Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in support of legislation which I am sponsoring with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden--the Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004. This year, more than 650,000 inmates will be released from the United States' prisons. Nearly two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested for either a felony or a serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. This ``revolving door'' of criminals endangers our communities. Yet, it should really come as no surprise that an individual who is released and who is illiterate or lacks the necessary skills to get a job returns to a life of crime. The need to address the issue of recidivism to protect the public is apparent and the Enhanced Second Chance Act is designed to address that need and stop the ``revolving door'' at our Nation's correctional facilities. This bill gives criminal offenders a second chance at rehabilitation and gainful employment by creating successful reentry programs focused on education and job training. There are two categories of individuals that we must focus our concern on in our fight to reduce recidivism--the career criminal and the person who will one day return back to his or her community. As for the career criminal, I wrote the Armed Career Criminal Bill that was adopted in 1984, which provides for life sentences for career criminals. These individuals, who have committed three or more major offenses and caught in possession of a firearm, receive mandatory sentences up to life. The second category of individuals--individuals who will one day be released--are a special circumstance because this is not about locking them up forever but about making sure they have an opportunity to turn their life around. It is about focusing on literacy and job training in order to reduce recidivism and prevent those individuals from becoming career criminals. The Enhanced Second Chance Act is aimed at better equipping the community, increasing public safety, and helping States and communities address the growing population of ex-offenders returning to communities. The act authorizes a $130 million a year grant program for State and local governments aimed at creating programs to help reduce recidivism rates and to create procedures to ensure that dangerous felons are not released from prison prematurely. It also calls for either establishing or expanding the use of State reentry courts to monitor ex-offenders returning to the community and to provide them with drug and alcohol treatment as well as necessary mental and medical services. One of the most significant concerns that our communities face with regards to prisoners is the impact on their children and communities. Between 1991 and 1999, the number of children with a parent in a Federal or State correction facility increased by more than 100 percent from approximately 900,000 to approximately 2 million. This legislation deals with the issues and obstacles that these children face. The Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004 creates a new program designed to support the relationship between parent and child while the parent is incarcerated and to help with family unification when the parent is released. It also instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to re-examine the current programs that are in place to help support the parent-child relationship while the parent is incarcerated and to establish the necessary services to help preserve the family relationship. Another major concern is incarcerated juveniles. Juveniles have a recidivism rate ranging from 55 to 75 percent. These figures are staggering and that is why I have pushed for so many years for legislation aimed at educating these young offenders prior to their release. I have consistently sponsored legislation that would provide for workplace and community transition training for incarcerated youth offenders while in prison and would provide employment counseling and other services that would continue while the individual was on parole. The Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004 builds upon my earlier efforts and provides effective reentry and aftercare programs so that these young individuals will have a chance at a successful transition back into the community. This bill encourages State and local governments to assess the literacy and educational needs of incarcerated individuals and to identify appropriate services to meet those needs while they are incarcerated. Moreover, this bill provides for collaboration with community colleges and employment services to connect inmates with employment opportunities before they are released back into the community. The New York Times recently reported that 5 million people, or roughly 2.3 percent of the electorate, will be barred from voting in November by State laws that strip felons of voting rights. However many ex-felons are in fact eligible to vote but do not do so simply because they are not aware that they have this right. The Enhanced Second Chance Act helps remove the confusion and mandates that prison officials provide each ex-offender released from Federal prison information on how the reentering offender can restore his or her voting rights. Information must be provided to each ex-offender in writing and in a language that he or she can understand. This will allow ex-offenders to feel more connected to their communities and is another important tool in the fight to reduce recidivism. I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Delaware in introducing this important and much-needed legislation. The Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004 is a very positive step forward in providing realistic rehabilitation to individuals needing a second chance. I wholeheartedly agree with President Bush's statement that ``America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.'' The President urged us to work in a bipartisan fashion and I believe that this bill is the first step in the right direction.