Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I congratulate my distinguished colleague, Senator Frist. I believe the speech which he has made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year and perhaps the most important speech made for many years because this issue of embryonic stem cell research is the difference between life and death. When Senator Frist says what he has stated this morning, it has an enormous impact as to science because of his unique position and respected position as a scientist, as a doctor, as a medical researcher, but enormous impact on Government. I use the word ``government'' instead of ``politics'' because this has an impact on Government when the majority leader is taking the position which he has taken. I believe it is especially weighty because of the thoughtfulness, the deliberation, and the time he has utilized bringing all of his abilities to bear--his considerable abilities to bear. The thoughtfulness and deliberation emphasizes the importance of what he has said. On a personal note, I have had an opportunity to talk with Senator Frist about it many times over the course of the past 4 years. I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment. One final comment, and that is, Dr. Frist, Senator Frist, Majority Leader Frist's comments will reverberate far and wide, around the world. This is a speech which will be heard around the world, including at the White House. I have had the opportunity to talk with the President on this issue on a number of occasions. He was in Pennsylvania 44 times last year, and I had a good opportunity to talk with him in the car and on the plane. The President made a very important decision on August 9 of 2001 on liberating some 63 stem cell lines. There is some discussion as to how many there were. Sixty-three was the initial line. I know the President will listen to what Senator Frist has to say. I am not saying he is going to agree with it. But what Senator Frist has had to say is weighty and I think may bring us all together on this issue. So I congratulate my distinguished leader.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on rollcall vote No. 209, regarding the Central American Free Trade Agreement, I be recorded as having voted nay instead of my previous vote in favor of the measure. I understand this change will not affect the outcome of the vote. I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to comment on the Senate's passage of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. When I introduced this legislation just 2 weeks ago with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl, I did not expect to be lauding its passage so soon but I am gratified by what we have accomplished in so short a period of time. The alacrity of the bill's passage is a testament to the significant work that preceded its introduction and the intense efforts of many in the days that followed. The bill has been refined and improved to address the concerns of those on both sides of the political aisle. The bill has been modified to exclude some provisions that may have had unintended consequences. For example, a provision that would have required criminal investigators to notify a court after sharing the contents of a criminal wiretap with intelligence officers was deleted in response to concerns that it might have discouraged interagency information sharing. Likewise, a provision that increased requirements for pen registers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was removed to maintain parity between intelligence-related pen registers and criminal pen registers. And, a provision requiring public reporting of FISA pen register information was removed, in favor of enhanced congressional access to this information. At the same time, additional safeguards have been added to the bill to ensure that the authorities conferred by the PATRIOT Act are utilized in a manner that preserves civil liberties. For example, for delayed notice or so-called ``sneak and peek'' warrants, the bill now requires notice of the search to be given within seven days of its execution, unless the court finds that the facts of the case justify a later date. This change is consistent with pre-PATRIOT case law in at least two circuits, which favored initial delays of seven days. Nevertheless, the revised bill gives law enforcement the flexibility to obtain longer delays with court approval, if justified by the facts. We have also modified the relevance standard for court orders to obtain business records and tangible things in intelligence cases, the so-called ``library'' provision. As introduced, the bill required applications for such orders to include ``a statement of facts'' showing ``reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation.'' The revised bill further defines relevant records as those that: (1) pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (2) are relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power; or (3) pertain to an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power. This language addresses concerns about government ``fishing'' expeditions, but maintains substantial latitude for legitimate terrorism investigations. These changes and similar improvements, many of which were hammered out during late-night negotiations among Judiciary Committee staff, led to a hard-won unanimous vote when the committee considered the legislation last week. Indeed, this compromise secured the support of ardent conservatives and liberals alike, including the one member who voted against the original PATRIOT Act--my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. As I said when I introduced this legislation, the recent attacks in London serve as reminder that the danger of international terrorism remains real, and has not abated in the years since 9/11. So, we must remain vigilant, and we must be cautious not to recreate the legal circumstances that arguably contributed to significant intelligence failures before 9/11. As I have said, reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, while incorporating improvements designed to safeguard our liberties and enhance oversight, is the right thing to do. So I am very pleased that the Senate has overcome partisan differences to endorse this bill unanimously. Before I close, I would like to take a moment to thank those who have contributed to this significant achievement. First, I thank my original cosponsors, Senators Feinstein and Kyl, for the leadership they have demonstrated on terrorism matters. I also thank Senator Leahy, the committee's ranking member, for working to secure broad bipartisan support of this measure and contributing substantially to the bill itself. I am also grateful to all of the members of the Judiciary Committee who made important improvements to the final bill and demonstrated a remarkable willingness to work together in a collegial fashion. I offer a special thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Roberts. Together with the vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller, he held several oversight hearings on the PATRIOT Act, and reported a separate reauthorization bill. His bill, and his expertise, will continue to inform our review of the PATRIOT Act's intelligence provisions. I am also grateful to my predecessor as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, who played a leading role in passage of the original PATRIOT Act and has been a strong advocate for the act in the years since it was enacted. I also thank our majority and minority leaders, Senators Frist and Reid, for the personal attention that they and their staffs have devoted to this legislation and the efforts to secure unanimous consent for its passage. Finally, I thank my own staff who have worked tirelessly on this bill. Those who have assisted with this measure are too numerous to mention, but I would like to acknowledge the steady leadership of the Judiciary Committee's chief counsel, Michael O'Neill, chief of staff and staff director, David Brog, and deputy chief counsel, Joe Jacquot. I also thank chief crime counsel Brett Tolman and counsel Nick Rossi for spearheading this effort. They were greatly aided by my general counsel, Carolyn Short, counsels Hannibal Kemerer and Evan Kelly, and staff members Adam Turner, Lisa Owings, Kim Aytes, Viana Cabral, Diane Paulitz and Lissa Camacho. We all know that our work is supported by a large cast of talented staff, and I am very grateful to my staff, and the entire staff of the Judiciary Committee, for their efforts on this important legislation. With regard to the staff of other Members, I extend my personal thanks to Steven Cash with Senator Feinstein; Joe Matal and Stephen Higgins with Senator Kyl; Bruce Cohen, Julie Katzman and Tara Magner with Senator Leahy; Bruce Artim and Ken Valentine with Senator Hatch; Joe Zogby with Senator Durbin; Rita Lari and Chad Groover with Senator Grassley; Reed O'Connor with Senator Cornyn; Neil McBride and Eric Rosen with Senator Biden; Ajit Pai with Senator Brownback; Preet Bahara with Senator Schumer; Paul Thompson with Senator DeWine; Lara Flint with Senator Feingold; Cindy Hayden and Amy Blankenship with Senator Sessions; Mary Chesser with Senator Coburn; Mark Blumberg and Christine Leonard with Senator Kennedy; Nate Jones and Patricia Curran with Senator Kohl; and James Galyean with Senator Graham. Their willingness to work closely with my staff under sometimes difficult circumstances was much appreciated. This bill heeds President Bush's call to renew the PATRIOT Act. All of the act's provisions have been renewed, and all but two provisions have been made permanent. At the same time, we have made responsible changes to safeguard civil liberties. Now we must move forward to a conference with the House in the hopes of quickly presenting President Bush with a bill he can sign into law. I am proud of what we have accomplished thus far, and I look forward to our conference with the other body.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Agroterrorism Prevention Act of 2005, which would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to enhance the protection of the United States agricultural industry and food security through increased prevention, detection, response and recovery planning. Since the events of September 11, 2001, Congress has taken substantive actions to protect America and indeed, the world from the threat of terrorism. Yet, there is a significant component of the United States that is at risk from terrorist attacks, and that is American agriculture. The United States agriculture industry accounts for 13 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, makes up 8 percent of our foreign trade, and accounts for over $192 billion in cash receipts. More specifically in Pennsylvania, agriculture is the number one industry with over 59,000 farms and ranches producing cash receipts exceeding $4 billion annually. Less than 2 percent of the American people are considered farmers or ranchers; however, they are responsible for feeding 100 percent of the American population. It is incumbent upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to ensure that the American farmer and rancher, and our Nation's food supply, are protected from any act of terrorism. During the 108th Congress, I held four forums on the issue of agroterrorism and food security at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture working in conjunction with the PA Secretary of Agriculture to address the needs and concerns of Pennsylvania's producers, processors, commodity representatives, veterinarians, public health officials, university administrators, and local government representatives. Collectively, the comments and issues raised at these forums provided the impetus to craft this necessary and timely legislation. This legislation would afford the American farmer, rancher, and the United States agriculture industry the protection it deserves. My bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize the act of agroterrorism, ensuring that we have a legal recourse against individuals seeking to disrupt our interstate commerce and foreign trade, or who try to coerce our civilian population or government. An agroterrist act would be defined as a criminal act that consists of causing, financing, or attempting to cause damage or harm to, or destruction of, a crop, livestock, raw agricultural commodity, food product, farm or ranch equipment, a material, or any other property associated with agriculture, or a person engaged in an agricultural activity, that is committed to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to disrupt interstate commerce or foreign commerce of the United States agricultural industry. Further, I have included the death penalty provision in this legislation to be consistent with existing laws concerning acts of terrorism. Beyond criminalizing the act of agroterrorism, this legislation would provide farmers and ranchers with on-farm bio-security resources; tools that reduce the potential for disease outbreaks. Through these resources, our farmers and ranchers would be able develop preparedness, response and recovery planning techniques. These techniques would enable farmers and ranchers to control access to their farms, separate animal shipping vehicles from animal feed facilities, and know what risks visitors present. Ultimately, the intent of this provision is to ensure that our first responders have the information, training, and critical infrastructure they need to react aggressively to an incident of agroterrorism. The impact of globalization affects agriculture in ways that many would be