Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join today with my colleague from Pennsylvania to introduce the Agricultural Marketing Success Act, legislation that would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act, AMAA, of 1937 by permitting identified tomato varieties operating under an enhanced U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, inspection and audit program, the Identity Program, to be exempt from marketing order restrictions. Additionally, my House colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Sherwood is submitting similar legislation. This legislation would terminate the restrictions imposed on the Ugly Ripe tomato, which is owned and produced by a Pennsylvania tomato company, by the Florida Tomato Committee, FTC. The FTC sets standards pertaining to the shape of round tomatoes grown South and East of the Suwannee River and shipped out of Florida from October 10 through June 15 of each year. The impetus for this legislation began three years ago when the FTC granted the Ugly Ripe tomato an exemption from the grade standards, pertaining to size and shape, which resulted in robust sales nationwide. However, in the fourth year or growing season, the FTC denied an exemption claiming that the Ugly Ripe did not meet the appropriate shape. Once the FTC made its decision not to allow an additional exemption for the Ugly Ripe, I was surprised to see that Cherry tomatoes, Roma tomatoes, and Grape tomatoes did continue to receive their exemptions. Therefore, I, along with my colleagues from Pennsylvania, met with USDA Secretary Mike Johanns to discuss the matter and requested that he review the actions taken by the FTC and to use his authority under the AMAA of 1937 to overrule the recommendation of the FTC and grant an additional exemption, which will permit the product to be shipped interstate during the growing season. We were assured by USDA a timely response and subsequently we are offering this legislation to expedite their focus on this important issue. We hope our congressional support assists the Secretary in making his decision. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, which would allow the growers of the Ugly Ripe an opportunity to market their product without conforming to an unreasonable standard. It is my hope that this legislation will evoke necessary changes in shape requirements.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join today with my colleague from Pennsylvania to introduce the Agricultural Marketing Success Act, legislation that would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act, AMAA, of 1937 by permitting identified tomato varieties operating under an enhanced U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, inspection and audit program, the Identity Program, to be exempt from marketing order restrictions. Additionally, my House colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Sherwood is submitting similar legislation. This legislation would terminate the restrictions imposed on the Ugly Ripe tomato, which is owned and produced by a Pennsylvania tomato company, by the Florida Tomato Committee, FTC. The FTC sets standards pertaining to the shape of round tomatoes grown South and East of the Suwannee River and shipped out of Florida from October 10 through June 15 of each year. The impetus for this legislation began three years ago when the FTC granted the Ugly Ripe tomato an exemption from the grade standards, pertaining to size and shape, which resulted in robust sales nationwide. However, in the fourth year or growing season, the FTC denied an exemption claiming that the Ugly Ripe did not meet the appropriate shape. Once the FTC made its decision not to allow an additional exemption for the Ugly Ripe, I was surprised to see that Cherry tomatoes, Roma tomatoes, and Grape tomatoes did continue to receive their exemptions. Therefore, I, along with my colleagues from Pennsylvania, met with USDA Secretary Mike Johanns to discuss the matter and requested that he review the actions taken by the FTC and to use his authority under the AMAA of 1937 to overrule the recommendation of the FTC and grant an additional exemption, which will permit the product to be shipped interstate during the growing season. We were assured by USDA a timely response and subsequently we are offering this legislation to expedite their focus on this important issue. We hope our congressional support assists the Secretary in making his decision. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, which would allow the growers of the Ugly Ripe an opportunity to market their product without conforming to an unreasonable standard. It is my hope that this legislation will evoke necessary changes in shape requirements.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to support a technical amendment, which I send to the desk.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment, as I have noted, makes a technical correction to ensure that the bill does not violate our budget laws. It has come to my attention that the bankruptcy bill could draw a potential point of order because of two provisions in S. 256. The first provision is section 1223 of the bill, which authorizes the creation of 28 new bankruptcy judgeships. According to the CBO's most recent cost estimates for S. 256, these new judges will account for $45 million in direct Federal spending over a 10-year period. Specifically, the mandatory spending would be earmarked for the judges' pay and benefits. The second provision subject to this amendment, section 325, addresses the filing fees for bankruptcy and amounts that are directed to a trust fund that compensates bankruptcy trustees. Under current practice, a percentage of bankruptcy filing fees paid by a debtor is allocated to a trust fund that compensates bankruptcy trustees, while the remaining percentage of the filing fee is paid into the Treasury and counted as Federal revenue. Section 325 of the bill, however, will now increase the allocation percentages from the filing fees that are directed to the trust fund. But because the bill's percentage increase will result in a corresponding decrease of Federal revenue, CBO has reported this provision will result in a net revenue loss for the Treasury. