Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. This is a procedural question, not a substantive question. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. On the scheduling of business, I have to chair an Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Health and Human Services at 10:30. We scheduled this amendment at 9:30. I wonder if I could prevail upon the Senator from North Dakota to permit Senator Enzi to respond to my arguments so that I can finish, conclude, and then ask unanimous consent, if that is agreeable, that you be recognized to continue your presentation?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset I submit a statement for the record and ask that it be included in its entirety at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. In order to summarize, since we have a relatively limited period of time, this amendment provides for increasing funding for the Department of Education by $500 million, which would bring it up to level funding, and an addition of $1.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health, and the offset would be across the board from Function 920. This reduction would not cut any programs but simply reduce administrative expenses, travel, and consulting services by .237 percent, which is minuscule in the overall scheme of things, I admit, very minor compared to the importance of having additional funding in education and additional funding in the National Institutes of Health. NIH has made remarkable advances on an enormous list of very major diseases and they are worth itemizing because each one of these strikes thousands of Americans. They include: Autism, stroke, obesity, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal muscular atrophy, scleroderma, ALS, muscular dystrophy, diabetes, osteoporosis, cancers, including breast, cervical and ovarian, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate, pancreatic, colon, head and neck, brain, lung, pediatric renal disorders, multiple sclerosis, deafness and other communication disorders, glaucoma, macular degeneration, sickle cell anemia, heart disease, spinal cord injury, sudden infant death syndrome, arthritis, schizophrenia and other mental disorders, polycystic kidney disease, hepatitis, Cooley's anemia, primary immune deficiency disorders, and the list goes on and on. As I read them off to itemize them, they are abstractions to people who suffer from these ailments. To families of people who suffer these ailments, they are catastrophic. Take someone who has autism, take someone who has Alzheimer's, this disrupts the family, these ailments are overwhelming. The National Institutes of Health has had increases in this budget on a commitment by this body to double NIH, and we have increased the funding very substantially. But last year and the year before and this year, the funding well has not proceeded as it should. When you talk about a budget of $28 billion for the National Institutes of Health, when you have an overall budget of approximately $2.67 trillion, $28 billion is totally insufficient. If there is not an increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health, there will be 402 less grants awarded next year than last year. The increase of less than $200 million does not begin to approximate the replacement rate for chemical, biomedical research which is 3.5 percent. We have $1.7 billion which is being applied by NIH to bioterrorism. With all due respect, that ought to come out of homeland security, bioterrorism. It is coming out of the NIH budget because it is a medical issue. If there is not additional funding, these are some of the points of impact on the National Institutes of Health: They will be unable to test safety of new behavioral treatments for autism; unable to initiate phase 3 to determine the relationship between infection and cardiovascular disease; unable to expand research on early identification preventing procurement impairment of newborns; delay by 1 year more research with industry to develop vaccines for hepatitis C infections; delay the evaluation of promising vaccines in a variety of contexts. It will delay programs for developing computer models for responding to infectious disease outbreaks such as avian flu, as well as bioterrorism attacks--here again these are abstractions, but to the people they hit, they are catastrophic--unable to expand the development of methamphetamine addiction; unable to initiate multicellular studies of aquaimmune hepatitis, and the list goes on and on. The subject of adequacy of NIH research is one which I thought was of enormous importance before I was elected to the Senate in 1980, and my initial assignment on Appropriations took me to the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services. I have always been an advocate for increasing NIH funding. Then when I took over the chairmanship of the subcommittee in 1995, in a position to establish priorities, the Senate voted to double NIH funding, but then in the first year following defeated an effort to add $1 billion. Senator Harkin and I have formed a partnership on a bipartisan basis, and he has had the gavel when the Democrats took over for 17 months in 2001 and when we have had a transfer of the gavel, it has been seamless, he and I and this partnership of established priorities within our subcommittee even when this body did not grant increases to NIH. We have found the money by establishing priorities. But the fact is that opportunity is gone. It is gone because there have been decreases in the other facets of the budget. The Department of Labor budget has been cut by 3\1/2\ percent this year. I don't know how we are going to fund the necessary programs for worker safety. The education budget, believe it or not, has been cut by almost 1 percent, by some $500 million. I will come to that in a moment on the aspect of this amendment which seeks to raise education funding by $500 million. But it is not possible anymore to juggle the books. We cannot juggle the books and find money and priorities to add an additional $1.5 billion to the National Institutes of Health. My interest in medical research occurred long before I developed a current problem, which has been publicized, with Hodgkin's, and I am glad to say that there is a cure for the particular problem I had. But in many forms of cancer there is no cure. President Nixon declared war on cancer in 1972. Here we are 33 years later, the wealthiest country in the world, the greatest talent in the world on research, and we spend $2.6 trillion. We spend it in many directions which are challenged by many people in our society, but we allocate $28 billion to NIH. And it is totally, totally, totally insufficient, and for families where they suffer from Alzheimer's or heart disease or the long list of maladies I recited, it is simply unacceptable. I know the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has enormous problems. I compliment him on taking on what is probably the toughest job in the Senate, to try to find a way to make allocations on the budget. But among the priorities, I will say that the expression is