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona for a number of reasons. First, the Intelligence Committee, with its current responsibilities, has a very heavy workload. I was on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years and chaired the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress. It is a very time-consuming job. I think it would be unwise to give them the additional burden of deciding appropriations. As a member of the Appropriations Committee--and I do not make this argument on a turf basis--we spend a lot of time making the allocations among the 13 subcommittees which we have. We have a budget resolution. We have a specific amount of money and we have to make the allocations. If we have a committee such as the Intelligence Committee not a part of the appropriations process, to evaluate intelligence appropriations in contrast to the other appropriations functions, it simply does not give the full picture. We, obviously, never have as much money as the individual members would like to have for their respective subcommittees, but when the committee makes a decision as to allocations, it is keeping the entire budget in mind. That would be lost if you had the Intelligence Committee with the authority simply to carve out whatever amount of money they chose without regard to the other appropriations processes. In addition, the experience as detailed by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Alaska, has been that when authorization and appropriations were combined, there were enormous appropriations. At a time of deficits and at a time of large national debt, we ought not create another structure which would add to the burden of additional funding. The separateness of an intelligence appropriations subcommittee from the intelligence authorizing committee also lends for more congressional Senate oversight. With all of the work we have to do, there is insufficient time to give appropriate oversight to the intelligence functions. A separate appropriations subcommittee would have an opportunity to add to that oversight and would have an opportunity to add as a check and balance to what the authorizers may do. We are proposing some very far-reaching changes here. I believe the resolution is a sound one in that it strengthens the hand of the intelligence authorizing committee by taking away term limits so the members of that committee will develop real expertise. But we should not abandon the traditional division of responsibility between authorizers and appropriators. I have great respect for what the Senator from Arizona seeks to do. He has made very cogent critiques of the Appropriations Committee from time to time when the Appropriations Committee seeks to take on the authorizing role. There are not supposed to be authorizations on the appropriations bill. We know, as a practical matter, that happens on occasion. Really, it happens with excessive frequency. But just as the separateness ought to be maintained with appropriators not authorizing; so, too, the separators ought to be made with authorizers not appropriating. It is for these reasons that I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to modify existing right-of-way agreements to allow an increase in the diameter of an existing natural gas pipeline in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in Pike County, Pennsylvania. In 1947, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation installed a 14-inch diameter pipeline, known as Line 1278, that included construction in the then rural areas of Pike, Northampton and Monroe counties. This system has become an important part of the energy delivery system to key eastern markets. The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) directed Columbia in 2002 and 2003 to take actions going forward with Line 1278, including additional testing, additional cathodic, corrosion, protection and replacement of portions of the pipeline. DOT ordered that the replacement must be completed by 2007. To comply with the DOT instructions, Columbia in December 2003 filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to replace about 43 miles of this pipeline, including 3.5 miles of the line that now lie within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. At issue are two right-of-way agreements affecting property now within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area that do not allow Columbia to increase the diameter of the pipeline. The Recreation Area was formed in 1965 through the acquisition of many tracts of private property. Columbia's Line 1278 runs through 14 of these tracts under the terms of right-of-way agreements obtained from landowners prior to the Recreation Area's creation. Agreements affecting 12 of the 14 tracts include language allowing Columbia to increase the diameter of the pipeline. However, two of the agreements, representing about 890 feet of the pipeline, do not include such authorization. Under current law, the Secretary of the Interior lacks legislative authorization to enter into an agreement to grant a pipeline easement that will allow an increase in the diameter of Line 1278. To complete the planned upgrade to improve energy reliability in the region, enabling legislation is required. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with Columbia to grant a pipeline easement to allow an increase in the diameter of Line 1278 from 14 inches to 20 inches in diameter. Timely enactment will allow the replacement to be performed efficiently in conjunction with the overall replacement project, and the uniform size will facilitate the use of ``smart pigging'' technology to utilize inspection vehicles inside pipelines to help assure long-term safety and reliability of this important energy infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for this important project.