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the revenue loss at $226 million over 5 years, $456 million over 10 years. After reviewing this matter with the Budget Committee, we are proposing through this amendment to offset the direct spending from the judgeships and revenue losses from the section 325 percentage by increasing the bankruptcy filing fees in chapters 11 and 7. The amendment also tries to limit revenue losses by sunsetting after 2 years the increased allocation percentage measure in sections 325(b) and 325 (c). By doing so, we estimate that the bill will provide sufficient offsets to cover the potential budgetary problems facing this bill. Specifically, the amount of the increased filing fees that is greater than the amount that would have been collected, but for this legislation, is earmarked towards the payment of salaries and benefits for the judges. The remaining amounts from the increased filing fees are also used to offset the Federal revenue loss caused by section 325 for the 2 years that the provision stays in existence. I believe this amendment represents the best way of creating offsets within the bill. It will obviate the need to strike the bankruptcy judgeships provision altogether and, most importantly, allow this bill to survive a potential budget point of order. To the extent there are concerns that the increase in bankruptcy filing fees will make it more difficult for financially strapped debtors to use chapter 7, let me remind my colleagues that I pushed for an amendment in committee during the 105th Congress to give bankruptcy courts the discretion to waive filing fees for lower income debtors. The committee accepted that amendment and it is now embodied in section 418 of the bill. This amendment removes a significant procedural obstacle that could jeopardize the prospect of this bill's passage in the Senate. As such, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. What this all boils down to is we need new bankruptcy judges. We have to pay their salaries and their health benefits, and we do not want to run afoul of the budget laws which would strike down the entire bill unless we got 60 votes. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Apprentice Act, a bill designed to correct a flaw in the current definition of ``firefighter'' under the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. On May 4, 2002, 14-year-old Christopher Kangas was struck by a car and killed while he was riding his bicycle in Brookhaven, PA. The local authorities later confirmed that Christopher was out on his bike that day for an important reason: Chris Kangas was a junior firefighter, and he was responding to a fire emergency. Under Pennsylvania law, 14- and 15-year-olds such as Christopher are permitted to serve as volunteer junior firefighters. While they are not allowed to operate heavy machinery or enter burning buildings, the law permits them to fill a number of important support roles, such as providing first aid. In addition, the junior firefighter program is an important recruitment tool for fire stations throughout the Commonwealth. In fact, prior to his death Christopher had received 58 hours of training that would have served him well when he graduated from the junior program. It is clear to me that Christopher Kangas was a firefighter killed in the line of duty. Were it not for his status as a junior firefighter and his prompt response to a fire alarm, Christopher would still be alive today. Indeed, the Brookhaven Fire Department, Brookhaven Borough, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have all recognized Christopher as a fallen public safety officer and provided the appropriate death benefits to his family. Yet, while those closest to the tragedy have recognized Christopher as a fallen firefighter, the Federal Government has not. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) determined that Christopher Kangas was not eligible for benefits because he was not acting within a narrow range of duties at the time of his death that are the measured criteria to be considered a ``firefighter,'' and therefore, was not a ``public safety officer'' for purposes of the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. In order to be eligible for benefits under the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act, an officer's death must be considered the ``direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.'' Although the United States Code includes firefighters in the definition of ``public safety officer'' and specifies a firefighter as ``an individual serving as an officially-recognized or designated member of a legally-organized volunteer fire department;'' it offers no definition of ``line of duty''. DOJ had to defer to an arbitrarily narrow definition of ``line of duty,'' as described in the Code of Federal Regulations that restricts activities to the ``suppression of fires.'' DOJ decided that the only people who qualify as firefighters are those who play the starring role of operating a hose on a