unaware. For example, livestock and crop diseases can be obtained and disseminated with ever increasing ease. These diseases are endemic to other parts of the world and can be extracted from common materials, such as soil. Additionally, agricultural inspections at ports of entry, the first line of defense against the entry of foreign animal and plant diseases, have declined over the last two years at a time when imports have increased. Therefore, I have called for the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Interior, Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate and enhance monitoring, surveillance, and intelligence capabilities concerning threats, delivery systems, border controls, and actions that could be directed against the agriculture sector. This legislation would authorize significant grant funding for States to establish state and local emergency response plans, information management, and to provide training for first responders, in the event of an animal or plant disease outbreak. The 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak in England required extensive intervention to eradicate and control the spread of disease. Therefore, the question remains if our Nation is ready to respond to such an outbreak, whether caused by a natural event or an act of terrorism. Additionally, this legislation would authorize funding for pilot grant demonstrations concerning on-farm bio-security. The majority of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and processors are family owned or small businesses, and they need our assistance in strengthening and changing their practices to meet the challenges they are facing in this war on terror. It is our duty as their representatives to provide the tools they need to preserve the American farm and ranch. This legislation would ensure that our National Veterinary Stockpile contains sufficient amounts of animal vaccine, antiviral, or therapeutic products to appropriately respond to the most damaging animal diseases affecting human health and the economy. Additionally, let us not think that agroterrorism pertains only to animals. A plant disease event can impact our agricultural economy as well. Therefore, I have included provisions to ensure that our U.S. National Germplasm system can respond to such an event with the use of disease-resistant seed varieties. Compounding the threat of agroterrorism is the fact that the United States is currently experiencing a shortage of veterinarians in rural agricultural areas. This results in an inability to respond to a disease outbreak whether natural or an act of terrorism. In response to this decline, this legislation would provide both educational debt repayment for veterinarians serving American agriculture during a disease outbreak and capacity building grants for colleges and schools of veterinary medicine to design higher education training programs in exotic animal diseases, epidemiology, and public health. The last provision of this legislation would require the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, HHS, Interior, and the Administrator of EPA to submit a report to Congress that describes the feasibility and need for modernizing or replacing current federal Biological Level 3 and Biological Level 4 laboratories responsible for research, technology development, diagnostic, and forensic activities on plant and animal diseases, including zoonotic diseases. As a nation we cannot adequately fight a modern war on terrorism using technology and laboratories that have exceeded their capability and useful life span. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, which would secure our Nation's most critical infrastructure, our food supply. As a nation, we cannot take for granted that our food supply will not be susceptible to terrorist activities. The measures called for in this legislation would not impose any new regulations on our farmers, ranchers, or processors but rather would provide them with the tools necessary to counteract agroterrorism. Without question, the time has come for concerted action to ensure the protection of American agriculture.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Roads to Success Act of 2005, which is legislation designed to expand higher educational and career opportunities for American students. There is no doubt as to the benefit of receiving a post-secondary education. The level of education that individuals accumulate has an important influence on their experience in the labor market. According to 2002 U.S. Census Bureau statistics on educational attainment and earnings, the mean earnings of men with a bachelor's degree is $63,354, while the mean earnings of men with a high school degree is $32,363. This is a difference of more than $30,000 or 97 percent. In recent years, there have been clear signs that more Americans are pursuing higher education opportunities. In June 2002, USA Today reported that 63 percent of high school graduates go to college immediately after graduation, the highest percentage in U.S. history. Yet not all of the news on college graduation rates has been good. Only 18 percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanic high school graduates earn a bachelor's degree by their late twenties, compared to 33 percent of whites according to the National Center for Education Statistics, NCES, in 2001. Further, in 2000, NCES reported that 22 percent of low-income, college qualified high school graduates do not pursue post-secondary education, compared to 4 percent of high-income graduates. As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many middle school and high school students that they do not have the preparation necessary to enroll in higher education institutions. On a trip to the Commonwealth, I joined Andrew McKelvey--the founder of the McKelvey Foundation--to announce Federal funding for entrepreneurial scholarships to rural, low-income Pennsylvania high school graduates. During that trip, I had a frank discussion with Mr. McKelvey regarding the need to not only ensure access to funding for students to pursue higher education, but the need to inform students about the importance of higher education, as well as prepare students for the application process. The bill I am introducing today, the ``Roads to Success Act of 2005'', will help to educate middle school and high school students in grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, about higher education and career opportunities. This bill will create a program which will provide students with access to information on higher education and career development, and prepare students with the skills necessary to plan for higher education. The availability of information on higher education opportunities makes an enormous difference to students contemplating continuing their education at the undergraduate level. My legislation will authorize a grant to Roads to Success, a nonprofit educational organization, to develop a core curriculum to be taught in the classroom to equip middle and high school students with the appropriate skills and knowledge to pursue post-secondary education and their career goals. Given the importance of higher education, it makes sense to prepare students for the undergraduate process as part of their class instruction to ensure that all students have access to the necessary information to attain their objectives. To this end, middle schools and high schools participating in the program will dedicate one hour each week of their classroom activity to higher education and career preparation of students utilizing the core curriculum. Additionally, I seek to create a network of intensive academic support for students by encouraging public-private partnerships to emphasize the importance of higher education and career development. Partnerships with private entities create a unique opportunity for middle schools and high schools to supplement and enhance the core curriculum by offering appropriate enrichments, including guest speakers, videos and web-based services. For example, through these partnerships, middle school and high school students will gain first- hand knowledge of the skills that businesses are seeking by having the opportunity to speak with business leaders, as well as perhaps tour local facilities. This will underscore the significance and importance of higher education for students as they embark on their future career paths. To implement this initiative, my bill will authorize $10 million annually for fiscal years 2006 through 2011, for Roads to Success to develop a core curriculum which has as its cornerstone increasing awareness of the importance of higher education, developing career awareness, building life skills, and providing education planning to students. Under this legislation, Roads to Success will award subgrants to five State educational agencies to offer higher education preparation programs using the core curriculum in middle and high schools with historically low rates of student application and admission to post-secondary institutions. It is my sincere hope that this act will ensure that students who wish to enroll in a higher education institution will have access to the tools and resources necessary to help them plan for undergraduate study. We must take this step to encourage students to pursue their educational and career goals--especially those who might not otherwise have this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this act, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Agroterrorism Prevention Act of 2005, which would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to enhance the protection of the United States agricultural industry and food security through increased prevention, detection, response and recovery planning. Since the events of September 11, 2001, Congress has taken substantive actions to protect America and indeed, the world from the threat of terrorism. Yet, there is a significant component of the United States that is at risk from terrorist attacks, and that is American agriculture. The United States agriculture industry accounts for 13 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, makes up 8 percent of our foreign trade, and accounts for over $192 billion in cash receipts. More specifically in Pennsylvania, agriculture is the number one industry with over 59,000 farms and ranches producing cash receipts exceeding $4 billion annually. Less than 2 percent of the American people are considered farmers or ranchers; however, they are responsible for feeding 100 percent of the American population. It is incumbent upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to ensure that the American farmer and rancher, and our Nation's food supply, are protected from any act of terrorism. During the 108th Congress, I held four forums on the issue of agroterrorism and food security at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture working in conjunction with the PA Secretary of Agriculture to address the needs and concerns of Pennsylvania's producers, processors, commodity representatives, veterinarians, public health officials, university administrators, and local government representatives. Collectively, the comments and issues raised at these forums provided the impetus to craft this necessary and timely legislation. This legislation would afford the American farmer, rancher, and the United States agriculture industry the protection it deserves. My bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize the act of agroterrorism, ensuring that we have a legal recourse against individuals seeking to disrupt our interstate commerce and foreign trade, or who try to coerce our civilian population or government. An agroterrist act would be defined as a criminal act that consists of causing, financing, or attempting to cause damage or harm to, or destruction of, a crop, livestock, raw agricultural commodity, food product, farm or ranch equipment, a material, or any other property associated with agriculture, or a person engaged in an agricultural activity, that is committed to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to disrupt interstate commerce or foreign commerce of the United States agricultural industry. Further, I have included the death penalty provision in this legislation to be consistent with existing laws concerning acts of terrorism. Beyond criminalizing the act of agroterrorism, this legislation would provide farmers and ranchers with on-farm bio-security resources; tools that reduce the potential for disease outbreaks. Through these resources, our farmers and ranchers would be able develop preparedness, response and recovery planning techniques. These techniques would enable farmers and ranchers to control access to their farms, separate animal shipping vehicles from animal feed facilities, and know what risks visitors present. Ultimately, the intent of this provision is to ensure that our first responders have the information, training, and critical infrastructure they need to react aggressively to an incident of agroterrorism. The impact of globalization affects agriculture in ways that many would be unaware. For example, livestock and crop diseases can be obtained and disseminated with ever increasing ease. These diseases are endemic to other parts of the world and can be extracted from common materials, such as soil. Additionally, agricultural inspections at ports of entry, the first line of defense against the entry of foreign animal and plant diseases, have declined over the last two years at a time when imports have increased. Therefore, I have called for