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the ``Animal Fighting Protection Enforcement Act of 2004'' with my colleagues Senators Feinstein, Ensign, Cantwell, DeWine and Leahy. The bipartisan bill we are introducing today is very similar to S. 736 with the same title, introduced by Senator Ensign and currently cosponsored by fifty-one Senators including me. This new bill is identical to another bill, H.R. 4264, pending in the House of Representatives. Specifically, this bill provides felony penalties by authorizing jail time of up to two years for violations of Federal animal fighting law, rather than the misdemeanor penalty (up to one year) under current law. Most States have felony-level penalties for animal fighting violations, but federal prosecutors are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases without felony-level penalties. Both the Senate and House included this felony provision in their farm bills in 2002, with identical wording, but the provision was dropped in conference. The Senate also passed this as an amendment to the ``Healthy Forests'' bill, but it was again removed in conference. The bill also outlaws cockfighting implements by prohibiting interstate and foreign commerce of the razor-sharp knives and ice pick- like gaffs are strapped onto birds' legs during cockfighting combat. These devices are specially designed for cockfighting and have no other known purpose. H.R. 4264 tracks language in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) that prohibits interstate and foreign commerce of animals for fighting purposes. This covers dog fighting, cockfighting, and other fights between animals ``conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment,'' with an explicit exemption for an activity ``the primary purpose of which involves the use of one or more animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting.'' Under current law, it already is illegal to: 1. Sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture if the person knows that any animal was bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for participation in the fighting venture. 2. Knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive an animal in interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of participation in a fighting venture, regardless of the law in the destination State, dog fighting is illegal in all 50 States; cockfighting is illegal in 48 States. 3. Knowingly use the Postal Service or any interstate instrumentality to promote an animal fighting venture in the U.S., e.g., through advertisement, unless the venture involves birds and the fight is to take place in a State that allows cockfighting. As explained on USDA's website explaining the Federal animal fighting law, ``In no event may the Postal Service or other interstate instrumentality be used to transport an animal for purposes of having the animal participate in a fighting venture, even if such fighting is allowed in the destination state''. The efforts to pass further Federal animal fighting prohibitions have been endorsed by more than 150 local police and sheriffs departments across the country, as well as The Humane Society of the United States, the National Chicken Council, representing 95 percent of U.S. chicken producers/processors, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and many other organizations. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor this bill and support its quick passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to modify existing right-of-way agreements to allow an increase in the diameter of an existing natural gas pipeline in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in Pike County, Pennsylvania. In 1947, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation installed a 14-inch diameter pipeline, known as Line 1278, that included construction in the then rural areas of Pike, Northampton and Monroe counties. This system has become an important part of the energy delivery system to key eastern markets. The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) directed Columbia in 2002 and 2003 to take actions going forward with Line 1278, including additional testing, additional cathodic, corrosion, protection and replacement of portions of the pipeline. DOT ordered that the replacement must be completed by 2007. To comply with the DOT instructions, Columbia in December 2003 filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to replace about 43 miles of this pipeline, including 3.5 miles of the line that now lie within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. At issue are two right-of-way agreements affecting property now within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area that do not allow Columbia to increase the diameter of the pipeline. The Recreation Area was formed in 1965 through the acquisition of many tracts of private property. Columbia's Line 1278 runs through 14 of these tracts under the terms of right-of-way agreements obtained from landowners prior to the Recreation Area's creation. Agreements affecting 12 of the 14 tracts include language allowing Columbia to increase the diameter of the pipeline. However, two of the agreements, representing about 890 feet of the pipeline, do not include such authorization. Under current law, the Secretary of the Interior lacks legislative authorization to enter into an agreement to grant a pipeline easement that will allow an increase in the diameter of Line 1278. To complete the planned upgrade to improve energy reliability in the region, enabling legislation is required. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with Columbia to grant a pipeline easement to allow an increase in the diameter of Line 1278 from 14 inches to 20 inches in diameter. Timely enactment will allow the replacement to be performed efficiently in conjunction with the overall replacement project, and the uniform size will facilitate the use of ``smart pigging'' technology to utilize inspection vehicles inside pipelines to help assure long-term safety and reliability of this important energy infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for this important project.