ladder or entering a burning building. According to this interpretation, those, such as junior firefighters, who play the essential supporting roles of directing traffic, performing first aid, or dispatching fire vehicles do not contribute to the act of suppressing the fire. Any firefighter will tell you that there are many important roles to play in fighting a fire beyond operating the hoses and ladders. Firefighting is a team effort, and everyone in the Brookhaven Fire Department viewed young Christopher as a full member of their team. As a result of this DOJ determination, Christopher's family will not receive a $267,000 Federal line-of-duty benefit. In addition, Christopher will be barred from taking his rightful place on the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, MD. For a young man who dreamed of being a firefighter and gave his life rushing to a fire, keeping him off of the memorial is a grave injustice. The bill I introduce today will ensure that the Federal Government will recognize Christopher Kangas and others like him as firefighters. The bill clarifies that all firefighters will he recognized as such ``regardless of age, status as an apprentice or trainee, or duty restrictions imposed because of age or status as an apprentice or trainee.'' The bill applies retroactively back to May 4, 2002 so that Christopher, as well as three others, can benefit from it. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Apprentice Act, a bill designed to correct a flaw in the current definition of ``firefighter'' under the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. On May 4, 2002, 14-year-old Christopher Kangas was struck by a car and killed while he was riding his bicycle in Brookhaven, PA. The local authorities later confirmed that Christopher was out on his bike that day for an important reason: Chris Kangas was a junior firefighter, and he was responding to a fire emergency. Under Pennsylvania law, 14- and 15-year-olds such as Christopher are permitted to serve as volunteer junior firefighters. While they are not allowed to operate heavy machinery or enter burning buildings, the law permits them to fill a number of important support roles, such as providing first aid. In addition, the junior firefighter program is an important recruitment tool for fire stations throughout the Commonwealth. In fact, prior to his death Christopher had received 58 hours of training that would have served him well when he graduated from the junior program. It is clear to me that Christopher Kangas was a firefighter killed in the line of duty. Were it not for his status as a junior firefighter and his prompt response to a fire alarm, Christopher would still be alive today. Indeed, the Brookhaven Fire Department, Brookhaven Borough, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have all recognized Christopher as a fallen public safety officer and provided the appropriate death benefits to his family. Yet, while those closest to the tragedy have recognized Christopher as a fallen firefighter, the Federal Government has not. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) determined that Christopher Kangas was not eligible for benefits because he was not acting within a narrow range of duties at the time of his death that are the measured criteria to be considered a ``firefighter,'' and therefore, was not a ``public safety officer'' for purposes of the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. In order to be eligible for benefits under the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act, an officer's death must be considered the ``direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.'' Although the United States Code includes firefighters in the definition of ``public safety officer'' and specifies a firefighter as ``an individual serving as an officially-recognized or designated member of a legally-organized volunteer fire department;'' it offers no definition of ``line of duty''. DOJ had to defer to an arbitrarily narrow definition of ``line of duty,'' as described in the Code of Federal Regulations that restricts activities to the ``suppression of fires.'' DOJ decided that the only people who qualify as firefighters are those who play the starring role of operating a hose on a ladder or entering a burning building. According to this interpretation, those, such as junior firefighters, who play the essential supporting roles of directing traffic, performing first aid, or dispatching fire vehicles do not contribute to the act of suppressing the fire. Any firefighter will tell you that there are many important roles to play in fighting a fire beyond operating the hoses and ladders. Firefighting is a team effort, and everyone in the Brookhaven Fire Department viewed young Christopher as a full member of their team. As a result of this DOJ determination, Christopher's family will not receive a $267,000 Federal line-of-duty benefit. In addition, Christopher will be barred from taking his rightful place on the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, MD. For a young man who dreamed of being a firefighter and gave his life rushing to a fire, keeping him off of the memorial is a grave injustice. The bill I introduce today will ensure that the Federal Government will recognize Christopher Kangas and others like him as firefighters. The bill clarifies that all firefighters will he recognized as such ``regardless of age, status as an apprentice or trainee, or duty restrictions imposed because of age or status as an apprentice or trainee.'' The bill applies retroactively back to May 4, 2002 so that Christopher, as well as three others, can benefit from it. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Vermont, the ranking member, in beginning the debate on this very important legislation. At the outset, I congratulate Senator Grassley for the work he has done over the past decade, and also former chairman, Senator Hatch, for the outstanding job he has done. I thank Senator Hatch especially for filling in for me a week ago Thursday on the executive session when the committee took up the bill and reported it to the Senate. I thank both Republicans and Democrats on the committee for withholding amendments until the floor. We had one very extensive hearing. I know there was an interest in having more hearings, but the reality is this issue has been debated and has been heard. There is a very comprehensive idea on both sides as to the underlying merits of the bill. It is important to note that going back to the 105th Congress the Senate passed a similar bill by a vote of 97 to 1, and subsequently voted to proceed to conference by a vote of 94 to 2. The Senate again took up a similar bill in the 106th Congress and passed legislation again by a wide margin, 83 to 14. The House also passed legislation during the 106th Congress, but President Clinton resorted to a pocket veto, so the bill was not enacted. The Senate took up the bill again in the 107th Congress but never reached agreement with the House on certain language. So here we are today with reform legislation that seeks to protect the interests of the debtors, honest Americans, who need relief from bankruptcy, and still address those who take advantage of the bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy is obviously a necessary tool for many people who find they simply are not able to repay their debts. Indeed, the vast majority of bankruptcy filers have nothing with which to pay their creditors. They file for bankruptcy as a last resort. And for them bankruptcy will continue to provide a fresh start. Unfortunately, at the same time, there are some who use bankruptcy as a means of avoiding debts they have the ability to pay. Some bankruptcy filers have the ability to pay a significant portion of their debts, but the current bankruptcy system, which presumes that most people are acting honestly, does not require them to do so. At a recent Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill, the expert testimony was that up to 10 percent of people who file for bankruptcy have the ability to pay for at least part of their debts. The consequence of having people avoid their debts when they can pay for them has resulted in having these obligations absorbed by other people in the commercial system. The estimate is that there are some $44 billion in debts discharged annually. There has been an enormous increase in the filings. In recent years, annual bankruptcy filings have exceeded 1.6 million for the first time in history. They more than doubled in the 1980s and again doubled from 1990 to the year 2003. This legislation is an effort to achieve some balance, balance to see to it that people who genuinely need bankruptcy and cannot pay their debts are able to get the relief in bankruptcy, and at the same time looking at many practices which are in need of reform. For example, this legislation will require high-income debtors who have the ability to repay some of their debts to do so. The heart of this bill is a means test. It requires the bankruptcy trustee to examine the income and expenses of high-income debtors and determine whether they have the ability to pay something toward their debts. If so, they must complete a chapter 13 reorganization plan, which requires that they repay part of their debts over time before they can have the rest discharged. The legislation will also bring to an end other abuses that occur under the current bankruptcy system. For example, it closes the ``mansion loophole,'' which allows opportunistic debtors to avoid paying their creditors by buying a house in a State with an unlimited or extremely generous homestead exemption, and then declaring bankruptcy. It extends the statute of limitations for fraudulent use of the homestead exemption to 10 years. Another provision prevents debtors from purchasing large amounts of luxury goods on credit and then filing for bankruptcy to have that debt discharged. Other provisions will discourage debtors from repeatedly filing for bankruptcy, and then invoking the automatic stay to avoid repaying their creditors. The legislation also aims at ensuring that debtors cannot escape their spousal and child support obligations by filing for bankruptcy. That is, of course, a very important item, with dodging child support and spousal support being a matter of an enormous problem nationwide. Chapter 13 debtors cannot have a repayment plan approved or their debts discharged until they are current on their spousal and child support obligations. The legislation will further improve the bankruptcy process for small businesses and enhance bankruptcy protections for family farmers as well as family fishermen. Small businesses that can restructure will still be able to obtain a fresh start. However, for the many small businesses that will never survive a protracted bankruptcy, the bill imposes deadlines to keep cases from languishing and creditors from waiting indefinitely. In addition, the bill makes it easier for family farmers to obtain bankruptcy protection under Chapter 12, a form of bankruptcy that takes account of the unique concerns of farmers. And, for the first time, family fishermen will also be able to file for Chapter 12 bankruptcy. Further, the bill contains protections aimed at helping consumers avoid