frequently used, ``none is higher.'' Well, that means it could be tied with a lot of others. But I would say health is highest. If you don't have your health, you can't do anything else. I could give an extended dissertation on that particular proposition because it has struck home to me. Not to overly personalize the matter, but when you go through the regimen for Hodgkin's, they fill your body full of poisons to fight the poisons which are in your body. It is quite a war of the worlds as it battles through you. It underscores the importance of health. For the people who were suffering from the long list I recited, it is the beginning and end of every day. We ought to win the war on cancer. In the particular institute of a very distinguished doctor, John Glick, who is my oncologist, they had plans for a 57 percent increase in their funding. That was reduced to 42 percent. And that was eliminated. That is symbolic of what is going on across America. That reduction in funding means a lot of pain, a lot of suffering, and a lot of deaths. We have the capacity to do something about it. This $1.5 billion is a modest step. Now on to education. The President's budget came over with a .9- percent decrease in education funding. It is a little hard for me to understand, given the importance of education. The Governors meet, the industrialists meet, and they decry the inadequacy of education in America. While the Federal Government provides a relatively small percentage of funding, we do have the leadership position. Just last week, the Senate passed, 99 to 0, the reauthorization of the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Program, which is a $2 billion program. But on the Education Department budget, this program is zeroed out. It was $2 billion, and we voted for it 99 to nothing. We looked good when we had the authorization vote, but when it comes to putting our money where our mouth is, we are AWOL, we are gone, we are not there. There is an enormous number of educational programs which have been cut out totally. The GEAR UP program, which has been funded by my subcommittee over the last 6 years, which takes seventh graders and gives them mentoring and puts them on the right course through high school, an enormously important program not only for education but for crime control, where there is really the stark alternative of becoming a juvenile delinquent or becoming an educated America--it is gone. The list is too long to read. I ask unanimous consent the full text of these programs which are being cut be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains of my 22.5 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I think we can do that. I have 8 minutes remaining. There is 22 minutes in opposition. My speculation is that neither of us will use all of our time. I do not want to make a commitment to the other side on that, then, in advance, but probably no later than 10:20, 10:25, we can return to the Senator from North Dakota for his presentation, taking time off the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we follow that procedure.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Wyoming.

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

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 173 I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support adequate funding for Amtrak. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Illinois giving me the option. Since I do not have the authority to waive, I choose option 2.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on the funding for Amtrak. I have joined Senator Byrd on the Byrd-Specter amendment to provide $1.4 billion for Amtrak which is, in my judgment, absolutely essential for the welfare of the United States of America. The hallmark of an industrial society is having urban transportation. The Amtrak issue has been before the Congress virtually every year since I was elected in 1980. I recall one of the early meetings in the office of Senator Howard Baker, who was then the majority leader, where Amtrak had been zeroed out. In those days, it was funded between $600 million and $700 million. We were discussing the issue with David Stockman, who was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. His argument was Amtrak will go to bankruptcy and the line between Boston and Washington would be saved. It seemed to me there would be enormous problems. You would not be able to land at National Airport, now Reagan Airport, and get through the Baltimore tunnel. We were able to save Amtrak. We have saved Amtrak in every year. There is an enormous amount of work which needs to be done on Amtrak's infrastructure, fleet, and equipment. Amtrak is setting record ridership, and as the congestion of our airports and highways continues to increase, it would be a grave mistake to cut back. On February 10 of this year, 35 Senators, including 8 Republicans, wrote to Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad expressing our deep concern regarding the President's proposed elimination of Amtrak funding in the 2006 budget proposal and setting forth in detail the reasons Amtrak should be funded. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to reintroduce the ``Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act of 2005,'' a bill which seeks to assist Medicare-eligible veterans struggling with the costs of prescription medications. In the 108th Congress, I worked with my colleagues to provide a prescription drug benefit for all Medicare-eligible seniors. Today, I offer legislation to allow Medicare-eligible veterans to obtain prescription drugs from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at the significantly discounted costs that VA, as a high-volume purchaser of prescriptions medications, is able to secure in the marketplace. On May 23, 2003, I introduced similar legislation--S. 1153 in the 108th Congress. In my capacity as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee in the 108th Congress, I held a hearing on June 22, 2004, and heard testimony from Senate colleagues, Veterans Administration officials, and various veterans service organizations on this important legislation. On July 20, 2004, the Committee on Veterans Affairs reported out S. 1153 by a vote of 10 yeas and 5 nays. Unfortunately, the full Senate did not consider this measure. In 2003, former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi was forced to limit access to VA care--which continues to this day--by suspending new enrollments of non-service-disabled middle and higher income veterans who were not enrolled for care as of January 17, 2003. The Secretary was forced to so act because the number of patients provided care by VA had more than doubled in just five years and, as a result, VA's medical care system had been overwhelmed. As a consequence, VA was unable to provide timely access to healthcare for all veterans who had sought it and appointment waiting times had grown to alarming levels. But in almost every news story that followed the Secretary's difficult decision, it was noted that many of the new enrollees who had overwhelmed VA's