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the ``Animal Fighting Protection Enforcement Act of 2004'' with my colleagues Senators Feinstein, Ensign, Cantwell, DeWine and Leahy. The bipartisan bill we are introducing today is very similar to S. 736 with the same title, introduced by Senator Ensign and currently cosponsored by fifty-one Senators including me. This new bill is identical to another bill, H.R. 4264, pending in the House of Representatives. Specifically, this bill provides felony penalties by authorizing jail time of up to two years for violations of Federal animal fighting law, rather than the misdemeanor penalty (up to one year) under current law. Most States have felony-level penalties for animal fighting violations, but federal prosecutors are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases without felony-level penalties. Both the Senate and House included this felony provision in their farm bills in 2002, with identical wording, but the provision was dropped in conference. The Senate also passed this as an amendment to the ``Healthy Forests'' bill, but it was again removed in conference. The bill also outlaws cockfighting implements by prohibiting interstate and foreign commerce of the razor-sharp knives and ice pick- like gaffs are strapped onto birds' legs during cockfighting combat. These devices are specially designed for cockfighting and have no other known purpose. H.R. 4264 tracks language in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) that prohibits interstate and foreign commerce of animals for fighting purposes. This covers dog fighting, cockfighting, and other fights between animals ``conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment,'' with an explicit exemption for an activity ``the primary purpose of which involves the use of one or more animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting.'' Under current law, it already is illegal to: 1. Sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture if the person knows that any animal was bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for participation in the fighting venture. 2. Knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive an animal in interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of participation in a fighting venture, regardless of the law in the destination State, dog fighting is illegal in all 50 States; cockfighting is illegal in 48 States. 3. Knowingly use the Postal Service or any interstate instrumentality to promote an animal fighting venture in the U.S., e.g., through advertisement, unless the venture involves birds and the fight is to take place in a State that allows cockfighting. As explained on USDA's website explaining the Federal animal fighting law, ``In no event may the Postal Service or other interstate instrumentality be used to transport an animal for purposes of having the animal participate in a fighting venture, even if such fighting is allowed in the destination state''. The efforts to pass further Federal animal fighting prohibitions have been endorsed by more than 150 local police and sheriffs departments across the country, as well as The Humane Society of the United States, the National Chicken Council, representing 95 percent of U.S. chicken producers/processors, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and many other organizations. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor this bill and support its quick passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on legislation which was reported, after a unanimous affirmative vote, by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on July 20, 2004, and which is the subject of my request today that the bill be unanimously approved by the Senate. S. 2483 would grant to nearly 3 million beneficiaries who receive certain ``cash-transfer'' payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, a cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, increase in their benefits effective with checks received on or after January 1, 2005, and thereafter. An annual cost-of-living adjustment in veterans benefits is an important tool which protects veterans' cash- transfer benefits against the corrosive effects of inflation. The principal programs affected by the adjustment that would be made by S. 2483 would be compensation paid to disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation, so-called ``DIC,'' payments made to the surviving spouses, minor children and other dependents of service members who died in service and to the survivors of former service members who died after service as a result of service-connected injuries or disease. The impact of the COLA which would be enacted here is outlined in detail in Report 108-351 which accompanied the Committee on Veterans' Affairs approval of the bill on July 20, 2004. In summary, this legislation would grant to VA compensation and DIC beneficiaries the same percentage increase in benefits that will be granted to recipients of Social Security benefits in 2005--that is, an increase equal to the percentage increase in the consumer price index, CPI, for fiscal year 2004 as measured and reported by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics later this year. The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 requested such an increase, then estimated to be 1.3 percent, and the Senate has already concurred with the committee's judgment that such an increase is appropriate with its approval earlier this year of a budget resolution which assumes that such an increase will be enacted and which sets aside the funds necessary to finance the COLA increase envisioned by this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of this vital legislation and that they ``clear'' the bill for passage today. The bill still must clear the House of Representatives before it is presented to the President. As my colleagues fully understand, the days remaining for the House to take this action are dwindling.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to ask for Senate approval of a manager's amendment to S. 2484, the proposed ``Department of Veterans Affairs Personnel Enhancement Act of 2004,'' and to ask for Senate approval of the bill as so amended. This amendment was developed in consultation with, and it has been approved by, the ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Bob Graham. I introduced S. 2484 on June 1, 2004 at the request of the administration. That bill, in the form I introduced it, and as it was amended prior to its approval by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on July 20, 2004, is already explained in Senate Report 108- 357. Accordingly, I will not detail provisions of the bill that are already explained in the Committee Report. Rather, I will confine this explanation to highlighting how the bill as now further amended--the ``Manager's bill''--would modify the reported bill. Section 3 of the reported bill makes changes in the system used by the Department of Veterans Affairs--VA--to compensate its physicians and