excessive debt and bankruptcy. It requires credit card companies to warn their cardholders that making the minimum payment on a credit card balance can significantly increase the time it takes to pay off the balance. Many credit card practices are extremely deceptive. Credit card companies must also provide certain disclosures in credit card solicitations, including clear indications when an advertised interest rate is merely introductory--again, a practice which is very deceptive. So the bill is aimed at preventing the little guy from being misled, which leads him into bankruptcy. The legislation further provides that creditors make certain disclosures before debtors can reaffirm their debts so that debtors fully understand the implications of signing a reaffirmation agreement--a technical matter. The legislation requires that debtors receive credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy so they can understand the consequences of filing and are aware of the alternatives to bankruptcy. A little knowledge there can go a long way. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that there are many low-income people who will not be able to repay any of their debts. The means test will not affect those people. If they are below the median income for their State, the means test will not apply. However, for those who are above the median income, there will be a balance so those who can afford to do so must repay part of their debts, to help prevent the $44 billion in discharged debts from burdening other honest Americans, and part of the commercial system will not be saddled with those obligations. In analyzing this legislation, it is my concern to ensure that it is fair to the ``little guy,'' the working men and women who need bankruptcy as a last resort and who do not abuse the system. We had a lively debate in the hearing in the Judiciary Committee. We had a lively hearing. I know there are many amendments which will be offered, and I will have an open mind in considering these amendments as we work through the process. It is a very complicated bill. But it has been analyzed and reanalyzed. Again, it attempts to strike a balance so that the person who needs the discharge in bankruptcy will be able to obtain it, but those who game the system will not be able to do so. Let me reiterate the comments of the majority leader in urging Senators who have opening statements to come to the floor to offer those opening statements. It will be the objective of Senator Leahy, the ranking member, and myself to try to move through to amendments. It is anticipated there will be amendments. We have a very active calendar ahead of us. One of the items on the Judiciary Committee agenda that we are moving forward on is asbestos legislation, an issue of tremendous importance, where many Americans are dying from mesothelioma and other deadly ailments from exposure to asbestos, who collect nothing because the companies are bankrupt. Some 74 companies have gone bankrupt, and more are in the process. I filed a draft discussion bill. There have been very extensive negotiations with Republicans and Democrats, and we are anxious to move ahead. We will be taking that issue up on the executive calendar of the Judiciary Committee on Thursday. But I mention that to underscore the importance of moving ahead on this legislation because there will be, doubtless, many amendments, and the sooner they are offered, the sooner we can come to grips with the substance of the bill. At this time, I yield to my distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, in introducing the ``Medicaid Attendant Care Services and Supports Act of 2005.'' This creative proposal addresses a glaring gap in Federal health coverage, and assists one of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, persons with disabilities. In an effort to improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those with long-term disabilities, this vital legislation would allow for reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, in lieu of institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require such services based on functional need, without regard to the individual's age or the nature of the disability. Under this proposal, Medicaid would provide States funding to offer and allow individuals who are currently eligible for nursing home services or an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded equal access to community-based attendants. The most recent data available tell us that 8.9 million individuals receive care for disabilities under the Medicaid program. The number of disabled who are currently enrolled in Medicaid and would apply for this improved benefit has been estimated at 2 million, a substantial number due largely to the preference of home and community-based care over institutional care. Currently, each State gets Federal money for their Medicaid program based on a Medicaid match rate. This bill would temporarily increase the Medicaid matching percentage providing States with additional funding to reform their long term care systems and implement this benefit. Let me speak briefly about why such a change in Medicaid law is so desperately needed. The Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999), that the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, requires States, under some circumstances, to provide community-based treatment to persons with mental disabilities rather than placing them in institutions. This decision and several lower court decisions have pointed to the need for a structured Medicaid attendant-care services benefit in order to meet obligations under the