the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Interior, Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate and enhance monitoring, surveillance, and intelligence capabilities concerning threats, delivery systems, border controls, and actions that could be directed against the agriculture sector. This legislation would authorize significant grant funding for States to establish state and local emergency response plans, information management, and to provide training for first responders, in the event of an animal or plant disease outbreak. The 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak in England required extensive intervention to eradicate and control the spread of disease. Therefore, the question remains if our Nation is ready to respond to such an outbreak, whether caused by a natural event or an act of terrorism. Additionally, this legislation would authorize funding for pilot grant demonstrations concerning on-farm bio-security. The majority of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and processors are family owned or small businesses, and they need our assistance in strengthening and changing their practices to meet the challenges they are facing in this war on terror. It is our duty as their representatives to provide the tools they need to preserve the American farm and ranch. This legislation would ensure that our National Veterinary Stockpile contains sufficient amounts of animal vaccine, antiviral, or therapeutic products to appropriately respond to the most damaging animal diseases affecting human health and the economy. Additionally, let us not think that agroterrorism pertains only to animals. A plant disease event can impact our agricultural economy as well. Therefore, I have included provisions to ensure that our U.S. National Germplasm system can respond to such an event with the use of disease-resistant seed varieties. Compounding the threat of agroterrorism is the fact that the United States is currently experiencing a shortage of veterinarians in rural agricultural areas. This results in an inability to respond to a disease outbreak whether natural or an act of terrorism. In response to this decline, this legislation would provide both educational debt repayment for veterinarians serving American agriculture during a disease outbreak and capacity building grants for colleges and schools of veterinary medicine to design higher education training programs in exotic animal diseases, epidemiology, and public health. The last provision of this legislation would require the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, HHS, Interior, and the Administrator of EPA to submit a report to Congress that describes the feasibility and need for modernizing or replacing current federal Biological Level 3 and Biological Level 4 laboratories responsible for research, technology development, diagnostic, and forensic activities on plant and animal diseases, including zoonotic diseases. As a nation we cannot adequately fight a modern war on terrorism using technology and laboratories that have exceeded their capability and useful life span. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, which would secure our Nation's most critical infrastructure, our food supply. As a nation, we cannot take for granted that our food supply will not be susceptible to terrorist activities. The measures called for in this legislation would not impose any new regulations on our farmers, ranchers, or processors but rather would provide them with the tools necessary to counteract agroterrorism. Without question, the time has come for concerted action to ensure the protection of American agriculture.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Roads to Success Act of 2005, which is legislation designed to expand higher educational and career opportunities for American students. There is no doubt as to the benefit of receiving a post-secondary education. The level of education that individuals accumulate has an important influence on their experience in the labor market. According to 2002 U.S. Census Bureau statistics on educational attainment and earnings, the mean earnings of men with a bachelor's degree is $63,354, while the mean earnings of men with a high school degree is $32,363. This is a difference of more than $30,000 or 97 percent. In recent years, there have been clear signs that more Americans are pursuing higher education opportunities. In June 2002, USA Today reported that 63 percent of high school graduates go to college immediately after graduation, the highest percentage in U.S. history. Yet not all of the news on college graduation rates has been good. Only 18 percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanic high school graduates earn a bachelor's degree by their late twenties, compared to 33 percent of whites according to the National Center for Education Statistics, NCES, in 2001. Further, in 2000, NCES reported that 22 percent of low-income, college qualified high school graduates do not pursue post-secondary education, compared to 4 percent of high-income graduates. As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many middle school and high school students that they do not have the preparation necessary to enroll in higher education institutions. On a trip to the Commonwealth, I joined Andrew McKelvey--the founder of the McKelvey Foundation--to announce Federal funding for entrepreneurial scholarships to rural, low-income Pennsylvania high school graduates. During that trip, I had a frank discussion with Mr. McKelvey regarding the need to not only ensure access to funding for students to pursue higher education, but the need to inform students about the importance of higher education, as well as prepare students for the application process. The bill I am introducing today, the ``Roads to Success Act of 2005'', will help to educate middle school and high school students in grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, about higher education and career opportunities. This bill will create a program which will provide students with access to information on higher education and career development, and prepare students with the skills necessary to plan for higher education. The availability of information on higher education opportunities makes an enormous difference to students contemplating continuing their education at the undergraduate level. My legislation will authorize a grant to Roads to Success, a nonprofit educational organization, to develop a core curriculum to be taught in the classroom to equip middle and high school students with the appropriate skills and knowledge to pursue post-secondary education and their career goals. Given the importance of higher education, it makes sense to prepare students for the undergraduate process as part of their class instruction to ensure that all students have access to the necessary information to attain their objectives. To this end, middle schools and high schools participating in the program will dedicate one hour each week of their classroom activity to higher education and career preparation of students utilizing the core curriculum. Additionally, I seek to create a network of intensive academic support for students by encouraging public-private partnerships to emphasize the importance of higher education and career development. Partnerships with private entities create a unique opportunity for middle schools and high schools to supplement and enhance the core curriculum by offering appropriate enrichments, including guest speakers, videos and web-based services. For example, through these partnerships, middle school and high school students will gain first- hand knowledge of the skills that businesses are seeking by having the opportunity to speak with business leaders, as well as perhaps tour local facilities. This will underscore the significance and importance of higher education for students as they embark on their future career paths. To implement this initiative, my bill will authorize $10 million annually for fiscal years 2006 through 2011, for Roads to Success to develop a core curriculum which has as its cornerstone increasing awareness of the importance of higher education, developing career awareness, building life skills, and providing education planning to students. Under this legislation, Roads to Success will award subgrants to five State educational agencies to offer higher education preparation programs using the core curriculum in middle and high schools with historically low rates of student application and admission to post-secondary institutions. It is my sincere hope that this act will ensure that students who wish to enroll in a higher education institution will have access to the tools and resources necessary to help them plan for undergraduate study. We must take this step to encourage students to pursue their educational and career goals--especially those who might not otherwise have this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this act, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to submit a Senate Resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign. This effort is being led by the National Crime Prevention Council, NCPC, and its icon, McGruff the Crime Dog. NCPC is a private, nonprofit educational organization. NCPC is well known by the general public for coordinating the public service advertising efforts featuring McGruff. Yet the National Crime Prevention Council provides comprehensive crime prevention technical assistance and training to communities throughout the United States; develops and implements highly acclaimed and innovative programs; and disseminates information on effective crime prevention practices to thousands of individuals and organizations every year. The council also publishes books, program kits, posters, and consumer education materials that can be localized by crime prevention activists everywhere. On July 1, 2005, the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign and McGruff the Crime Dog celebrated their 25th anniversary. I, along with Senator Leahy, acknowledge this significant milestone with a resolution that: 1. Commemorates the 25th anniversary and commends all individuals and organizations involved in the Campaign for advancing the principles and practices of effective crime prevention; 2. Asks all Americans to join in the celebration of the 25th anniversary; and 3. Encourages the efforts of the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign to promote individual and collective action, in collaboration with law enforcement and other supporting agencies, to reduce crime and build safer communities throughout the United States of America.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee Rules approved by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be included in the Record for today, July 14, 2005. Rules of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary i. meetings of the committee 1. Meetings of the Committee may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary on three days' notice of the date, time, place and subject matter of the meeting, or in the alternative with the consent of the Ranking Minority Member, or pursuant to the provision of the Standing Rules of the Senate, as amended. 2. Unless otherwise called pursuant to (1) of this section, Committee meetings shall take place promptly at 9:30 AM each Thursday the Senate is in session. 3. At the request of any Member, or by action of the Chairman, a bill, matter, or nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later. ii. hearings of the committee 1. The Committee shall provide a public announcement of the date, time, place and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by the Committee or any Subcommittee at least seven calendar days prior to the commencement of that hearing, unless the Chairman with the consent of the Ranking Minority Member determines that good cause exists to begin such hearing at an earlier date. Witnesses shall provide a written statement of their testimony and curriculum vitae to the Committee at least 24 hours preceding the hearing testimony in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes. 2. In the event 14 calendar days' notice of a hearing has been made, any witness appearing before the Committee, including any witness representing a Government agency, must file with the Committee at least 48 hours preceding her appearance a written statement of her testimony and curriculum vitae in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes. In the event the witness fails to file a written statement in accordance with this rule, the Chairman may permit the witness to testify, or deny the witness the privilege of testifying before the Committee, or permit the witness to testify in response to questions from Senators without the benefit of giving an opening statement. iii. quorums 1. One-third of the membership of the Committee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of discussing business. Eight members of the Committee, including at least two members of the minority, must be present to transact business. No bill, matter, or nomination shall be ordered reported from the Committee, however, unless a majority of the Committee is actually present at the time such action is taken and a majority of those present support the action taken. 