dentists. The managers' bill contains many changes to this section. Some are primarily technical in nature and are designed to assure that the language of the bill actually accomplishes its intended purpose. These changes would, among other things, clarify how VA physicians' and dentists' retirement credits will be computed during the transition from the current to the new pay system; assure that statutory language requiring comparability pay increases is consistent with language in other Federal pay system statutes; and specify that physicians and dentists who work in VA headquarters will also be eligible for pay under the new pay system. Other changes made to section 3 of the reported bill are more substantive. Almost entirely, they respond to comments that were made on the reported bill by VA officials, by VA employee representatives, by physician and dentist professional organizations, and by the staffs of interested Senators, and by the staff of the House of Representatives' Committee on Veterans' Affairs. First, there are two changes that would foster more public awareness of, and input on, decisions made by VA that would affect the pay of physicians and dentists. One change would require that the VA Secretary publish in the Federal Register any updates in the national ``pay bands'' he or she might establish under authority of this legislation; another would require VA's Under Secretary for Health to solicit the views of exclusive employee representatives and physicians' and dentists' professional organizations before making recommendations to the Secretary on ``pay band'' modifications or other regulatory changes. Second, the Managers' bill would modify the reported bill's requirement that VA consult local Medical Professional Standards Boards--PSBs--prior to making decisions concerning the pay of physicians or dentists. It would only be required that an appropriate panel of physicians or dentists, as applicable, be consulted since not all VA facilities have an appropriate PSB in place. The managers' bill would also excise references to the required size of the board. Third, the Managers' bill would require VA to provide a physician or dentist written notice of decisions made by VA concerning his or her ``market-based'' pay. Under the reported bill, such notification was only required in the event a physician's or dentist's pay were to increase. Fourth, the Managers' bill would create an exception to the general rule contained in the reported bill that a physician's or dentist's pay may not be reduced during his or her tenure with VA. The managers' amendment would permit VA to change pay--and reduce pay--if a physician or dentist changes his or her assignment within a medical facility or moves from one VA facility to another. For example, if VA were to hire a cardiologist at the prevailing market salary for a practicing cardiologist, but that physician later becomes a VA primary care physician, VA would be allowed to adjust his or her pay to the primary care physician level. Similarly, if a physician is hired in Manhattan at a Manhattan salary and later transfers to the DesMoines VA Medical Center, VA would be allowed to adjust his or her pay to DesMoines market rates. In cases where the move or change in assignment is involuntary due, for example, to disciplinary action, VA would be required to afford the employee an opportunity to appeal. Fifth, the reported bill included a provision which would have allowed VA to award ``incentive pay'' of up to $10,000 to physicians or dentists in recognition of outstanding contributions to the facility, to the care of veterans, or to the practice of medicine or dentistry. It was suggested that these standards were too general. In response, the managers' bill specifies that such pay--renamed ``performance pay''--would be awarded on the basis of the physician's or dentist's achievement of specific goals or objectives as revealed by the Secretary in advance. Additionally, the managers' bill would raise the amount payable as ``performance pay'' to $15,000 annually or 7.5 percent of the sum of a physician's or dentist's base and market pay, whichever is lower. Inasmuch as the achievement of ``performance pay'' objectives are intended to be encouraged only by the ``positive reinforcement'' of a prospective bonus, the managers' bill would prohibit VA from taking disciplinary actions against physicians or dentists for failing to meet goals outlined under this program. Finally, the managers' bill, at VA's request, would make all of the changes to the VA physician and dentist compensation system effective the first pay period following January 1, 2006. Section 4 of the reported bill authorizes alternate work schedules for VA nurses. The managers' bill makes a number of technical changes, and two substantive changes. On the technical side, the managers' bill, for example, clarifies the full-time vs. part-time status of nurses working alternate schedules and specifies a requirement that VA provide notice to employees whose benefits might change under a new work schedule. Substantively, one modification would require that VA pay overtime to nurses on a 36/40 schedule in three instances: when work over 12 hours in one day is performed; when more than 40 hours are worked in an administrative work week; and when more than 8 hours are worked on a day not originally scheduled for a 12-hour shift. Each of these over-time scenarios is consistent with current practice; the change is made purely to ensure maintenance of the status quo. A second substantive change would express the Sense of the Congress that VA should prevent work hours by nurses in excess of 12 consecutive hours or over 60 hours in any seven-day period, and require VA to certify to Congress that each VA facility has policies in place designed to prevent nurses from working more than these tours of duty. The patient safety-related reasons for these requirements are explained in Senate Report 108-357. Section 5 of the reported bill would have provided a pay increase for the Director of Nursing Services in VA's Central Office. Due to disagreements concerning the implementation of this section of the bill, action on this proposed pay increase is deferred. The substance of Section 6 of the reported bill is unchanged. It is merely