ADA. Disability advocates strongly support this legislation, arguing that the lack of Medicaid community-based services options is discriminatory and unhealthful for disabled individuals. Virtually every major disability advocacy group supports this bill, including ADAPT, the Arc, the National Council on Independent Living, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. Senator Harkin and I recognize that such a shift in the Medicaid program is a huge undertaking--but feel that it is a vitally important one. We are introducing this legislation today in an attempt to move ahead with the consideration of crucial disability legislation and to provide a starting point for debate. The time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge the Congressional leadership, including the appropriate committee chairmen, to move forward in considering this legislation, and take the significant next step forward in achieving the objective of providing individuals with disabilities the freedom to live in their own communities.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to submit a resolution to designate March 2005, as Deep Vein Thrombosis Awareness Month. Deep vein thrombosis, DVT, affects more than two million Americans each year, according to the American Heart Association. DVT is a condition that occurs when a blood clot forms in one of the large veins, usually in the lower limbs. These blood clots can grow in size, break loose, travel through the bloodstream and obstruct a pulmonary artery, resulting in a pulmonary embolism, PE, a sudden blockage of an artery in the lung, which can cause sudden death. According to the American Heart Association, up to 2 million Americans are affected annually by DVT. Up to 200,000 people die as a result of PE, 98 percent of which are complications brought on by DVT. Deep vein thrombosis may best be known for its effects on those who fly for long periods of time. Sitting for many hours without getting up and moving around makes blood flow in the legs slow down, increasing the tendency for blood to clump and form blood clots. However, this cause of DVT accounts for only a small percentage of the DVT cases in the United States. DVT can strike anyone, anywhere. Americans who have or have had cancer or certain heart or respiratory diseases may be at increased risk for DVT. Americans are also at risk if they are overweight, elderly, bed-ridden, or have had a stroke. Unfortunately, 74 percent of Americans have little or no awareness of DVT, according to a national survey sponsored by the American Public Health Association. DVT and its complications also take a toll on our Nation's hospital systems, costing approximately $860 million annually. Among DVT's many victims was NBC News correspondent David Bloom. In March and April 2003, David, only 39 years old, was embedded with the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division covering the war in Iraq. On April 6, 2003, after being seated in a cramped Army vehicle for many hours, David was stricken with DVT. The blood clot had traveled to his lungs and proved fatal. Like David Bloom, many of us may be at risk for DVT and not know it. Some risk factors include: acute medical illness such as cancer, certain heart or respiratory diseases, prior DVT, increasing age, obesity, major orthopedic surgery, pregnancy, restricted mobility and paralysis. DVT can be prevented through maintaining a healthy lifestyle, including a fitness program and a healthy diet. Further, during periods of prolonged immobility such as airplane travel, stretch your legs as often as possible. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I led the effort to double funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over 5 years. Funding for the NIH has increased from $11.3 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $28.5 billion in fiscal year 2005. In 2004, the NIH, through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, provided $6.1 million for DVT and PE research. The NIH is also advancing research of this condition through a recently formed international partnership working to prevent and control blood clots, and improve therapies for conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms. Together with Melanie Bloom, widow of David Bloom, and the more than 35 leading health organizations in the Coalition to Prevent DVT, we are working to help raise awareness of this condition. To increase public awareness of this serious, yet preventable condition, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to designate March 2005 as Deep Vein Thrombosis Awareness Month in honor of David Bloom's memory.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, in introducing the ``Medicaid Attendant Care Services and Supports Act of 2005.'' This creative proposal addresses a glaring gap in Federal health coverage, and assists one of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, persons with disabilities. In an effort to improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those with long-term disabilities, this vital legislation would allow for reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, in lieu of institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require such services based on functional need, without regard to the individual's age or the nature of the disability. Under this proposal, Medicaid would provide States funding to offer and allow individuals who are currently eligible for nursing home services or an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded equal access to community-based attendants. The most recent data available tell us that 8.9 million