capacity to provide care were Medicare-eligible veterans who were able to get Medicare-financed care elsewhere but who were seeking access to the relatively generous prescription drug program provided to veterans under VA care. Currently, VA provides enrolled patients with prescription medications for $7 for each 30-day supply. But to get such prescriptions, the veteran must obtain the full range of medical care from VA. This fact, coupled with former VA Secretary Principi's decision to close enrollment, means that veterans who are now, or who will be, eligible for Medicare who had not enrolled for VA care prior to January 17, 2003, will be unable to access VA's generous prescription drug benefits. This legislation would provide some relief for those veterans. In addition, I anticipate that it may induce some VA-enrolled Medicare-eligible veterans--those who were happy with their Medicare-financed care but who enrolled for VA care to gain access to VA-supplied drugs--to return to non-VA care with knowledge that they will be able to get their non-VA prescriptions filled through VA. Enactment of this provision, then, would reduce--not exacerbate--VA patient backlog numbers. The premise of this legislation is straightforward. VA fills and distributes more than 100 million prescriptions each year for its 4.7 million veteran-patients. As a result, it has significant purchasing power--power which, coupled with VA's formulary program, allows it to negotiate very favorable prices for prescription drugs. According to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the average ``cash cost'' of a prescription in 2003 was $59.28. The average VA per- prescription cost in 2003 was just under $25--more than 50 percent less. This bill would allow veterans to access these significant discounts simply by providing a written prescription from any duly licensed physician, presumably one he or she has seen under the Medicare program. By reintroducing this legislation today, I seek to afford Medicare- eligible veterans access to such discounts. I do not propose that VA be directed to supply drugs to all Medicare-eligible veterans at VA expense, or even with a partial VA subsidy. VA has stated that such a mandate would divert VA funding which, clearly, is already stretched to the limit--away from VA priority patients: the service-connected, the poor, and those with special needs. I accept VA's statement of concern. I accept and I insist that scarce funding be directed, first, to meet the needs of priority patients. This legislation, therefore, requires that VA recover the costs of drugs it supplies under this program from veterans who bring their prescriptions from outside doctors to VA. I do not propose to tell VA in this bill how to recover these costs. VA is better positioned than I to make such judgments. Thus, my legislation provides flexibility to VA to design and test payment mechanisms to best accomplish cost recovery while still easing veterans' access to the drugs they need. It might be that enrollment fees, a co-payment structure, or a simple ``cost-plus'' for administrative expenses pricing format, or some combination of those mechanisms works best. It might be that different approaches work best in different regions of the country. I intend for the VA to experiment with different pricing structures to determine what works best. However, I also intend that veterans get a break on prescription drug pricing. Those who would first benefit from this program are World War II and Korean War veterans who answered their country's call over 50 years ago. As they age, many desperately need relief from high drug prices. My purpose is not to minimize the work of the drug companies. Their discoveries have truly been marvels, but that is precious little comfort to a Medicare participant who, whatever the drug's overall utility might be, cannot afford both the drug and food or shelter or heat. The premise of this legislation is simple: veteran access to VA market-driven discounts. Yet, the assistance it could provide might be profound. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that the problem might be solved, or at least reduced, for seniors who served. They deserve it, and we should do it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel Industry National Historic Site'' to be operated by the National Park Service in southwestern Pennsylvania. The importance of steel to the industrial development of the United States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethic endemic to this great Nation. The National Park Service recently reported that Congress should make remnants of the U.S. Steel Homestead Works an affiliate of the national park system, rather than a full national park, an option which had been considered in prior years, and which I proposed in legislation during the 107th Congress. Due to the backlog of maintenance projects at national parks, the legislation offered today instead creates a national historic site that would be affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place for such a site than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a significant role in early industrial America and continues to today. I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance this historical steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area, which includes the City of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area expressed through appropriations levels of roughly $1 million annually since fiscal year 1998. I am hopeful that this support will continue. However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the historical recognition needed for this important heritage. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. It is important to note why southwestern Pennsylvania should be the home to the national site that my legislation authorizes. The combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern United States allowed the steel industry to thrive. Today, the remaining buildings and sites devoted to steel production are threatened with further deterioration. Many of these sites are nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some of these sites include the Carrie Furnace complex, the Hot Metal Bridge, and the Unites States Steel Homestead Works, which would all become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my legislation. Highlights of such a national historic site would commemorate a wide range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and interpretation from industrial process advancements to labor-management relations. It is important to note that the site I seek to become a national site under this bill includes the location of the Battle of Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The Battle of Homestead marked a crucial period in our Nation's workers' rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve resources such as the Homestead battleground and the Hot Metal Bridge. For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it is time for the federal government to join this effort to recognize their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill. I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Mike Doyle, who has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who has consistently sponsored identical legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to working with southwestern Pennsylvania officials and Mr. August Carlino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, in order to bring this national historic site to fruition. We came very close to passing this bill in the 108th Congress with its passage in various forms in the House and Senate. However, Congress adjourned prior to final passage of the same bill in both chambers. Therefore, today I reintroduce this legislation and urge its swift passage.