2. For the purpose of taking sworn testimony, a quorum of the Committee and each Subcommittee thereof, now or hereafter appointed, shall consist of one Senator. iv. bringing a matter to a vote 1. The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority. v. amendments 1. Provided at least seven calendar days' notice of the agenda is given, and the text of the proposed bill or resolution has been made available at least seven calendar days in advance, it shall not be in order for the Committee to consider any amendment in the first degree proposed to any measure under consideration by the Committee unless such amendment has been delivered to the office of the Committee and circulated via e-mail to each of the offices by at least 5:00 PM the day prior to the scheduled start of the meeting. 2. It shall be in order, without prior notice, for a Member to offer a motion to strike a single section of any bill, resolution, or amendment under consideration. 3. The time limit imposed on the filing of amendments shall apply to no more than three bills identified by the Chairman and included on the Committee's legislative agenda. 4. This section of the rule may be waived by agreement of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce, along with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, a bipartisan bill to reauthorize provisions of the landmark anti- terrorism legislation we adopted in the wake of September 11, 2001. We continue to give tools to law enforcement to protect our security; and, at the same time, we make important improvements to the law to ensure greater protection of civil liberties and to require greater accountability through enhanced reporting and oversight. In recent months, the political rhetoric about the PATRIOT Act has reached a fever pitch. Not surprisingly, however, the reality fails to match the rhetoric. As the Washington Post has editorialized, ``[a]lthough the PATRIOT Act has become a catch phrase for civil liberties anxieties, it in fact has little connection to the most serious infringements on civil liberties in the war on terrorism.'' At the same time, it would be unwise to credit the act with all of our hard-won successes in the effort to combat terror. As evidenced by the grisly attacks in London last week, no law or surveillance regime can prevent every terrorist attack. Nevertheless, as last week's attacks remind us, the danger of international terrorism remains real, and has not abated in the years since 9/11. So, we must remain vigilant, and we must be cautious not to recreate the legal circumstances that arguably contributed to significant intelligence failures before 9/11. Reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, while incorporating improvements designed to safeguard our liberties and enhance oversight, is the right thing to do. To quote the Post again, ``there is little evidence of abuse--and considerable evidence that the law has facilitated needed cooperation. Based on what's known, it merits reauthorization with minor modifications.'' The bill we introduce today is the result of careful consideration. We have listened both to the concerns of critics and the arguments of the administration. We have probed and prodded both for information. And, we have consulted with both sides of the political aisle to fashion language designed to maintain the Government's ability to effectively investigate--and hopefully preempt--terrorist attacks, while making changes to reassure the American people that the law will be used responsibly, consistent with the rights enshrined in our Constitution. Mr. President, I would like to focus on the changes we have made to those PATRIOT Act provisions that have generated the most controversy. The PATRIOT Act modified electronic surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, to permit multipoint wiretaps of suspected terrorists or spies; but only upon a judicial finding of probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power and a further finding that the target's actions could thwart efforts to identify a single phone company or similar communications provider upon whom to serve the order. The principle behind this authority, which parallels similar authority in the criminal law, is that surveillance of a suspected terrorist or spy should be permitted to continue, uninterrupted, when the target changes phones. By definition, a multipoint wiretap order does not identify the specific phone to be tapped, because the order allows the Government to track the person not a single device. This was a change made necessary by the advent of cell phones, which are easily purchased and then discarded. After passage of the PATRIOT Act, however, this authority was further modified, so that a FISA surveillance order only had to specify the identity of the target ``if known.'' If the identity was unknown, the order had to include a ``description of the target,'' but there was no further requirement about how detailed the description of such ``John Doe'' targets had to be--raising concerns that the Government could conduct roving surveillance of a broadly described target. Our bill corrects this shortcoming and makes other improvements to the roving authority under FISA. First, the bill responds to concerns that so-called John Doe roving wiretaps could be used against someone described generically as a ``Middle Eastern male'' or ``Hispanic female'' by requiring such orders to include ``sufficient information to describe a specific target with particularity.'' This makes it clear that, although such orders may ``rove'' from one phone to another when the target changes devices, the Government cannot ``rove'' from one investigative target to another, seeking to identify the right person. Through this change, we avoid rewarding terrorists or spies who successfully conceal their identities, but we also protect innocent Americans from unwarranted surveillance. The bill further minimizes the chance that ``roving'' wiretaps could be used indiscriminately against multiple devices by requiring the Government to notify the court every time it begins surveillance of a new device. This notice must be made within 10 days of the initiation of surveillance, and must include a description of the new device, as well as the ``facts and circumstances'' indicating that each new phone or similar device is ``being used, or is about to be used,'' by the target. The notice must also update the techniques being used to minimize the interception and retention of unrelated communications. Finally, the bill adds new reporting requirements and extends the sunset date until December 31, 2009, allowing Congress to revisit the need for this surveillance tool. I would next like to turn to the bill's modification of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, perhaps the most controversial provision of the act, and one that is frequently misidentified as the ``library'' provision. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, FISA authorized the FBI to obtain orders for the production of certain types of business records, including those of hotels, car rental agencies and storage facilities, in limited circumstances. Under the pre-PATRIOT standard, however, the FBI could not even seek the records of someone observed in the presence of a suspected spy or terrorist, unless it had specific reasons to suspect the associate was himself a spy or terrorist. Strangely, this standard was significantly higher than the standard applicable to similar records requests in criminal cases. Accordingly, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit orders for any records or tangible things sought in connection with an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. As enacted, however, section 215 did not require the FBI to establish the factual basis for the requested order. According to critics, section 215 rendered the FISA court little more than a rubber stamp for the Government's requests. Moreover, section 215 included no explicit right for recipients to confer with legal counsel. And, despite oft- repeated comparisons to grand jury subpoenas, orders under section 215 included no explicit right to judicial review akin to a motion to quash a subpoena. Indeed, in testimony before the Judiciary Committee earlier this year, Attorney General Gonzales conceded these shortcomings in the law, and expressed a new willingness to consider modifications of section 215. Our bill addresses these issues, and adds still more protections to ensure the provision is used responsibly. First, the bill eliminates the mere certification of relevance required by current law and enhances the factual showing that must be made by the Government to obtain records. It also requires the court to agree with the adequacy of the Government's factual showing, and adds several procedural protections including heightened approval requirements and increased reporting for orders seeking sensitive materials, like library or medical records. Specifically, the bill requires the Government to submit ``a statement of facts'' showing ``reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought are relevant'' to an authorized investigation. The bill then addresses concerns about the FISA judge acting as a ``rubber stamp'' by requiring the court to find that the facts establish ``reasonable grounds to believe'' the items sought are relevant. The bill also adds an explicit right to consult counsel; provides for judicial review; requires approval of the FBI Director or Deputy Director for orders concerning library records and other sensitive materials; and adds annual reports to Congress regarding use of the provision to obtain library records, book sales records, firearms sales records, health information or tax information. This reporting feature is important because it enables the Congress to monitor the Justice Department's activities. In addition to the foregoing, the bill also requires an annual report on the number of times FISA orders for records and tangible things have been issued, modified, or denied. At our April 5 hearing, the Attorney General declassified the fact that, as of March 30, 2005, the FISA court had ``granted the department's request for a 215 order 35 times.'' He further noted that section 215 had not been used to obtain library or bookstore records, medical records or gun sale records. According to the Attorney General, section 215 had been used only to obtain driver's license records, public accommodation records, apartment leasing records, credit card records and subscriber information, such as names and addresses for telephone numbers captured through court-authorized pen register devices. It is our hope that regular public reporting, together with enhanced congressional reporting, will bolster public confidence in the law without compromising sensitive investigations. Finally, as with the multipoint surveillance authority, we have extended the sunset date for section 215 of the PATRIOT Act until December 31, 2009, so Congress must revisit the continuing need for this tool. Another PATRIOT Act provision that has inspired significant criticism is section 213 of the act, which authorized delayed notice or so-called sneak & peek search warrants. Unlike the other sections I have discussed, section 213 is not scheduled to sunset later this year. Nevertheless, in recognition of the concerns raised about this provision, we have made several changes to this authority as well. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, three Federal circuits had approved the practice of delayed notice search warrants. Supreme Court precedent also supported the legality of judicially authorized covert entries. Indeed, in Dalia v. United States, a 1979 case involving the analogous situation of a covert entry to install a listening device, the Supreme Court described as ``frivolous'' the argument that ``covert entries are unconstitutional for their lack of notice.'' Nevertheless, in the 1995 case of Wilson v. Arkansas, which focused on whether officers must ``knock and announce'' their presence before serving a warrant, the Court held that, ``in some circumstances an officer's unannounced entry into a home might be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.'' But, the Court did not address sneak and peek warrants directly, and it left ``to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.'' The PATRIOT Act sought to create a unified standard for delayed notice searches. Under the PATRIOT Act, notice of a search may be delayed if a court finds reasonable cause to believe immediate notice may have an adverse result, including: (A) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; (B) flight from prosecution; (C) destruction of, or tampering with, evidence; (D) intimidation of potential witnesses; or (E) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. Notice must be provided within a ``reasonable period'' of time, which may be extended for good cause. As noted by critics, however, the period of delay could be indefinite. And, in at least six instances reported by the Department of Justice, courts have authorized unspecified periods of delay--such as delays until the conclusion of an investigation. Over the last 3 months, at the Judiciary Committee's request, the Department of Justice has furnished new information about its use of delayed notice search warrants. This data shows that delayed notice warrants account for less than 0.2 percent of the warrants handled by Federal district courts. Moreover, delayed notice warrants based solely on seriously jeopardizing an investigation account for less than 1 in every 1,500 warrants--mitigating concerns that the ``catch-all'' provision is being overused. DOJ has also now supplied summaries of 15 cases--out of a total of 22 where the delay was based solely on the ``catch-all.'' In these cases, the delay was based on the substantial risk of comprising a title III wiretap or frustrating efforts to identify the full scope of