renumbered in light of the removal of section 5. Section 7 of the reported bill would have clarified VA authority with respect to certain personnel decisions. This provision, requested by VA as a purely technical ``clarification'' of existing law, was subject to much discussion and debate among VA officials, Committee staff, and employee representatives. It was taken by employee representatives to be a ``stealth attempt'' by VA to circumvent current collective bargaining agreements. The Committee does not ascribe such motives to VA, but it has withdrawn this provision from the managers' bill. Section 8 of the reported bill specified that all provisions of the bill would have been effective one year following the date of enactment. Section 3 of the managers' bill changes the effective date applicable to that provision to the first pay period following January 1, 2006. The other provisions of the managers' bill would now take effect upon enactment of the managers' bill. This legislation is the product of almost unprecedented open negotiation with very senior VA officials, unions representing Government employees, professional representatives of VA physicians and dentists, and other interested persons. This unprecedented ``sunshine'' has resulted, I think, in an exceptional bill. But for the extraordinary efforts of VA, union, and professional organization officials to resolve their differences in good faith, this improved managers' bill could not have emerged. They and the Congressional staff are to be complimented. But the efforts of one person--Mr. William T. Cahill, the Veterans Affairs Committee's Health Policy Counsel--deserve to be singled out for recognition. But for his steadfast and determined efforts to push this project through numerous impasses that had impeded its development, we would not have gotten to this day.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have filed amendment No. 3866, which would prohibit racial profiling with the relevant section as follows: The term ``racial profiling'' means the practice of law enforcement agents relying to any degree on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure except where there is trustworthy information relevant to the locality and timeframe that links persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion or national origin to an identified criminal incident or scheme. The amendment further defines routine or spontaneous investigative activities to include interviews, traffic stops, pedestrian stops, frisks, and other types of body searches, consensual or nonconsensual searches of the person and possessions, including vehicles, pedestrians, entrants into the United States that are more extensive than those customarily carried out, immigration-related workplace investigations, or other types of enforcement encounters as compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Bureau of Statistics. As evident from these definitions, a number of these items would relate to the kinds of activities of national intelligence, the immigration-related workplace investigations, inspections and interviews of interest to United States. This amendment tracks very closely the provisions of the Department of Justice guidance regarding use of race by Federal law enforcement agencies promulgated in June of 2003 which says in relevant part, ``in making routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions, such as ordinary traffic stops, Federal law enforcement officers may not use race or ethnicity to any degree except that officers may rely on race or ethnicity in a specific subject description.'' I understand the managers are not prepared to have another vote this evening. But for the Record I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and the amendment No. 3866 be taken up for consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought to offer this amendment for most of the afternoon. I offered two amendments last week. I know how difficult it is to manage a bill. I, again, compliment the distinguished chairman, Senator Collins, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Lieberman, for their work. As soon as the bill was called to the floor last week, I came to the floor and offered two amendments to cooperate with the managers. I was awaiting the time to offer this amendment. The problem which is posed procedurally is that cloture will be filed tomorrow. If cloture is invoked, this amendment will not satisfy the germaneness requirements which is the reason I have offered it this evening. But in light of the objection to set aside the pending amendment so debate and a vote can occur on this amendment, I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their gracious comments and pick up on what Senator Lieberman said. This amendment will return. There will be a day for its due consideration and I think enactment by this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised that Senator Shelby would like to speak to the bill. He is now chairing the Banking Committee, which is hearing from the 9/11 Commission. I have talked to the manager of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so we might start utilizing the time of the floor on another amendment which I intend to offer.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would give the national intelligence director a 10-year term, the same kind of a term the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation now has. The debate on this bill generally has stressed--and appropriately so--the need for a strong, independent national intelligence director. The interest of having policy determinations guide our new intelligence estimates has been stressed repeatedly. There is a very broad, historical precedent of the desirability of taking steps to guarantee to the maximum extent possible that the intelligence estimates will be independent and will not be in line to try to promote some specific policy objective. The 10-year term, as I say, is modeled after the term of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When I offered this amendment in committee, I had a provision for removal only for cause. After considering the matter, I have stricken that provision because I believe it is unnecessary. I believe by analogy to the FBI Director, the