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain briefly the provisions of legislation I have introduced today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical Badge (CMB), or a similar badge to be designed by the Secretary of the Army, to pilots and crew of the Army's helicopter medical ambulance units--commonly referred to by their call sign ``DUST OFF''--who have flown combat missions to rescue and aid wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. The legacy of the DUST OFF mission was brought to my attention by a group of Pennsylvania constituents who have been sharing the DUST OFF story in an attempt to persuade the Army to recognize the service and sacrifice DUST OFF crews made, especially during the Vietnam War, in saving the lives of thousands of fallen comrades by extracting the wounded from forward positions to bases where they would receive life- saving medical care. The Army began using helicopters to evacuate wounded soldiers during the Korean War. However, because of their smaller size, Korean War helicopters were used solely as a means of transporting the wounded from the combat zones. It was not until the early 1960's that a group of Army aviators envisioned using the newer, larger, UH-1A ``Huey'' helicopters to serve as mobile air ambulances where a medic and crew could provide life-saving treatment en route to the medical aide station. The road to establish air ambulance units within the Army was rocky and uncertain. Combat commanders often considered the use of helicopters for this purpose a diversion of valuable resources. However, through determination, skill, and the American fighting spirit, air ambulance crews proved they were a valuable and reliable resource in providing support to the combat mission. Indeed, between 1962 and 1973, DUST OFF crews evacuated more than 900,000 allied military personnel and Vietnamese civilian casualties to medical assistance sites. Captain John Temperelli, Jr. was the first commander of the 57th Medical Detachment, Helicopter Ambulance, who would lead the first DUST OFF unit in Vietnam. Army Captain Temperelli is considered the ``pioneer'' of DUST OFF; however, it was Army Major Charles L. Kelly, the unit's third commander, who would establish the traditions and the motto that DUST OFF crews hold sacred today. Major Kelly, like his predecessors, believed in the mission of rescuing fallen comrades so much so that he gave his life to the mission. On July 1, 1964, Major Kelly and his crew received a call to evacuate a wounded soldier. When they arrived, Major Kelly was instructed by an American advisor on the ground to leave the area; the landing zone was too ``hot.'' Major Kelly responded with the phrase that would become the DUST OFF motto: ``When I have your wounded.'' As Major Kelly hovered over the battlefield, an enemy bullet struck him in the heart; he was killed. It was with news of Major Kelly's death and the story of DUST OFF's dedication to the wounded that DUST OFF earned its permanency in the Army. I received a book written by a Pennsylvania native, Army Chief Warrant Officer 5 Mike Novosel, titled DUSTOFF: The Memoir of an Army Aviator. Mr. Novosel--a Medal of Honor recipient who served two tours in Vietnam and was a veteran of two other wars--knows first hand the sacrifice, courage and dedication to duty that DUST OFF crews displayed in Vietnam and continue to display today. In his two tours as a DUST OFF pilot in Vietnam, Mr. Novosel flew 2,543 missions and extracted 5,589 wounded. In his book, Mr. Novosel shares many amazing stories of landing in ``hot'' landing zones to allow his medic and crew chief, who were also exposed to enemy fire, to rescue and care for the wounded. But as Mr. Novosel has said, his experience as a DUST OFF pilot was not uncommon. Thousands of brave soldiers risked their lives every day by flying into combat zones to evacuate the wounded. I am honored that Mr. Novosel and others have brought the story of DUST OFF to my attention. It is my sincere hope that the Army will recognize DUST OFF pilots and crew with an appropriate badge which acknowledges the combat service of these brave individuals. When the War Department created the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) in WWII, as a companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) it did so to recognize that ``medical aidmen . . . shared the same hazards and hardships of ground combat on a daily basis with the infantry soldier.'' DUST OFF pilots and crew equally shared the hazards and hardships of ground combat with the infantry soldier. The fact that they were not directly assigned or attached to a particular infantry unit a fact that, under current Army policy, makes them eligible to receive a CIB or CMB should not bar special recognition of their service, service that one author has characterized as ``the brightest achievement of the U.S. Army in Vietnam.'' On July 29, 2003, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs to hear testimony from DUST OFF participants about their experiences under fire. I gave the Army an opportunity to explain its position and, perhaps, rethink its opposition to the awarding of an appropriate designation to DUST OFF crew members. Based on testimony offered by three Vietnam veterans--Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., Michael J. Novosel, M.O.H., Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., John M. Travers, and Mr. William Fredrick ``Fred'' Castleberry--I am now more convinced than ever of the worthiness of this legislation. Following the July 29, 2003, hearing, I introduced this legislation--S. 1487 in the 108th Congress. The bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, which has jurisdiction over this matter. Unfortunately, the bill never made its way out of committee which is why I am re-introducing this important legislation today. Army officials recently decided to create a ``Close Combat Badge'' (CCB) for non-infantry soldiers that recognizes their direct participation in ground combat. However, this badge will not be awarded to DUST OFF Medical Helicopter Evacuation Crew Members who have yet to be properly recognized. On the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are etched the names of over 400 medics, pilots, and crew that gave their lives so others might live. The forward thinking, enthusiasm, and dedication of DUST OFF crews in Vietnam are attributes seen in today's DUST OFF crews. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would recognize the nature of the service these individuals have performed, and continue to perform, while serving on DUST OFF crews.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain briefly the provisions of legislation I have introduced today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical Badge (CMB), or a similar badge to be designed by the Secretary of the Army, to pilots and crew of the Army's helicopter medical ambulance units--commonly referred to by their call sign ``DUST OFF''--who have flown combat missions to rescue and aid wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. The legacy of the DUST OFF mission was brought to my attention by a group of Pennsylvania constituents who have been sharing the DUST OFF story in an attempt to persuade the Army to recognize the service and sacrifice DUST OFF crews made, especially during the Vietnam War, in saving the lives of thousands of fallen comrades by extracting the wounded from forward positions to bases where they would receive life- saving medical care. The Army began using helicopters to evacuate wounded soldiers during the Korean War. However, because of their smaller size, Korean War helicopters were used solely as a means of transporting the wounded from the combat zones. It was not until the early 1960's that a group of Army aviators envisioned using the newer, larger, UH-1A ``Huey'' helicopters to serve as mobile air ambulances where a medic and crew could provide life-saving treatment en route to the medical aide station. The road to establish air ambulance units within the Army was rocky and uncertain. Combat commanders often considered the use of helicopters for this purpose a diversion of valuable resources. However, through determination, skill, and the American fighting spirit, air ambulance crews proved they were a valuable and reliable resource in providing support to the combat mission. Indeed, between 1962 and 1973, DUST OFF crews evacuated more than 900,000 allied military personnel and Vietnamese civilian casualties to medical assistance sites. Captain John Temperelli, Jr. was the first commander of the 57th Medical Detachment, Helicopter Ambulance, who would lead the first DUST OFF unit in Vietnam. Army Captain Temperelli is considered the ``pioneer'' of DUST OFF; however, it was Army Major Charles L. Kelly, the unit's third commander, who would establish the traditions and the motto that DUST OFF crews hold sacred today. Major Kelly, like his predecessors, believed in the mission of rescuing fallen comrades so much so that he gave his life to the mission. On July 1, 1964, Major Kelly and his crew received a call to evacuate a wounded soldier. When they arrived, Major Kelly was instructed by an American advisor on the ground to leave the area; the landing zone was too ``hot.'' Major Kelly responded with the phrase that would become the DUST OFF motto: ``When I have your wounded.'' As Major Kelly hovered over the battlefield, an enemy bullet struck him in the heart; he was killed. It was with news of Major Kelly's death and the story of DUST OFF's dedication to the wounded that DUST OFF earned its permanency in the Army. I received a book written by a Pennsylvania native, Army Chief Warrant Officer 5 Mike Novosel, titled DUSTOFF: The Memoir of an Army Aviator. Mr. Novosel--a Medal of Honor recipient who served two tours in Vietnam and was a veteran of two other wars--knows first hand the sacrifice, courage and dedication to duty that DUST OFF crews displayed in Vietnam and continue to display today. In his two tours as a DUST OFF pilot in Vietnam, Mr. Novosel flew 2,543 missions and extracted 5,589 wounded. In his book, Mr. Novosel shares many amazing stories of landing in ``hot'' landing zones to allow his medic and crew chief, who were also exposed to enemy fire, to rescue and care for the wounded. But as Mr. Novosel has said, his experience as a DUST OFF pilot was not uncommon. Thousands of brave soldiers risked their lives every day by flying into combat zones to evacuate the wounded. I am honored that Mr. Novosel and others have brought the story of DUST OFF to my attention. It is my sincere hope that the Army will recognize DUST OFF pilots and crew with an appropriate badge which acknowledges the combat service of these brave individuals. When the War Department created the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) in WWII, as a companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) it did so to recognize that ``medical aidmen . . . shared the same hazards and hardships of ground combat on a daily basis with the infantry soldier.'' DUST OFF pilots and crew equally shared the hazards and hardships of ground combat with the infantry soldier. The fact that they were not directly assigned or attached to a particular infantry unit a fact that, under current Army policy, makes them eligible to receive a CIB or CMB should not bar special recognition of their service, service that one author has characterized as ``the brightest achievement of the U.S. Army in Vietnam.'' On July 29, 2003, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs to hear testimony from DUST OFF participants about their experiences under fire. I gave the Army an opportunity to explain its position and, perhaps, rethink its opposition to the awarding of an appropriate designation to DUST OFF crew members. Based on testimony offered by three Vietnam veterans--Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., Michael J. Novosel, M.O.H., Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., John M. Travers, and Mr. William Fredrick ``Fred'' Castleberry--I am now more convinced than ever of the worthiness of this legislation. Following the July 29, 2003, hearing, I introduced this legislation--S. 1487 in the 108th Congress. The bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, which has jurisdiction over this matter. Unfortunately, the bill never made its way out of committee which is why I am re-introducing this important legislation today. Army officials recently decided to create a ``Close Combat Badge'' (CCB) for non-infantry soldiers that recognizes their direct participation in ground combat. However, this badge will not be awarded to DUST OFF Medical Helicopter Evacuation Crew Members who have yet to be properly recognized. On the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are etched the names of over 400 medics, pilots, and crew that gave their lives so others might live. The forward thinking, enthusiasm, and dedication of DUST OFF crews in Vietnam are attributes seen in today's DUST OFF crews. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would recognize the nature of the service these individuals have performed, and continue to perform, while serving on DUST OFF crews.