S. citizen living in Riyadh told me of a videotaped 
     beheading by Saudi authorities of a Filipino Christian, but 
     there was some question as to whether this individual was put 
     to death solely because of his faith. There appeared to be 
     more substance to a claim of religious motivation for the 
     execution of a Christian charged only with robbery, since 
     that punishment far exceeded the usual penalty for that 
     crime.
       Aside from the issue of capital punishment, there is no 
     doubt that the religious police in Saudi Arabia are very 
     repressive against Christians. A Mormon U.S. citizen reported 
     a Saudi investigation seventeen years ago arising from prayer 
     meetings in a private home. A dossier, he said, has been 
     maintained by Saudi authorities on participants resulting in 
     a recent deportation of a Mormon found in possession of a 
     religious video.
       Other U.S. citizens in Riyadh told of Christmas decorations 
     being torn down in hospitals, seizures of personal bibles by 
     Saudi customs officials and prohibition of displaying a 
     Christmas tree in the window of a private home if it could be 
     seen from outside. Another Christian from India told of a 
     Sunday School being ransacked by Saudi religious police with 
     the arrest and detention of a pastor, his wife and 
three children.

       American soldiers of Jewish faith feel particularly at risk 
     in Saudi Arabia. They change their ``dog tags'' to eliminate 
     any reference to their religion during their tours there. 
     When a rabbi from the Chaplain Corps recently visited U.S. 
     military posts in Saudi Arabia, many Jewish soldiers declined 
     to meet with him.
       The Saudi answer on the religious questions was identical 
     to their rationale on refusing to allow the FBI to 
     interrogate the Khobar Towers suspects. The only difference 
     was that source of their obstinacy was the Koran instead of 
     national sovereignty. Nevertheless, l believe the Saudi 
     attitude on religious bias can be changed at least to some 
     extent in the face of sufficient U.S. and world persuasion 
     and pressure.
       On September 12, 1997, Prince Sultan reportedly made a 
     commitment to the Pope that Christians would be permitted to 
     pray together in the solitude of their homes. Even that 
     remains to be seen. Prince Turki claimed that Saudi policy 
     did not preclude people from bringing bibles for their own 
     personal use through customs; but, he said, zealous customs 
     bureaucrats often act on their own in confiscating these 
     items.
       From my discussions with foreign leaders and with religious 
     minorities, it was clear that just the introduction of the 
     Specter-Wolf bill has had an effect on foreign repressive 
     practices. My friend, the Special Advisor to President 
     Mubarak, Osama el-Baz, came to see me in my Senate office 
     before my trip to ask that Egypt not be included among 
     countries which persecuted Christians. Also, fifty-three 
     Egyptian Christians recently publicized a letter saying, in 
     effect, the U.S. should mind its own business even though 
     they acknowledged that ``there are certain annoyances that 
     [Christians] in Egypt suffer from.''
       Egyptian evangelicals were not as restrained. They cited 
     cases of eight and nine months in jail for Muslims who sought 
     conversion to Christianity. One scholar produced statistics 
     showing 1624 people were killed by religious violence in 
     Egypt from l990 through 1992 including the deaths of 133 
     Christians. Evangelicals in both Egypt and Ethiopia also 
     complained about the long time it took to secure official 
     permission to build churches, a snag that, in effect, stymied 
     their religious activity.
       Since the State Department advised against visiting Sudan, 
     we sought information on that country's practices in the 
     neighboring countries of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Eritrean 
     Christians confirmed claims of Sudanese children being sold 
     into slavery. They attributed it to profiteering by the 
     militia as part of the booty of war. One Eritrean Christian 
     commented on Sudanese governmental action in closing churches 
     in 1997.
       Our Christian, Jewish and Moslem interlocutors in Saudi 
     Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea were particularly pleased 
     that the U.S. Congress was considering the issue. An Egyptian 
     Muslim almost withdrew his objection to the Specter-Wolf bill 
     when he heard it applied to other nations and had no 
     sanctions against Egypt on U.S. foreign aid. Archbishop 
     Silvano Tomasi, Vatican Ambassador to Ethiopia, complimented 
     the proposed legislation for raising the level of dialogue, 
     adding that, if it were enacted with a ``little bite,'' then 
     so much the better.
       By raising the profile of the religious persecution issue 
     in the current discourse of foreign policy, Congress has been 
     able to make some progress on advancing the cause of 
     religious freedom abroad. Still, many problems remain. For 
     this reason, Congressman Wolf and I will continue to pursue 
     our bill toward the goal of putting teeth in our country's 
     longstanding policy against foreign religious persecution.


                  MAGNETIC LEVITATION TRAIN TECHNOLOGY

       On my way back to Washington, I stopped in Lathen, Germany, 
     to announce the completion of an agreement to bring German 
     high-speed magnetic levitation (``maglev'') train technology 
     to Pennsylvania. I took a demonstration ride on the maglev 
     train, which is capable of speeds as high as 310 miles per 
     hour.
       This is something I have been working on in the area of 
     Transportation Appropriations for a long time. The maglev 
     train ride would improve the quality of life of all 
     Pennsylvanians who feel they spend too much time in traffic 
     or at congested airports. This technology would also bring 
     Pennsylvania's steel industry roaring into the 21st Century 
     because the maglev train uses steel guideways over hundreds 
     of miles.
       The train went a little over 250 miles per hour and it was 
     exhilarating to be in a kind of mass transit which goes so 
     fast, a little like Buck Rogers. It would be tremendous for 
     Pennsylvania and a tremendous boon to the economy of every 
     stop along the line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, such as 
     Lancaster, Harrisburg, Lewiston, State College, Altoona, 
     Johnstown, and Greensburg. People could go from Philadelphia 
     to Pittsburgh in one and a half hours non-stop, 
     revolutionizing our transportation system. I look forward to 
     continuing to support this economical, forward-looking 
     technology in the future.

  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak 
as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, very much.

                          ____________________