inference is plain that the removal can be only for cause. I will refer very briefly to comments by Senator Byrd on July 26 of 1976 when the FBI Director was given the 10-year term. Senator Byrd said, ``The setting of a 10-year term of office by Congress would as a practical matter preclude or at least inhibit a President from arbitrarily dismissing an FBI director for political reasons.'' Senator Byrd goes on to note that obviously a successor would have to be confirmed by the Senate. But there could not be the removal of the FBI Director for political reasons. The implication is pretty clear that removal can only be for cause. The additional views of Senator Levin on the national intelligence reform bill which he submitted on September 27 contain a very good summary of authorities on this proposition generally. I am going to cite a number of the authorities which Senator Levin referred to in those additional views. I complimented Senator Levin a few moments ago on the floor of the Senate for the quality of his views which he submitted and said I was going to quote him. He said it was unnecessary, but I believe in the interest of full disclosure that it is good to give Senator Levin that credit. The references to what happened with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution where that intelligence reports were used--and inappropriately used-- for representations about intelligence to support the administration's position are well known historically. The Secretary of Defense at that time, McNamara, cited classified information to support the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which President Lyndon Johnson wanted. Those citations were made to support the conclusion that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution ought to be adopted. The analyst for the National Security Archive, John Prados, said that Secretary McNamara used the intercepts as a ``trump card'' during the 1964 hearings to ``silence doubters.'' According to the views of Mr. Prados, Secretary McNamara asserted that ``intelligence reports from a highly classified and unimpeachable source reported that North Vietnam was making preparations to attack our destroyers, and ``the attack was underway.'' Finally, ``The North Vietnamese lost two ships in the engagement.'' Those materials turned out to be unsubstantiated, as a matter of fact. It was notorious that Central Intelligence Director William Casey misrepresented intelligence during the Iran-Contra period. The bipartisan Iran-Contra report specified that Director Casey ``misrepresented or selectively used available intelligence to support the policy that he was promoting.'' In former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Robert Gates' memoirs entitled ``From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War,'' former CIA Director Gates said or referred to Bill Casey as a DCI who had his own foreign policy agenda and had the estimating program as a powerful instrument in forcing the pace of the policy area. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, in his memoir ``Turmoil and Triumph, My Years as Secretary of State,'' published in 1993, referred to former Director of the CIA Bill Casey, who had very strong policy positions and was so ideological that they inevitably colored his selection and assessment of materials, once again, using the position of intelligence director to have a determination of policy. Former Director of the CIA and also former Director of the FBI William Webster testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on August 16 of this year and said: With respect to relations with the President, while the leader of the intelligence community must be the principal adviser on intelligence to the President, he must work hard, very hard, to avoid either the reality or the perception that intelligence is being framed or that is read, spun, to support a foreign policy of the administration. The 10-year term, so it does not coincide with the term of the President, is designed to give the national intelligence director the reality of independence and certainly to avoid the perception that the intelligence is being spun for the interests of the chief executive. Two days after Judge Webster testified, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence heard from former chief weapons inspector David Kay, who said: Intelligence must serve the Nation and speak truth to power even if in some cases elected leaders choose, as is their right, to disagree with the intelligence with which they are presented. This means that intelligence should not be part of the political apparatus or process. A 10-year term would seek to ensure, guarantee, that the national intelligence director was independent, and was not a part of the political process or apparatus. Mr. Kay went on to say: This is, I think, if you move forward on a national intelligence director legislation, is going to be the hardest thing to communicate, that the national intelligence director must serve the national security objectives of the Nation, and he serves whoever is the President best by giving him unvarnished truth, which will often not be welcome. Again, a 10-year term would guarantee that kind of independence to the national intelligence director. On the same day, former GEN Charles Boyd told the Intelligence Committee of the enormous pressures that political appointees are under to ``give the President what he wants rather than what he doesn't want but needs,'' and the upshot of what General Boyd had to say was that rather than seeking a special and close relationship to the President, General Boyd articulates a standard for an intelligence director ``ought to be his distance from the President, his independence of the President, his professionalism and be respected as such.'' Again, a 10-year term would promote that. A few days ago, on September 21, the very distinguished Center for Strategic and International Studies, a group consisting of former Senators and former Secretaries of Defense, former Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, and two former Secretaries of State, had this to say: When intelligence and policy are too closely tied the demands of policymakers can distort intelligence and intelligence analysis, can hijack the policy development process. It is crucial to ensuring the separation that the intelligence community leader have no policy role. A single individual with a last word on intelligence and some policy as well could be a dangerously powerful actor in the national security arena using intelligence to advocate for particular policy positions, budget requests, or weapon systems that often lack the knowledge to challenge. Here, again, the citation of authorities supports the concept that the national intelligence director ought to be objective, ought not to be seeking to promote any special policy of the chief executive and all of that would be enhanced by the 10-year term. The amendment which I offer, I do so on behalf of the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, and myself. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think Senator Lieberman has advanced an argument in support of my amendment. If I could have the attention of Senator Lieberman, when I quote him, I want to quote him to his face. I want him to hear what I have to say. I say to Senator Lieberman, we agree more often than we disagree, although we are at odds on two of my amendments today. But when the distinguished Senator from Connecticut cites the relationship between President Clinton and FBI Director Freeh, I think he is supporting my argument. He is supporting my argument about the need for independence. There was an investigation being conducted by the FBI on campaign finance irregularities, and the President--I would not call him a subject, but he was a part of those who were being looked into on the soft money issue. Then, without unduly belaboring the point, on this floor we had the impeachment proceeding. Issues involved were obstruction of justice and perjury. So the kind of independence the Director of FBI had by virtue of a 10-year term, I think, served the Nation well. Going back to the administration of President Nixon, without going into any detail, you had activities by the FBI Director which led to this 10-year term to insulate the Director from the appointing authority by the President. When the chairwoman refers to a philosophy of having the national intelligence director, appointed by a preceding President, serving the President, I suggest this is not like a Cabinet officer, such as the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense, who is supposed to carry out the policy of the President, who is supposed to have the same philosophy. Here we have a national intelligence director who is supposed to tell the President what the objective facts are on intelligence. It is inevitable in human relations, if you know what somebody wants to hear, an inclination to tell somebody what that person wants to hear, especially if that person is the appointing power. So on the question of confidence and trust, I think the American people would have more confidence and trust in a national intelligence director who is independent from the President. When the talk and the argument is made about an adviser, here again, the national intelligence director is not an adviser like the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Health and Human Services, carrying out the President's policies and seeking to give him advice to carry out those policies. Here we want somebody who will be strong and independent and objective and tell it like it is, even if it is not what the President wants to hear, and even if it contradicts the policies which the President wants to carry out. This bill does contain some elements stressing the independence of the national intelligence director such as not requiring permission to testify before Congress, putting affirmative obligations on the national intelligence director to keep the Congress informed as well as the chief executive informed. I think this is an important addition, to have a strong, independent, objective national intelligence director. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeWine be added as cosponsor of the pending amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment gives the national intelligence director authority to supervise, direct the kind of managerial authority which is indispensable if the national intelligence director is to be effective. Of those of us who have dealt with the Central Intelligence Agency, Senator Roberts, the current chair of the committee, is forcefully in favor of this amendment, as is Senator Shelby, former chairman of the committee, as am I. Very forceful arguments were made today by members of the committee--Senator Hatch, Senator Bond, Senator DeWine. But if we are really to bring the intelligence community under management, if we are really to have the kind of coordination, to have all of the information in one locale, where 9/11 could have been prevented, and to have accountability, it is indispensable to do more than give budget authority, which is all the committee bill does, but to give the national intelligence director the authority to supervise, direct real management authority to get the job done.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: For how many amendments am I on the list?

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, would the distinguished chairwoman repeat that unanimous consent request?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I regret the Senator from Virginia is at a loss, but that doesn't affect the plain language of the amendment and the fact that it doesn't disturb the responsibilities under the section cited by the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. SPECTER. I think the amendment speaks for itself, I say to Senator Warner.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the concept of unintended consequences is not an unusual argument. It can be attenuated in many directions. My submission to this body is that the amendment is plain on its face, that it seeks to create a national intelligence director who has the authority to manage the intelligence community. When the Senator from Virginia cites responsibilities in existing law, there is nothing in my amendment which undercuts that law, nothing at all. Ambiguity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and in this situation, on the face of the amendment, there is no ambiguity.