a complex criminal enterprise. Accordingly, the draft bill does not eliminate seriously jeopardizing an investigation as a basis for delay. Instead, the bill enhances reporting requirements--including the addition of new public reporting requirements--to ensure that DOJ continues to use this authority responsibly. The bill also requires the court to set a ``date certain'' for notice to be provided, eliminating concerns about indefinite delays. The bill permits extensions of the delay period, but requires that extensions be granted only ``upon an updated showing of the need for further delay.'' Finally, the bill limits extensions to 90 days each, which parallels the notice requirements for criminal wiretaps and ``bugs'' which are arguably more invasive that a one-time search, because they may require covert entries and they continue to collect personal data for extended periods of time. As these changes illustrate, while reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, we have emphasized enhanced oversight through reporting. This bill adds reporting requirements to several PATRIOT provisions, including the aforementioned public reporting on delayed notice search warrants and FISA business records orders. The bill also adds public reporting on FISA pen registers and the emergency authorization of FISA electronic surveillance. Moreover, throughout FISA, the draft bill adds the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to reporting provisions currently limited to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. In addition, we have made adjustments to other provisions of the PATRIOT Act. These include: Section 203, sharing criminal information with intelligence agencies: The bill requires notice to the authorizing court when foreign intelligence information gathered via a court-authorized criminal wiretap is disclosed to intelligence agencies. Section 207, Duration of FISA surveillance of non-U.S. persons: The bill extends surveillance periods for non-U.S. persons under FISA, 120 days for original orders, and up to 1 year for extensions. Also, it extends the duration of FISA pen registers for non-U.S. persons, up to 1 year. Section 212, emergency disclosure of electronic communications: The bill adds new reporting requirements to ensure the government is using this authority appropriately. The bill also makes technical corrections to harmonize the language permitting the emergency disclosure of contents and records. Section 505, national security letters: The bill incorporates legislation introduced by Senator Cornyn to address a 2004 Federal district court decision holding a national security letter, or NSL, served on an Internet service provider unconstitutional. This legislation permits disclosure to legal counsel; allows court challenges; and permits judicial enforcement of NSLs. Sunsets: As I have noted, the bill retains sunsets for PATRIOT sections 206, multi-point wiretaps, and 215, FISA orders for business records and tangible things. The bill also extends the sunset date for the ``Lone Wolf'' provision added to FISA by last year's Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act until December 31, 2009. Taken together, these changes provide important checks on the governmental authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act. At the same time, these amendments honor President Bush's call for Congress to reauthorize the act without weakening the tools used to combat terrorism. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feinstein and Kyl in introducing this measure, and I look forward to securing the support of other Judiciary Committee members as we move to consider this bill. Mr. President, I would ask that the Washington Post editorial mentioned in my remarks, as well as three letters from the Department of Justice on the use of delayed notice warrants, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Wireless 411 Privacy Act. As every Senator is aware, consumers, today rely on their wireless telephones as a vital and important means of communication. Wifeless telephones enable families to stay connected, permit commerce to be conducted anywhere at any time, and provide a vital link in the event of an emergency. Some people have even abandoned traditional telephones and now use their wireless phones as their primary phone service. In fact, when I last introduced this bill in November 2003, the Federal Communications Commission began requiring number portability for wireless phones so that consumers, if they wish, can make their wireless phone their only phone. The wireless industry is on the verge of introducing a ``wireless white pages'' service, and though this step could have positive benefits, it raises concerns about how consumers' expectation of privacy will be protected. The legislation I am introducing today, along with Senator Boxer, ensures that consumers' expectations will be preserved. An important reason that Americans increasingly trust their cell phone service is that they have a great deal of privacy in their cell phone numbers. For more than 20 years of cellular service, consumers have become accustomed to not having their wireless phone numbers available to the public. The protection of wireless telephone numbers is important. For example, wireless customers are typically charged for incoming calls. Without protections for wireless numbers, subscribers could incur large bills, or use up their allotted minutes of use, simply by receiving calls they do not want--from telemarketers and others. Because consumers often take their cell phones with them everywhere, repeated unwanted calls are particularly disruptive, and may even present safety concerns for those behind the wheel. Since 2003, four States--California, Georgia, South Dakota and Washington--have passed similar laws that prohibit a carrier from divulging a customer's wireless telephone number without permission. While the industry remains poised to introduce wireless directory assistance services as early as this year, it is important for Congress to act now to preserve the expectation of privacy that consumers across the country have in their wireless phone numbers. The legislation I am introducing today strikes an important balance by providing privacy protections that are important to consumers, while enabling those consumers who want to be reached to be accessible. This legislation permits wireless subscribers to choose not to have their wireless telephone number listed in wireless directory assistance databases. This feature gives consumers the ultimate ability to keep their numbers entirely private. In addition to divulging subscribers' phone numbers, wireless directory assistance services may forward calls to wireless subscribers without prior notice or permission. My bill requires that these services must not divulge a subscriber's wireless number, unless the subscriber consents to disclosure, must provide identifying information to the wireless subscriber so that the subscriber knows who is calling through a forwarding service, and must give a subscriber the option of rejecting or accepting each incoming call. Finally, this legislation prohibits wireless carriers from charging any special fees to consumers who wish to receive the privacy protections provided by the bill. There should be no ``privacy tax'' for consumers to continue the privacy protection they have long enjoyed, and this bill ensures that will be the case. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Improved Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders Act of 2005, which is legislation designed to enhance educational opportunities and reduce recidivism for adult and juvenile offenders. Following the repeal of Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated individuals, I worked to create the Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders program. This program is aimed at providing postsecondary education and workplace and community transition training for incarcerated youth offenders while in prison, as well as employment counseling and other services that continue when the individual is released. This legislation, which I am introducing today, builds upon my earlier efforts by increasing flexibility and accountability within the Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders. This legislation is a positive step forward in providing realistic rehabilitation by increasing access to the current program for incarcerated youth offenders. With over two million incarcerated adults, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. The National Adult Literacy Study indicates that the majority of prison inmates either are illiterate or have marginal reading, writing, and math skills. This year more than 650,000 inmates will be released from United States prisons. Most of these adults and juveniles will leave correctional institutions having received little to no education and no more skilled than when they arrived. Frustrated by a lack of marketable skills, burdened with a criminal record, and released without transitional services, nearly two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested for either a felony or a serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. It should come as no surprise that an individual who is released and who is illiterate or lacks the necessary skills to get a job returns to a life of crime. The key to preventing recidivism has proven to be educational access and opportunity. A Correctional Educational Association report published findings from a study of education programs provided in correctional facilities. The findings show a remarkable decrease of approximately 10 percent in recidivism for those inmates that participated in education programs while incarcerated. The study also shows that the higher the education level reached by the offender, the lower the resulting recidivism rate. Most incarcerated youth offenders will one day return back to their communities, so this legislation is about making sure they have an opportunity to turn their lives around before they are released. It is about focusing on literacy and job training in order to reduce recidivism and prevent incarcerated youth offenders from becoming career criminals. I believe that criminal offenders, especially juveniles, should be given a chance at rehabilitation and gainful employment. This chance can only come through education. This legislation would authorize $30 million to provide incarcerated youth offenders, up to 35 years of age who are eligible for parole or release within 5 years, an opportunity to acquire postsecondary education while incarcerated, as well as employment counseling and other services that continue for up to one year after the individual is released. Currently, the Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders program provides formula grant funding to State correctional education agencies to provide postsecondary education and related services to incarcerated youth offenders up to 25 years of age. This legislation would increase eligibility for incarcerated youth offenders to individuals 35 years of age to allow more individuals to participate in the program, as the average age of inmates in most States is 35. This legislation also aims to increase flexibility with regard to the delivery of postsecondary education and related services to incarcerated youth offenders. To that end, this legislation would raise the allowable expenditure permitted for each youth offender to the maximum Federal Pell Grant level. The current program limits expenditures per youth offender to $1,500 for tuition and books, and an additional $300 for related services. Under this legislation, State correctional education agencies have increased flexibility to address the unique needs of each inmate due to the elimination of the caps on funding, which currently dictate the specific amounts permitted to be used for tuition and books, and related services. Additionally, this legislation requires State correctional education agencies to more thoroughly evaluate the effectiveness of the goals and objectives of the program by tracking and reporting specific and quantified student outcomes referenced to the outcomes of non-program participants. Increased accountability included in this legislation will allow a more in-depth study of the impact of education on key goals, such as, knowledge and skill attainment, employment attainment, job retention and advancement and recidivism rates. Recognizing the impact that education and job training can have on incarcerated youth offenders, it is my sincere hope that this legislation will encourage incarcerated individuals to achieve independence and to gain the skills necessary to become productive members of society upon their release. With realistic rehabilitation, including literacy training and job training, we can stop the cycle of catch-and-release. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and urge its swift adoption.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to express my objections to the U.S. Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the contents of the agreement and there remain outstanding questions regarding labor and agriculture. Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, I am opposed to the agreement. Since June of 1998, Pennsylvania has lost 199,600 manufacturing jobs. Nationwide nearly 900,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. These statistics are staggering. Unfortunately, this trade agreement would adversely affect this job loss in the United States; especially in Pennsylvania. As I reviewed the agreement, I noticed the establishment of a new legal regime that increases safeguards for multinational investment through changes in tariff rates, rules of origin, and quota phase-outs, which would allow corporations in Central America to sell a product at a cheaper price. In order to compete under these conditions, many U.S. corporations would have to shut down their operations, export their jobs, and leave skilled workers jobless. This agreement would aggravate the problem. In addition to job loss, this agreement fails to enhance workers' rights. Over the course of the last 5 years, Congress has worked to establish a standard within trade agreements that protects workers' rights. In 2001, when Congress adopted the Jordanian Trade Agreement, labor provisions were included in the body of the agreement. These labor provisions were made subject to sanctions through the dispute resolution process. Unfortunately, this agreement only strives to enforce workers' rights but does not offer provisions for Central Americans to unionize, collectively bargain, and secure the right to strike. Currently, the six CAFTA nations are subject to the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, which condition market access with respect to the International Labor Organization, ILO, standards. Linking market access to labor protections has been responsible for many significant labor reforms in Central America in the last 20 years. However, if enacted, CAFTA does not mandate that the labor laws of the Central American countries comply with the International Labor Organization, ILO, core standards, which include freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, and the freedom from child labor, forced labor, and discrimination. Ultimately, CAFTA would create downward pressure on wages because it would force our American workers to compete with Central American workers who are working for lower wages. This would allow foreign based companies to expand while leaving America more dependent on imports from abroad, which in turn would lessen the demand for domestic production and create even greater economic instability. Finally, CAFTA's impact on agriculture is problemsome. CAFTA will not open new markets for American agriculture goods. The U.S. is already the CAFTA regions largest trading partner. In many cases, our farm exports to the six CAFTA nations face tariffs that are low or nonexistent and dominate their agricultural markets in several commodities. The International Trade Commission has indicated that there would be little gain for agriculture. For example, currently, the U.S. supplies 94 percent of all grain into the region. I urge my colleagues to carefully examine this trade agreement. As a nation, we cannot continue to allow the erosion of our manufacturing base. Equally, CAFTA should continue to meet the labor standards created in previous trade agreements, which it must before I will consider supporting it. For these reasons I am voting no.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my vote on the Sununu-Bingaman amendment No. 1026 to the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. I oppose the amendment due to my concerns that it unfairly singled out one national forest in Alaska instead of crafting a policy that may be implemented across the national forest system. The Sununu-Bingaman amendment would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used to plan, design, study, or construct new forest development roads in the Tongass National Forest for the purpose of harvesting timber by private entities or individuals. I understand that the Federal Government subsidizes timber programs in all 111 national forests, including the Allegheny National Forest in Northwestern Pennsylvania. While the amendment did not prohibit logging in the Tongass, it would have created a special prohibition on new road building for logging operations in that forest when compared to other national forests. If Congress is to craft rules pertaining to the Federal logging program, it should be done in a more constructive manner than offered today. The issues of road building, maintenance backlogs, and future logging should be dealt with first by each national forest individually, in the context of its management plan. Congressional action should be a last resort. If Congress should reconsider the Federal logging program, I urge the amendment's proponents to submit a plan for consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1332, the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. Not too long ago, our personal information--our Social Security numbers, our date of birth, our mothers' maiden name, where we live-all remained relatively private. Where we live, and what we paid for our house, and whether we had a mortgage might have been publicly available, but finding that information out would require a trip to the local recorders office. Our privacy was preserved by the sheer difficulty of obtaining the information. This privacy--the ability to be left alone--has been a cherished value throughout American history. As our day-to-day transactions have become electronic, more and more of our personal data has been stored, transmitted and accessed electronically. Almost all of us have benefited from this change. Because our personal information is available electronically, we can purchase goods and services over the phone or on the internet. We can obtain a mortgage or rent an apartment in a matter of hours. We can apply for a credit card while we wait at the store and purchase things on-line. The availability of such information also helps law enforcement agencies conduct investigations and catch criminals. The information has also been used to do good. In one instance, Associated Press journalists matched Social Security numbers obtained from data brokers to Mississippi prison data exposing eight school teachers who failed to report that they had been convicted of sex offenses or drug crimes. However, as Justice Warren prophetically wrote in the 1963 case, Lopez v. United States--a case balancing the privacy interests of an individual with the law enforcement needs of the government--``The fantastic advances in the field of electronic communication constitute a great danger to the privacy of the individual.'' In electronic form, our personal information is both more valuable and more vulnerable. As we have all witnessed in recent months, electronic data is more vulnerable because it can be accessed from afar and can be stolen in a split second. The problem first became apparent when data brokers, companies that buy and sell our personal data, announced that they had experienced large-scale breaches involving the personal data of hundreds of thousands of Americans. In February, ChoicePoint, one of the Nation's largest collectors of consumer information, notified over 145,000 Americans of a system security breach. In March, LexisNexis announced that unauthorized persons posing as legitimate customers obtained personal the personal data of over 300,000 Americans. It soon became apparent that the problem extended beyond data brokers. In April, Carnegie Mellon University notified 19,000 students, alumni, faculty and staff that their personal data may have been compromised. In May, a data storage company lost information on 600,000 current and former employees of Time Warner. In recent days, MasterCard announced 40 million credit card numbers belonging to U.S. consumers were accessed by a computer hacker--the largest breach yet. Even government agencies have not been immune. Personal data including Social Security numbers on nearly 6,000 current and former Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation employees was stolen early last year, some of which has been used for fraudulent purposes. Electronic personal data is more valuable because identity thieves can steal large volumes and use it before anyone knows. For the last 5 years, Identity Theft has topped the FTC's list of consumer complaints. From 2002 to 2004, the number of complaints rose 52 percent, to 246,570. Put another way, that's once every 2 minutes. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Not all consumers report identity theft to the FTC. Not all victims report identity theft to their local police. Sixty percent of those who did file a report with the FTC did not call their local police department. It stands to reason that many did not call the FTC. A recent study by the Better Business Bureau concluded that 9.3 million Americans were victims of identity fraud in 2004, and that each victim lost approximately $5,800. Ultimately, nearly 20 percent Americans will become victims of identity theft. Worse, according to the study, it took victims an average of 28 hours on the phone with creditors and credit bureaus to clear their names. I use the term ``clear'' loosely, because in many cases the damage caused by identity theft is irreversible. Victims will have fraud alerts on their credit reports for years to come, making it more difficult to open new accounts or make major purchases. Some will be erroneously contacted by collection agencies. Individuals whose personal information is not stolen also suffer. Businesses lose nearly $50 billion a year from identity thieves posing as customers. These losses translate into increased prices for every consumer. In some cases, the availability of electronic personal data can lead to tragedy. In 1999, a former high school classmate of Amy Lynn Boyer obtained her former work address and social security number from an on- line data broker. By calling her home and posing as the former employer, he convinced Amy's mom to give him Amy's work address. He then drove to Boyer's workplace and fatally shot her. In an effort to protect the privacy and security of our electronic personal information, and prevent future tragedies, small and large, my colleague Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. First, this legislation goes after identity thieves by increasing penalties for crimes involving electronic personal data. For example, it increases penalties for computer fraud when such fraud involves personal data. It also goes after those who intentionally expose Americans to identity theft by punishing those who intentionally conceal a security breach that involves personal data. The bill also empowers Americans to look after the privacy of their own data. The bill will allow individuals to obtain access to any personal information held by data brokers. For individuals who believe their information is wrong, data brokers must provide them with guidance on how to correct their information. The legislation also puts the burden those that store, transmit and access electronic personal data. It will require the companies, government agencies, universities that keep significant amounts of personal data to assess the vulnerability of their systems and to adopt policies that will address those vulnerabilities. Some entities will choose to encrypt the personal data that they store and transmit. Others will pick a means more appropriate their size and the sensitivity of their data. Of course, these provisions do not apply to data held by health care providers and financial institutions that is already regulated by other federal laws. This legislation fills in gaps left by other federal laws. It has become clear that many entities other than health care providers and financial institutions have large amounts of personal information. This legislation would require such entities to adequately protect their electronic data. Such measures will not always be enough. As I've already noted, the nature of electronic data makes it vulnerable even when those who hold it take reasonable steps to protect it. Currently, no federal law requires those who maintain our sensitive personal data to notify affected individuals when such data is lost or exposed. This legislation would require those who maintained such data to notify affected individuals as well as law enforcement. As everyone knows, knowledge is power. Once individuals learn that their personal information is exposed, they can take steps to protect themselves. And, the company, school or agency that experienced the breach must help. They must provide individuals whose data was lost with a monthly credit report and they must provide information on the identity theft victim assistance available to them. For large breaches, the media must be notified. Media reports over the past few months have made Americans far more aware of the problem of security breaches. Hopefully, we can continue to raise awareness by requiring data holders to continue the practice of making public announcements regarding large breaches. Notice will also give law enforcement a head start in the effort to prevent harm to individuals as a result of a breach. One of the most critical pieces of information that can be lost is one's Social Security number. We can all think of instances when we've been asked for our Social Security number to verify our identities-- utilities, doctors, schools--I could go on. In itself, this is not harmful. Problems arise however, when the Social Security number gets passed along to others without the person's knowledge or permission. The legislation would prohibit companies from buying, selling or displaying a Social Security number without consent from the individual whose number it is. The bill also would prevent companies from requiring individuals to give their Social Security number in order to obtain goods or services. Finally, it would bar government agencies from posting public records that contain Social Security numbers on the internet. This legislation would not prevent the use of Social Security numbers altogether. We recognize that would not be practical. It would, however, protect the value of Social Security numbers by preventing their proliferation. Finally, this legislation will protect the privacy of all Americans by providing a check on the government's use of databases maintained by data brokers. As I've already noted, federal law enforcement uses electronic personal data maintained by data brokers to track criminals and criminal activity. Correctly used, these databases can be very useful tools in the fight against crime. However, there should be some check on their use. In addition, the legislation aims at making sure the government's use of such data is secure. It will require audits to ensure that data brokers are keeping law enforcement inquiries private. This bill represents a comprehensive effort to protect the privacy and security of electronic personal data. Our lives have all been made easier because our personal information is readily available to those who have a legitimate need for it. This legislation aims to keep such information out of the hands of those who have no legitimate need for it. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1332, the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. Not too long ago, our personal information--our Social Security numbers, our date of birth, our mothers' maiden name, where we live-all remained relatively private. Where we live, and what we paid for our house, and whether we had a mortgage might have been publicly available, but finding that information out would require a trip to the local recorders office. Our privacy was preserved by the sheer difficulty of obtaining the information. This privacy--the ability to be left alone--has been a cherished value throughout American history. As our day-to-day transactions have become electronic, more and more of our personal data has been stored, transmitted and accessed electronically. Almost all of us have benefited from this change. Because our personal information is available electronically, we can purchase goods and services over the phone or on the internet. We can obtain a mortgage or rent an apartment in a matter of hours. We can apply for a credit card while we wait at the store and purchase things on-line. The availability of such information also helps law enforcement agencies conduct investigations and catch criminals. The information has also been used to do good. In one instance, Associated Press journalists matched Social Security numbers obtained from data brokers to Mississippi prison data exposing eight school teachers who failed to report that they had been convicted of sex offenses or drug crimes. However, as Justice Warren prophetically wrote in the 1963 case, Lopez v. United States--a case balancing the privacy interests of an individual with the law enforcement needs of the government--``The fantastic advances in the field of electronic communication constitute a great danger to the privacy of the individual.'' In electronic form, our personal information is both more valuable and more vulnerable. As we have all witnessed in recent months, electronic data is more vulnerable because it can be accessed from afar and can be stolen in a split second. The problem first became apparent when data brokers, companies that buy and sell our personal data, announced that they had experienced large-scale breaches involving the personal data of hundreds of thousands of Americans. In February, ChoicePoint, one of the Nation's largest collectors of consumer information, notified over 145,000 Americans of a system security breach. In March, LexisNexis announced that unauthorized persons posing as legitimate customers obtained personal the personal data of over 300,000 Americans. It soon became apparent that the problem extended beyond data brokers. In April, Carnegie Mellon University notified 19,000 students, alumni, faculty and staff that their personal data may have been compromised. In May, a data storage company lost information on 600,000 current and former employees of Time Warner. In recent days, MasterCard announced 40 million credit card numbers belonging to U.S. consumers were accessed by a computer hacker--the largest breach yet. Even government agencies have not been immune. Personal data including Social Security numbers on nearly 6,000 current and former Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation employees was stolen early last year, some of which has been used for fraudulent purposes. Electronic personal data is more valuable because identity thieves can steal large volumes and use it before anyone knows. For the last 5 years, Identity Theft has topped the FTC's list of consumer complaints. From 2002 to 2004, the number of complaints rose 52 percent, to 246,570. Put another way, that's once every 2 minutes. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Not all consumers report identity theft to the FTC. Not all victims report identity theft to their local police. Sixty percent of those who did file a report with the FTC did not call their local police department. It stands to reason that many did not call the FTC. A recent study by the Better Business Bureau concluded that 9.3 million Americans were victims of identity fraud in 2004, and that each victim lost approximately $5,800. Ultimately, nearly 20 percent Americans will become victims of identity theft. Worse, according to the study, it took victims an average of 28 hours on the phone with creditors and credit bureaus to clear their names. I use the term ``clear'' loosely, because in many cases the damage caused by identity theft is irreversible. Victims will have fraud alerts on their credit reports for years to come, making it more difficult to open new accounts or make major purchases. Some will be erroneously contacted by collection agencies. Individuals whose personal information is not stolen also suffer. Businesses lose nearly $50 billion a year from identity thieves posing as customers. These losses translate into increased prices for every consumer. In some cases, the availability of electronic personal data can lead to tragedy. In 1999, a former high school classmate of Amy Lynn Boyer obtained her former work address and social security number from an on- line data broker. By calling her home and posing as the former employer, he convinced Amy's mom to give him Amy's work address. He then drove to Boyer's workplace and fatally shot her. In an effort to protect the privacy and security of our electronic personal information, and prevent future tragedies, small and large, my colleague Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. First, this legislation goes after identity thieves by increasing penalties for crimes involving electronic personal data. For example, it increases penalties for computer fraud when such fraud involves personal data. It also goes after those who intentionally expose Americans to identity theft by punishing those who intentionally conceal a security breach that involves personal data. The bill also empowers Americans to look after the privacy of their own data. The bill will allow individuals to obtain access to any personal information held by data brokers. For individuals who believe their information is wrong, data brokers must provide them with guidance on how to correct their information. The legislation also puts the burden those that store, transmit and access electronic personal data. It will require the companies, government agencies, universities that keep significant amounts of personal data to assess the vulnerability of their systems and to adopt policies that will address those vulnerabilities. Some entities will choose to encrypt the personal data that they store and transmit. Others will pick a means more appropriate their size and the sensitivity of their data. Of course, these provisions do not apply to data held by health care providers and financial institutions that is already regulated by other federal laws. This legislation fills in gaps left by other federal laws. It has become clear that many entities other than health care providers and financial institutions have large amounts of personal information. This legislation would require such entities to adequately protect their electronic data. Such measures will not always be enough. As I've already noted, the nature of electronic data makes it vulnerable even when those who hold it take reasonable steps to protect it. Currently, no federal law requires those who maintain our sensitive personal data to notify affected individuals when such data is lost or exposed. This legislation would require those who maintained such data to notify affected individuals as well as law enforcement. As everyone knows, knowledge is power. Once individuals learn that their personal information is exposed, they can take steps to protect themselves. And, the company, school or agency that experienced the breach must help. They must provide individuals whose data was lost with a monthly credit report and they must provide information on the identity theft victim assistance available to them. For large breaches, the media must be notified. Media reports over the past few months have made Americans far more aware of the problem of security breaches. Hopefully, we can continue to raise awareness by requiring data holders to continue the practice of making public announcements regarding large breaches. Notice will also give law enforcement a head start in the effort to prevent harm to individuals as a result of a breach. One of the most critical pieces of information that can be lost is one's Social Security number. We can all think of instances when we've been asked for our Social Security number to verify our identities-- utilities, doctors, schools--I could go on. In itself, this is not harmful. Problems arise however, when the Social Security number gets passed along to others without the person's knowledge or permission. The legislation would prohibit companies from buying, selling or displaying a Social Security number without consent from the individual whose number it is. The bill also would prevent companies from requiring individuals to give their Social Security number in order to obtain goods or services. Finally, it would bar government agencies from posting public records that contain Social Security numbers on the internet. This legislation would not prevent the use of Social Security numbers altogether. We recognize that would not be practical. It would, however, protect the value of Social Security numbers by preventing their proliferation. Finally, this legislation will protect the privacy of all Americans by providing a check on the government's use of databases maintained by data brokers. As I've already noted, federal law enforcement uses electronic personal data maintained by data brokers to track criminals and criminal activity. Correctly used, these databases can be very useful tools in the fight against crime. However, there should be some check on their use. In addition, the legislation aims at making sure the government's use of such data is secure. It will require audits to ensure that data brokers are keeping law enforcement inquiries private. This bill represents a comprehensive effort to protect the privacy and security of electronic personal data. Our lives have all been made easier because our personal information is readily available to those who have a legitimate need for it. This legislation aims to keep such information out of the hands of those who have no legitimate need for it. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about certain statements made this morning that were somewhat critical of the President on the issue of consultation on a prospective Supreme Court nomination. One of the Senators from the other side of the aisle said that there would be a battle royal unless there was consultation that met the requirements of the other side of the aisle. Two other lengthy speeches were also presented along the same line. There has been a letter submitted by some 44 Senators that called for consultation by the President on the issue of a Supreme Court nomination. However, I think the first thing to acknowledge is that there is no vacancy. It would be premature to be critical. It would be premature to raise the issue in a confrontational sense until the matter is ripe for consideration. A number of us had occasion to have lunch with members of the Supreme Court last week, and the Chief Justice looked remarkably fit. We saw him when he administered the oath to the President some 5 months ago, when he was helped down to the podium, a little shaky and his voice a little faltering, but last Thursday he looked remarkably well. What he intends to do or what anyone else intends to do remains to be seen, but it is hardly the time, given the kind of confrontation in this body which we have seen on the judicial nomination process, to be looking to pick a fight. I am not saying anyone is picking a fight--just that we ought to avoid picking one. I respect the letter which was sent, dated June 23, to the President, and signed by some 44 Senators. It quotes the President at the press conference on May 31, 2005, where he said: ``I look forward to talking to Members of the Senate about the Supreme Court process to get their opinions as well and will do so. We will consult with the Senate.'' That is an extract from the letter sent to President Bush dated today. Well, May 31 was only 24 days ago and when the President has made a commitment to consult with the Senate, that is pretty firm and that is pretty emphatic. Given his other