individuals receive care for disabilities under the Medicaid program. The number of disabled who are currently enrolled in Medicaid and would apply for this improved benefit has been estimated at 2 million, a substantial number due largely to the preference of home and community-based care over institutional care. Currently, each State gets Federal money for their Medicaid program based on a Medicaid match rate. This bill would temporarily increase the Medicaid matching percentage providing States with additional funding to reform their long term care systems and implement this benefit. Let me speak briefly about why such a change in Medicaid law is so desperately needed. The Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999), that the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, requires States, under some circumstances, to provide community-based treatment to persons with mental disabilities rather than placing them in institutions. This decision and several lower court decisions have pointed to the need for a structured Medicaid attendant-care services benefit in order to meet obligations under the ADA. Disability advocates strongly support this legislation, arguing that the lack of Medicaid community-based services options is discriminatory and unhealthful for disabled individuals. Virtually every major disability advocacy group supports this bill, including ADAPT, the Arc, the National Council on Independent Living, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. Senator Harkin and I recognize that such a shift in the Medicaid program is a huge undertaking--but feel that it is a vitally important one. We are introducing this legislation today in an attempt to move ahead with the consideration of crucial disability legislation and to provide a starting point for debate. The time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge the Congressional leadership, including the appropriate committee chairmen, to move forward in considering this legislation, and take the significant next step forward in achieving the objective of providing individuals with disabilities the freedom to live in their own communities.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate Senator Graham's willingness to help us move forward on this bill. He and I have agreed that, due to the procedural posture of this particular bill, we should address the substance of his amendment in committee in the future.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for moving this bill through to final conclusion where we are now scheduled to vote on final passage at 3 o'clock this afternoon. We took this bill up in the Judiciary Committee a week ago today. Although there was some conjecture we could not pass the bill out of committee, in the morning we did so. We started the floor debate Monday afternoon. I led off in my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We had a number of amendments and we have worked the will of the Senate. A number of amendments have been withdrawn, a number of amendments have been defeated. The Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, offered an amendment which would have imposed time limitations on the courts on their handling of class action cases. I told him I thought it was a good idea, but I was constrained to vote against it because we have an understanding--implicit or explicit, I am not quite sure which because I was not party to it--with the House of Representatives that if we sent them a so-called clean bill without amendments, they would accept the Senate version. I told Senator Feingold as to his issue, I have had a number of complaints about delays in the administration of the courts. That is something the Judiciary Committee will take up. I make it plain we will not deal with judicial independence or the court's discretionary functions, but when it comes to delays, that is a matter of congressional oversight on our fundamental responsibility to decide how many judges there will be at all levels. That is an issue we will take up. The Senator from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham, had proposed an amendment on disclosure, on transparency, sunshine. There again, that is a good idea. We have worked through a colloquy. I have not seen the final form, but I was discussing it with Senator Graham again this morning and the staffs are working that out. I anticipate we will have that finished. The Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, had a proposed amendment on mass actions. We had worked through to see if we could formulate a colloquy. That has not reached fruition. Senator Durbin has decided to withdraw. That is a complex matter which we took up in committee 2 years ago. We made some modifications in the bill, but it is very important as this bill moves forward to become law that it be dealt with as a procedural change, that there not be substantive changes in the rights of the parties. We have sought to move into the Federal courts in order to avoid forum shopping on judges or courts where there is some indication of a prejudicial predisposition. It is my hope as this class action bill is interpreted that it will not effect substantive rights. There is a tender issue on selection of State law where there are a number of States involved. There is a lot of commonality in our law injected through the uniform commercial code and interjected through the restatement of varieties of substantive matters such as torts, where class actions can be certified, so it is my hope this bill, this act, will not be interpreted to curtail a substantive right. There is a great deal of wisdom in the Senate on this bipartisan bill which has received considerable support on the Democratic side of the aisle as well as very strong support on the Republican side of the aisle to move through without a conference where we might have had a bill which was a great deal more restrictive of plaintiffs' rights, where we might have had a bill where the House provision calls for retroactive application. That would upset a great many existing lawsuits. All factors considered, we have come to a wise conclusion.