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to reintroduce the ``Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act of 2005,'' a bill which seeks to assist Medicare-eligible veterans struggling with the costs of prescription medications. In the 108th Congress, I worked with my colleagues to provide a prescription drug benefit for all Medicare-eligible seniors. Today, I offer legislation to allow Medicare-eligible veterans to obtain prescription drugs from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at the significantly discounted costs that VA, as a high-volume purchaser of prescriptions medications, is able to secure in the marketplace. On May 23, 2003, I introduced similar legislation--S. 1153 in the 108th Congress. In my capacity as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee in the 108th Congress, I held a hearing on June 22, 2004, and heard testimony from Senate colleagues, Veterans Administration officials, and various veterans service organizations on this important legislation. On July 20, 2004, the Committee on Veterans Affairs reported out S. 1153 by a vote of 10 yeas and 5 nays. Unfortunately, the full Senate did not consider this measure. In 2003, former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi was forced to limit access to VA care--which continues to this day--by suspending new enrollments of non-service-disabled middle and higher income veterans who were not enrolled for care as of January 17, 2003. The Secretary was forced to so act because the number of patients provided care by VA had more than doubled in just five years and, as a result, VA's medical care system had been overwhelmed. As a consequence, VA was unable to provide timely access to healthcare for all veterans who had sought it and appointment waiting times had grown to alarming levels. But in almost every news story that followed the Secretary's difficult decision, it was noted that many of the new enrollees who had overwhelmed VA's capacity to provide care were Medicare-eligible veterans who were able to get Medicare-financed care elsewhere but who were seeking access to the relatively generous prescription drug program provided to veterans under VA care. Currently, VA provides enrolled patients with prescription medications for $7 for each 30-day supply. But to get such prescriptions, the veteran must obtain the full range of medical care from VA. This fact, coupled with former VA Secretary Principi's decision to close enrollment, means that veterans who are now, or who will be, eligible for Medicare who had not enrolled for VA care prior to January 17, 2003, will be unable to access VA's generous prescription drug benefits. This legislation would provide some relief for those veterans. In addition, I anticipate that it may induce some VA-enrolled Medicare-eligible veterans--those who were happy with their Medicare-financed care but who enrolled for VA care to gain access to VA-supplied drugs--to return to non-VA care with knowledge that they will be able to get their non-VA prescriptions filled through VA. Enactment of this provision, then, would reduce--not exacerbate--VA patient backlog numbers. The premise of this legislation is straightforward. VA fills and distributes more than 100 million prescriptions each year for its 4.7 million veteran-patients. As a result, it has significant purchasing power--power which, coupled with VA's formulary program, allows it to negotiate very favorable prices for prescription drugs. According to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the average ``cash cost'' of a prescription in 2003 was $59.28. The average VA per- prescription cost in 2003 was just under $25--more than 50 percent less. This bill would allow veterans to access these significant discounts simply by providing a written prescription from any duly licensed physician, presumably one he or she has seen under the Medicare program. By reintroducing this legislation today, I seek to afford Medicare- eligible veterans access to such discounts. I do not propose that VA be directed to supply drugs to all Medicare-eligible veterans at VA expense, or even with a partial VA subsidy. VA has stated that such a mandate would divert VA funding which, clearly, is already stretched to the limit--away from VA priority patients: the service-connected, the poor, and those with special needs. I accept VA's statement of concern. I accept and I insist that scarce funding be directed, first, to meet the needs of priority patients. This legislation, therefore, requires that VA recover the costs of drugs it supplies under this program from veterans who bring their prescriptions from outside doctors to VA. I do not propose to tell VA in this bill how to recover these costs. VA is better positioned than I to make such judgments. Thus, my legislation provides flexibility to VA to design and test payment mechanisms to best accomplish cost recovery while still easing veterans' access to the drugs they need. It might be that enrollment fees, a co-payment structure, or a simple ``cost-plus'' for administrative expenses pricing format, or some combination of those mechanisms works best. It might be that different approaches work best in different regions of the country. I intend for the VA to experiment with different pricing structures to determine what works best. However, I also intend that veterans get a break on prescription drug pricing. Those who would first benefit from this program are World War II and Korean War veterans who answered their country's call over 50 years ago. As they age, many desperately need relief from high drug prices. My purpose is not to minimize the work of the drug companies. Their discoveries have truly been marvels, but that is precious little comfort to a Medicare participant who, whatever the drug's overall utility might be, cannot afford both the drug and food or shelter or heat. The premise of this legislation is simple: veteran access to VA market-driven discounts. Yet, the assistance it could provide might be profound. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that the problem might be solved, or at least reduced, for seniors who served. They deserve it, and we should do it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel Industry National Historic Site'' to be operated by the National Park Service in southwestern Pennsylvania. The importance of steel to the industrial development of the United States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethic endemic to this great Nation. The National Park Service recently reported that Congress should make remnants of the U.S. Steel Homestead Works an affiliate of the national park system, rather than a full national park, an option which had been considered in prior years, and which I proposed in legislation during the 107th Congress. Due to the backlog of maintenance projects at national parks, the legislation offered today instead creates a national historic site that would be affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place for such a site than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a significant role in early industrial America and continues to today. I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance this historical steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area, which includes the City of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area expressed through appropriations levels of roughly $1 million annually since fiscal year 1998. I am hopeful that this support will continue. However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the historical recognition needed for this important heritage. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. It is important to note why southwestern Pennsylvania should be the home to the national site that my legislation authorizes. The combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern United States allowed the steel industry to thrive. Today, the remaining buildings and sites devoted to steel production are threatened with further deterioration. Many of these sites are nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some of these sites include the Carrie Furnace complex, the Hot Metal Bridge, and the Unites States Steel Homestead Works, which would all become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my legislation. Highlights of such a national historic site would commemorate a wide range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and interpretation from industrial process advancements to labor-management relations. It is important to note that the site I seek to become a national site under this bill includes the location of the Battle of Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The Battle of Homestead marked a crucial period in our Nation's workers' rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve resources such as the Homestead battleground and the Hot Metal Bridge. For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it is time for the federal government to join this effort to recognize their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill. I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Mike Doyle, who has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who has consistently sponsored identical legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to working with southwestern Pennsylvania officials and Mr. August Carlino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, in order to bring this national historic site to fruition. We came very close to passing this bill in the 108th Congress with its passage in various forms in the House and Senate. However, Congress adjourned prior to final passage of the same bill in both chambers. Therefore, today I reintroduce this legislation and urge its swift passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yesterday during consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, I offered an amendment regarding a serious matter involving the guaranteed health benefits of retired coal miners and their families. Unfortunately due to an objection to the unanimous consent request for consideration of my amendment, it was not considered. Therefore, to continue my efforts on behalf of our Nation's coal miners, I have elected today to introduce the Retired Coal Miner Health Benefits Preservation Act. This legislation would reaffirm the commitment stipulated in the Coal Act of 1992, which guaranteed health benefits to retired coal miners and their families and would clarify the lack of authority of the bankruptcy court to modify or terminate statutory obligations required under Section 9711 of the Coal Act. This legislation is a direct response to a recent bankruptcy court proceeding in which the court determined it had the authority under Section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code to modify the level of benefits required to be provided under Section 9711 of the Coal Act. The Coal Act of 1992 mandated coal operators to fulfill their promise to provide their employees and families health benefits and those obligations could not be modified. As an original cosponsor to this legislation, I am intimately aware of its effect on the 14,000 retired coal miners and their dependents in Pennsylvania. Nationally, this Act effects over 60,000 individuals including every State except for Hawaii. These health benefits form a central underpinning for the medical care structure of the coal field communities. The promise of the Coal Act applied to a fixed pool of coal miners that was closed as of 1994. Additionally, I want to note that there may be some speculation raised by my colleagues in reference to the recent bankruptcy of Horizon Natural Resources. In this particular bankruptcy proceeding, the court concluded that Section 1114 trumped the Coal Act, which is simply not the case. This or other statutory obligations cannot be undermined by the bankruptcy court. Congress intended that Section 1114 be a statutory obligation and not a contractual obligation. Therefore, this egregious court decision unfortunately trumps the true intent of the Coal Act. Finally, I am aware that my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, offered legislation in the 108th Congress to address this issue and I commend him for it. Today, I am continuing his prodigious work by introducing this legislation which reinforces what Congress intended, which was not to obstruct the statutory requirements of the Coal Act. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yesterday during consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, I offered an amendment regarding a serious matter involving the guaranteed health benefits of retired coal miners and their families. Unfortunately due to an objection to the unanimous consent request for consideration of my amendment, it was not considered. Therefore, to continue my efforts on behalf of our Nation's coal miners, I have elected today to introduce the Retired Coal Miner Health Benefits Preservation Act. This legislation would reaffirm the commitment stipulated in the Coal Act of 1992, which guaranteed health benefits to retired coal miners and their families and would clarify the lack of authority of the bankruptcy court to modify or terminate statutory obligations required under Section 9711 of the Coal Act. This legislation is a direct response to a recent bankruptcy court proceeding in which the court determined it had the authority under Section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code to modify the level of benefits required to be provided under Section 9711 of the Coal Act. The Coal Act of 1992 mandated coal operators to fulfill their promise to provide their employees and families health benefits and those obligations could not be modified. As an original cosponsor to this legislation, I am intimately aware of its effect on the 14,000 retired coal miners and their dependents in Pennsylvania. Nationally, this Act effects over 60,000 individuals including every State except for Hawaii. These health benefits form a central underpinning for the medical care structure of the coal field communities. The promise of the Coal Act applied to a fixed pool of coal miners that was closed as of 1994. Additionally, I want to note that there may be some speculation raised by my colleagues in reference to the recent bankruptcy of Horizon Natural Resources. In this particular bankruptcy proceeding, the court concluded that Section 1114 trumped the Coal Act, which is simply not the case. This or other statutory obligations cannot be undermined by the bankruptcy court. Congress intended that Section 1114 be a statutory obligation and not a contractual obligation. Therefore, this egregious court decision unfortunately trumps the true intent of the Coal Act. Finally, I am aware that my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, offered legislation in the 108th Congress to address this issue and I commend him for it. Today, I am continuing his prodigious work by introducing this legislation which reinforces what Congress intended, which was not to obstruct the statutory requirements of the Coal Act. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I have secured the agreement of the managers to speak very briefly about another matter. It involves the Coal Act, which has provided benefit for many miners in Pennsylvania and throughout the country. The Coal Act of 1992 mandated coal operators to fulfill their promise to provide their employees and families with health benefits, and those obligations could not be modified. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, along with the Senators from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Byrd, I am very closely aware of the effect on 14,000 retired coal miners and their dependents in Pennsylvania. Nationally, this act affects over 60,000 individuals, including every State except for Hawaii. These health benefits form a central underpinning for the medical care structure of the coalfield community. It is a tough job being a coal miner. I have, in the course of my representation of the coal miners, gone 30-stories-deep underground, ridden in a cable car, crunched over like a corkscrew to avoid being hit by the ceiling as the cars moved in on the long wall to perform the mining operation. The issue came forcefully home to me when I visited several hundred of the coal miners in Washington County, PA, more than a decade ago along with Richard Trumka, distinguished Pennsylvanian who had been president of the United Mine Workers and is now secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO. We went to court to verify this program, which is vital for the health care of these miners. I was very surprised to see a Federal judge enter an order which said that the bankruptcy proceeding in a case captioned Horizon Natural Resources trumped the Coal Act. It is a surprise to me that that would happen under the existing law. I know we are operating under a unanimous consent agreement where there has been a series of amendments set aside and we are in postcloture. Senator Rockefeller earlier made comments about this amendment and was unable to secure agreement. In working through this bankruptcy bill we are laboring under a great many complications, a complication that if there are amendments unacceptable to the House, there will be a conference, and a conference resulted in the defeat of this bankruptcy bill several years ago. This amendment is technically precluded at this time, but I wanted to take the floor. And I have discussed it with the distinguished chairing officer, Senator Grassley, the principal proponent of the bankruptcy bill. In my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I yielded to him because he is the principal author. We have talked about it. I understand we are not going to be able to get this amendment through at this time for technical reasons, but I wanted the 14,000 Pennsylvania coal miners and the 60,000 coal miners nationally to know of the concern of Senator Rockefeller, Senator Byrd, and others. I have not had a chance to catch Senator Santorum on the floor, but he has been very solicitous and very concerned about coal miners' interests. But until I speak to him specifically, I would make only the generalized comment about his concern for the coal miners. So what I intend to do at this time, recognizing there will be a successful objection, is to send this amendment to the desk and offer this amendment to the pending bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Iowa, with whom I have served since January 3, 1981. We came to the Senate at the same time, the sole survivors of 16 Republican Senators. I appreciate what he has said about taking a look at it. I will be filing legislation to correct this, and I will be looking forward to the opportunity for a hearing in the Finance Committee. And I think other Senators will be joining me as well. I understand the reasons we cannot have it in now, but let the 60,000 coal miners nationwide take heart, and the 14,000 Pennsylvania coal miners, that this is an issue which we will pursue and I think prevail on. We will ultimately win this, although not today. Again, I thank my colleagues for letting me intervene. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the last two votes. I had traveled with the President to Pittsburgh, PA today so that I was absent during the vote on the Kennedy amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted for the Kennedy amendment. I arrived 7 minutes into the vote on the Santorum amendment. I would like to have made the vote for the first amendment but voted for the Santorum amendment. As between the two, my preference would have been the Kennedy amendment because it raised the minimum wage more, and after a 7\1/2\ year hiatus, it seemed to me that that amendment was in order. I commend Senator Kennedy for his continuing efforts on the minimum wage, and I commend my distinguished colleague for his efforts which bridged a considerable gap. I wanted to explain or comment for the record why I was absent on the Kennedy amendment but present on the Santorum amendment, even though I would have preferred the Kennedy amendment to the Santorum amendment. But I would have in any event voted for both of them. The last time Congress voted to raise the minimum wage was in 1996, raising it from $4.25 to $4.75 to eventually $5.15. Since 2000, the number of Americans in poverty has increased by 4.3 million for a grand total of 36 million people, which includes 13 million children. Among full-time, year-round workers, poverty has doubled since the late 1970s from about 1.3 million then to more than 2.6 million. Since 1981 on 10 different occasions, I have voted to increase the minimum wage. History clearly demonstrates that raising the minimum wage has no adverse impact on jobs, employment, or inflation. In the 4 years after the last minimum wage increase passed, the economy experienced its strongest growth in over three decades. More than 11 million new jobs were added, at the pace of 232,000 per month. Nearly 7\1/2\ million workers will directly benefit from this minimum wage increase while 8 million more will benefit indirectly. That is a total of 15\1/2\ million Americans who would get a raise due to this legislation and would enable a working family to afford almost 2 more years of childcare, full tuition for a community college degree, and many other staples for a healthy standard of living. Unfortunately, the current minimum wage fails to meet these standards. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.