responsibilities, and the fact that there is no vacancy on the Supreme Court, it is presumptuous to say that there is some failure on his part. I have asked the President to consult with Democratic Members and to listen. The advice and consent clause of the Constitution is well known. He has asked me, in my capacity as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, about the issue, and I recommended to him consultation. He has been very receptive to the idea. Although he has made no commitment to me, he did make a very flat commitment in his speech, as cited in this letter. I might comment that during the confirmation proceedings of Attorney General Gonzales, I think it is fair to say Senator Schumer was effusive in his praise of Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel regarding consultation with New York Senators. May the record show that Senator Schumer is nodding in the affirmative. As former prosecutors we sometimes say such things. It is my hope that we will proceed to the Supreme Court nomination-- if and when it occurs--in a spirit of comity. I do not have to speak about my record on the subject. When we were fighting during the Clinton administration about confirming Paez and Berzon, I broke party ranks and supported them. It is my view that there is fault on both sides regarding stalling nominations. It began during the last two years of President Reagan, all four years of Bush No. 1, and reached an intense line, frankly, during the administration of President Clinton, when some 60 nominations were held up in committee. We know what happened with the systematic filibuster and the interim appointment, and we are past that. We have a very heavy responsibility, if a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, to move ahead in a spirit of comity to try to get somebody who can be confirmed; somebody who is acceptable to the Senate. If we are to fail in that and have an eight-person Court, it would be dysfunctional. As we all know, there are many 5-to-4 decisions. The country simply could not function with 4-to-4 court. It would be my hope that we would lower the rhetoric and not put anybody in the position of being compelled to respond to a challenge. Let us not challenge each other. Let us not challenge the President. Let us move toward consultation. This is something I have discussed with the distinguished Democratic Leader, Senator Reid. Also, Senator Leahy and I have talked about the subject at length. I think we have established--as Senator Leahy called--it an atmosphere of comity in the Judiciary Committee. Such that we will approach this very important duty with tranquility, comity, and good will to do the work of the American people and not presume that the President is going to pick someone characterized as out of the mainstream or someone objectionable. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with the agreement of the distinguished manager, I ask for 10 minutes to speak on the subject of asbestos as in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to talk briefly about the contents of S. 852 to provide for asbestos reform. This is a subject which has been before the Senate in one way or another for the better part of two decades. I recall my first contact with the issue when then-Senator Gary Hart of Colorado was soliciting members of the Judiciary Committee because of the deep problems of Johns- Mansville. The Supreme Court of the United States, on a number of occasions, has importuned the Congress to take over the subject because the asbestos cases are flooding the courts and because class actions are inappropriate to address the issue. The result of the avalanche of asbestos litigation has seen some 77 companies in the United States go into bankruptcy and thousands of people suffering from asbestos-related injuries--mesothelioma, deadly diseases--and unable to collect any compensation because of the fact their employers or those who would be liable for their injuries are in a state of bankruptcy. Senator Hatch took the lead as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the 108th Congress in structuring a bill which created a trust fund which has been established at $140 billion to pay asbestos victims. This is a sum of money which has been agreed to by the insurance companies and by the manufacturers and had the imprimatur of the leadership of the Senate. In the fall of last year, 2004, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle came to terms as that being a figure which would take care of the needs. The victims have never been totally satisfied with that figure, but it represents a very substantial sum, obviously, and according to the filings of the Goldman Sachs analysis, should be adequate to compensate the victims. They made a detailed analysis and came to the conclusion that $125 billion was the figure necessary. Then when we removed the smokers, a figure of $7 billion, it came to a net of $118 billion, leaving a substantial cushion between $118 billion on the projection and $140 billion. When the bill was passed out of the Judiciary Committee in late July of 2003, largely along party lines, the aid of a senior Federal judge was enlisted to serve as a mediator. Chief Judge Edward R. Becker had taken senior status the preceding May and was willing to convene the parties, the so-called stakeholders, in his chambers in Philadelphia in August of 2003. He brought together the insurers, the trial lawyers, the AFL-CIO representing claimants, and the manufacturers, a group of four interest groups who are very powerful in our community. From those two meetings, there have been a series of approximately 40 conferences in my offices where we have worked through a vast number of problems where I think we have accommodated many of the interests. In May, the Judiciary Committee voted the bill out of committee on a 13-to-5 vote, with bipartisan support, and during the course of the markup some 70 amendments were agreed to. There are still some outstanding issues, but we have been soliciting cosponsors and have found very substantial interest in the Senate on trying to move through legislation on this important issue. There is no denial that this is a very major national problem. There is no denial that there are many victims of asbestos who are now destitute because the people who were responsible for their damages have gone into bankruptcy. There is no denial that there has been a tremendous drain on the U.S. economy and that if we could solve this issue it would be a bigger boost to the economy than a gigantic tax break or most any other remedy which might be found to stimulate our economy. There are, obviously, risks in any bill. We have worked through the complexities of a startup procedure where the people who have exigent claims--that is, where they may die within a year--we have an elaborate system of offers and inducements to try to settle those cases within a brief period of time, some 9 months. Obviously, we cannot have a stay of judicial proceedings forever, so there has to be some resort to the courts if we are unable to get the program set up. Without going into greater detail, we have worked assiduously to try to resolve this issue. We either have it solved or are very close to a solution. We have worked through complex questions on subrogation, complex questions on the Federal Employers Liability Act, and there are still ongoing decisions with a controversy as to how the $90 billion will be divided up among the manufacturers. That essentially is the question that only the manufacturers themselves can guarantee. Similarly, there are issues as to how the $46 billion will be divided up among the insurers. Candidly, the insurance industry is split on the issue, but we are still working, and I have meetings in the course of the next week to 10 days with people who have outstanding concerns to try to resolve those issues. When the vote came out of committee, some of those who voted in favor of the bill did so with reservations. We have worked through this, and I think those issues are either resolved or resolvable. Senator Leahy and I have worked very closely. It is a bipartisan bill which had the 10 members of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side voting in favor--to repeat again, subject to some reservations-- and three Democrats voting in favor of the bill. Senator Leahy and I are determined to retain our core provisions, but we are open to suggestions. It is my hope that this bill will come to the Senate right after the Fourth of July recess. That, of course, is a decision which the majority leader has to make in setting the calendar. There is a momentum in hand where it would be very much in the national interest, for the reasons I stated, to move ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Dear Colleague letter sent by Senator Leahy and myself to Members of the Senate be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my presentation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address the issue of climate change and the various proposals that have been debated this week on the energy bill including the McCain-Lieberman amendment, the Hagel amendment, and the Bingaman-Specter amendment. Climate change is a matter of great international importance and I believe any successful plan to address it must balance environmental protection with the need for economic development and jobs. I have voted many times for environmental protection for renewable energy and conservation measures. Most recently, on this Energy bill I voted for the Bingaman amendment to mandate that 10 percent of U.S. electricity production be from renewable sources by 2020. I also supported the Cantwell amendment to reduce U.S. oil consumption by over 7 million barrels per day by 2025, in addition to the 1 million barrel per day reduction by 2015 already incorporated into the Energy bill which I have advanced since 2002. On climate change specifically, the most recent vote of significance prior to the current debate was on October 30, 2003, when the Senate voted on the McCain-Lieberman bill, S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act, which failed by a vote of 43 to 55. The Senate again today rejected a similar amendment to the Energy bill by a vote of 38 to 60. I voted against this amendment and the previous bill because it is very difficult to meet the strict emissions limit of the year 2000 by the year 2010 in times of unpredictable national and State economies. Additionally, it is very difficult to limit industry in the United States when we do not have a plan for the rest of the world in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. I have urged the President to work through international means to address global climate change and support his efforts and those of individual companies to voluntarily curb domestic emissions, but stronger action will have to be taken in the future on a multilateral basis. I have been encouraged by the recent efforts of Senator Bingaman, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to bring to the Senate a proposal based on the recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy, NCEP, which issued its report in December 2004. The Commission's recommended approach on climate change would be to implement a mandatory, economy-wide, tradable-permits system designed to curb growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2.4 percent in 2010, while capping initial costs at $7 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. This would start the U.S. on a path toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to business as usual, while calling for Government reviews at 5 year intervals of global action on climate change. This new approach addressed two of the basic questions that have led, in my opinion, to the failure of the McCain-Lieberman legislation concerns about cost and U.S. action in the context of international efforts. Senator Bingaman decided to offer a sense-of-the Senate amendment in place of this more complicated technical amendment to further this discussion on the important issue of climate change. I cosponsored this Bingaman-Specter-Domenici amendment calling on Congress to enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions. It calls for this to be done in a manner that will not significantly harm the U.S. economy and will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions. This amendment received a very substantial vote of 54-43 against tabling, or setting it aside, and was subsequently accepted by voice vote. I am also pleased to see the action taken by the Senate to include the Hagel amendment to the Energy bill, which would promote the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity-- emissions per dollar of GDP by providing loan guarantees for up to 25 percent of the total cost of eligible projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems. This amendment also promotes the adoption of such technologies in developing countries by allowing U.S. companies that invest in such technologies overseas to fully deduct the cost of investment. I supported this amendment because I believe it is a step in the right direction, however, I believe further action is necessary to address global climate change. While I was unable to support the McCain-Lieberman amendment, I believe the actions on the Hagel and Bingaman-Specter amendments will give impetus to further action to deal with global climate change. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue in the hopes of finding common ground and a sensible balance between the goals of environmental protection and economic development.