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank Senators on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation in moving this class action bill. We reported it out of committee a week ago today and started the opening debate on it on Monday afternoon and then proceeded in a very timely fashion. The prospects are good that we will conclude action on the bill today. A unanimous consent agreement is currently in the process of being worked out, and we will know in the next few minutes precisely what will happen. We are going to proceed in a few minutes to the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, which would impose some time limits on the courts which, as I said at the committee hearing last week, I think is a good idea. I advised Senator Feingold that I would feel constrained to oppose it on this bill because of the procedural status, where the House of Representatives has been reported to accept the Senate bill provided it comes over as what we call a clean bill, without amendments. But as I said to Senator Feingold, and will repeat for the record, I had heard many complaints about delays in our Federal judicial system. I believe that is an appropriate subject for inquiry by the Judiciary Committee on a broader range than the issue specifically proposed by Senator Feingold. It is in the same family. I want to be emphatic. We are not impinging in any way on the independence of the Federal judiciary, their discretionary judgments. But when it comes to time limits, how long they have these matters under advisement, I think that is an appropriate matter for congressional inquiry. It bears on how many judges we need and what ought to be done with our judicial system generally. So that will be a subject taken up by the Judiciary Committee at a later date. I think the Senate bill--this may be a little parochial pride--is more in keeping with an equitable handling of class action bills than is the House bill. For example, the House bill would be retroactive and apply to matters now pending in the State courts, which would be extraordinarily disruptive of many State court proceedings. I think it is fair and accurate to say that the House bill is more restrictive than the Senate bill and our Senate bill, I think, is a better measure to achieve the targeted objective of having class actions decided in the Federal court with balance for plaintiffs and for defendants as well. So we are moving, I think, by this afternoon, to have a bill which will be ready for concurrence by the House, and signature by the President, and that I think will be a sign that we are moving forward on the legislative calendar. The Senator from Louisiana is going to seek recognition in a few minutes. I thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, the former chairman, who has agreed to come over and manage the bill during my absence. We are, at the moment, having hearings on the bankruptcy bill which we hope to have in executive session next Thursday, to move ahead on our fast moving, ambitious judiciary calendar. I now yield to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have a few minutes remaining on my 10 minutes. I notice the distinguished Democratic leader is here, but I said I would yield to the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. He has a very unique spot in my evaluation of Senators because he was elected in the class of 1980. He reminds me there were 18 of us elected, and the Democrats, through their tenacity and wisdom, have maintained 50 percent of their class and the Republicans, on the other hand, have only retained 12\1/2\ percent. Of course, we started with 16 to 2, so let the record show that the Republicans from the class of 1980 still outnumber the Democrats 2 to 1. I yield to Senator Dodd.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 9, 2004 at 11 a.m. to hold a Members' Briefing.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 9, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed meeting.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Does the Senator from Missouri agree?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the senior Senator from California is on the floor to offer an amendment, titled the Feinstein-Bingaman amendment, which has been the subject of considerable discussion. As I have said in the earlier portions of the discussion on this bill, I believe class action reform is necessary to move cases into the Federal courts, but I think it is important that there not be any substantive law changes, as I indicated previously on the floor. I had been in support of the Bingaman amendment. The management in opposition will be handled by Senator Hatch. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the hour of 4 has arrived. Pursuant to the previous order, we will now vote on the Kennedy amendment with a stacked vote on the Feinstein-Bingaman amendment to follow immediately.

Mr. SPECTER. Do I understand the Senator from Massachusetts wants 2 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the time of 12:15 having arrived, we are set for the vote. I move to table the Pryor amendment No. 5, and I ask for the yeas and nays.