Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues-- Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Bayh--in introducing this legislation today which codifies the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/ 11 Commission has accomplished a very important mission in stimulating the demand of the American people that action be taken to put all of our intelligence agencies under one command authority. Had this been done prior to 9/11, it is my judgment that 9/11 could have been prevented. There was the famous FBI report from Phoenix about the suspicious character who wanted to learn to fly an airplane but wasn't interested in learning to take off or land. There were the suspicious people in Kuala Lumpur who turned out to be two of the terrorists known by the CIA to be al-Qaida, but it was not told to the INS to keep them out of the country. There was the information on Zacarias Moussaoui and the work of the FBI field office in Minneapolis with the 13-page, single- spaced report filed by Agent Coleen Rowley. Those factors and others gave clear-cut clues to what was happening or about to happen. Had they been pursued and investigated, the chances are good that 9/11 could have been prevented. The Commission, in focusing public attention on the absolute necessity to have one commander, has accomplished something which had not been accomplished up until the present time. I served on the Intelligence Committee back in 1987, when we had the investigation of the Iran Contra affair. At that time I introduced legislation for a national intelligence director looking more to oversight at that time. In 1996, when I was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I introduced legislation which would have provided budget and hiring authority under the CIA Director. Technically, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has for some time--I believe going back to 1947--the overall direction of the intelligence community. But without budget authority and without hiring and firing, it has been virtually meaningless. But in 1996, I proposed that legislation. In 2002, we moved for the creation of an Office of Homeland Security. Senator Lieberman and I introduced, 30 days after 9/11, legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. But there were various objections to it, and the issue was not taken up seriously until mid- 2002. There was a real effort made in that legislation to have all of the intelligence agencies under one command authority. The House of Representatives passed a bill in October and left town, which they do from time to time, leaving us with the option of either taking their bill or not having a bill until the following spring. At that time I had an amendment prepared to give the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to direct all of the other intelligence agencies. As I have said on the record before, and it is worth repeating briefly, I had a conversation that afternoon with Secretary Ridge who urged me not to offer the amendment. I told him I thought it had to be done. And when I declined to accept his recommendations, I got a call from Vice President Cheney who urged the same course. When I again declined, I later talked to the President that afternoon and decided that I would await a later date to press for having that authority to direct. But this has been a gaping hole in the intelligence apparatus forever. The Scowcroft Commission filed a report, still in confidential form but widely reputed to create an individual in charge of the overall intelligence agency. So, finally, we are coming to the point where we are thinking very seriously about having one person in charge, a national director of intelligence, thanks to the focus of the 9/11 Commission. The Government Affairs Committee on which I serve, with the leadership of Senator Collins, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Lieberman, the ranking member, did something very unusual. We returned in the first week of the recess on July 30 and held additional hearings. In reviewing the work of the 9/11 Commission at that time, I expressed for the record and would repeat now briefly the concerns I have about the so-called double hatting. The 9/11 Commission has recommended that the counterintelligence unit, for example, of the FBI stay under the direction of the Director of the FBI but report also to the national intelligence director so that the Director of the FBI counterintelligence unit would be so-called double hatted. Well, I do not think that can work under the very basic principle that no one can serve two masters. The same kind of concept is present on double hatting with the CIA Director for the Department of Defense intelligence agencies. During the course of the Governmental Affairs hearings, I asked Congressman Lee Hamilton, cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the possibility of creating the director with a 10-year term, modeled after the FBI Director, to be able to have someone who would outlast the tenure of Presidents. I think that is also a concept which ought to be incorporated. When the Governmental Affairs Committee was considering this issue and legislation, I prepared a draft bill which I submitted to the members of the Governmental Affairs Committee back on August 3 of this year. I think it would be useful to put it into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of that draft proposal be printed in the Congressional Record following my statement.

Mr. SPECTER. There are other proposals that have been made. The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, has proposed legislation. So we have a great many ideas to choose from. As I sat at the Governmental Affairs hearing in early August, it was my hope that we would report out a bill early. I am pleased to say Chairman Collins has listed a markup for the week of September 20th, so that we should have a bill to present to the Senate early on. Then it is my hope we will act on this matter and act expeditiously. We have to get it right. These are complicated matters. We have been studying them for a very long time. We have been studying them, to my personal knowledge, going back to 1987 in legislation I introduced, and again in 1996, and with the very extensive consideration of the legislation on homeland security in 2002. So I think we are ready to move ahead and make the kinds of judgments that are tough decisions, but that is the pay grade around here. I think the time has come to act. It may not be a perfect bill. I have been in the Senate for 24 years now and I have not seen a perfect bill. The risks of inaction, in my view, are much greater than the risks of action. We know enough to make a sound judgment as to how to put the entire intelligence community under one umbrella. I see my colleague Senator Bayh on the floor. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Prescription Drug and Health Improvement Act of 2004, which is legislation designed to reduce the high prices of prescription drugs. Americans, specifically senior citizens, pay the highest prices in the world for brand-name prescription drugs. With 43 million uninsured Americans and many more senior citizens without an adequate prescription drug benefit, filling a doctor's prescription is unaffordable for many people in this country. The United States has the greatest health care system in the world; however, too many seniors are forced to make difficult choices between life-sustaining prescription drugs and daily necessities. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that in 2003 per capita spending on prescription drugs rose approximately 12 percent, with a similar rate of growth expected for this year. Much of the increase in drug spending is due to higher utilization and the shift from older, lower cost drugs to newer, higher cost drugs. However, rapidly increasing drug prices are a critical component. High drug prices, combined with the surging older population, are also taking a toll on State budgets and private sector health insurance benefits. Medicaid spending on prescription drugs increased at an average annual rate of nearly 20 percent between 1998 and 2001. Until lower priced drugs are available, pressures will continue to squeeze public programs at both the State and Federal level. To address these problems, my legislation would reduce the high prices of prescription drugs to seniors by: one, allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers; and two, eliminate the coverage gap in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. The bill's $400 billion price tag over the next 10 years would be offset by, three, reducing medical errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and, four, increasing the use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health care. Prescription Drug Negotiation: This legislation would repeal the prohibition against interference by the Secretary of HHS with negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and prescription drug plan sponsors and instead authorize the Secretary to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered prescription drugs. It will allow the Secretary of HHS to use Medicare's large beneficiary population to leverage bargaining power to obtain lower prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. Price negotiations between the Secretary of HHS and prescription drug manufacturers would be analogous to the ability of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers. This bargaining power enables veterans to receive prescription drugs at a significant cost savings. In my capacity as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I introduced the Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act, S. 1153, which was reported out of committee on June 20, 2004. This legislation would broaden the ability of veterans to access the Veterans Affairs Prescription Drug Program. All Medicare-eligible veterans will be able to purchase medications at a tremendous price reduction through the Veterans Affairs' Prescription Drug Program. In many cases this would save veterans who are Medicare beneficiaries up to 90 percent on the cost of commonly prescribed medications. Similar savings would be available to America's seniors from the savings achieved using the HHS bargaining power, like the Veterans Affairs bargaining power for the benefit of veterans. Medicare Coverage Gap Elimination: The bill would eliminate the coverage gap, also known as the ``doughnut hole,'' for beneficiaries in the Medicare prescription drug program. Beginning in January 2006, Medicare beneficiaries with an individual income of over $13,470 and couples with an income over $18,180, 150 percent of the poverty level, will pay a monthly premium, approximately $35, a $250 deductible, and coinsurance of 25 percent up to an initial coverage limit of $2,250, but then do not receive coverage until they exceed $5,100 of total spending. Specifically, Medicare beneficiaries will have to make out- of-pocket payments for prescription drug purchases from $2,250 to $5,100 in total spending. After $5,100 in total spending, the coinsurance payment for those beneficiaries is 5 percent. Medicare beneficiaries below 150 percent of the poverty level do not have a gap in drug coverage. My legislation would eliminate the gap in coverage for those over 150 percent of the poverty level in the Medicare prescription drug program, by extending the 25 percent beneficiary coinsurance payment from $2,250 to $5,100 in total spending. This provision comes at an expected cost of $400 billion over 10 years, which will be paid for through savings from reducing medical errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and increasing the use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health care. Reducing Medical Errors and Increasing the Use of Medical Technology: The bill provides grants for demonstration programs to test best practices for reducing errors, testing the use of appropriate technologies to reduce medical errors, such as electronic medication systems, and research in geographically diverse locations to determine the causes of medical errors. The implementation of automated prescription drug dispensers will prevent adverse drug reactions, which in turn can cause further illness resulting in increased care needed to correct the error. The utilization of electronic records will reduce the incidence of repeat medical tests, which will result in significant cost savings. On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, issued a report entitled ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The IOM report estimated that anywhere between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized Americans die each year due to avoidable medical mistakes. However, only a fraction of these deaths and injuries are due to negligence. Most errors are caused by system failures. The IOM issued a comprehensive set of recommendations, including the establishment of a nationwide, mandatory reporting system; incorporation of patient safety standards in regulatory and accreditation programs; and the development of a non-punitive ``culture of safety'' in health care organizations. The report called for a 50-percent reduction in medical errors over 5 years. After the report was issued, I held a series of three Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee hearings on medical errors: Dec. 13, 1999--to discuss the findings of the Institute of Medicine's report on medical errors; Jan. 25, 2000--a joint hearing with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to discuss a national error reporting system and the VA's national patient safety program; Feb. 22, 2000--a joint hearing with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to discuss the administration's strategy to reduce medical errors. After hearing from Government witnesses and experts in the field on medical errors, I included $50 million in the fiscal year 2001 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education for a patient safety initiative. In the Senate report, I also directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to: one, develop guidelines on the collection of uniform error data; two, establish a competitive demonstration program to test ``best practices''; and three, research ways to improve provider training. The committee also directed AHRQ to prepare an interim report to Congress concerning the results of the demonstration program within 2 years of the beginning of the projects. The fiscal year 2002 Senate report directed AHRQ to submit a report detailing the results of its initiative to reduce medical errors. HHS combined both reports into one, which it submitted to me earlier this year. Since fiscal year 2001, the Labor/HHS Subcommittee has included within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funding for research into ways to reduce medical errors. The fiscal year 2002 appropriation was $55 million, in fiscal year 2003 another $55 million was provided, and in fiscal year 2004 the appropriation was increased to $79.5 million. The bill seeks to assist development of private sector technology standards to reduce medical errors by examining information technology, providing grants, and coordinating implementation by private sector entities. This would help ensure that this Federal investment will help further the national health information infrastructure by sharing the information collected through these demonstration projects with other health facilities nationally. These efforts would help reduce medical errors and bring the Nation's health systems into the 21st century with a projected cost savings of $150 billion over 10 years. Primary and Preventive Care Services: The bill includes provisions for the use of nonphysician providers such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists by increasing direct reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid without regard to the setting where services are provided. The services provided by non- physician providers would insure that patients would receive benefits and services to which they are entitled without compromising the high standards of medical care. The use of these health care professionals would provide a significant cost savings to health care systems. The bill creates a medical student tutorial program providing grants to encourage students early on in their medical training to pursue a career in primary care and provides grant assistance to medical training programs to recruit such students. This program is advantageous for medical students by providing valuable primary care experience, while offering services at a lower cost to primary care facilities. The savings from this provision is estimated at $250 billion over a 10-year period. I believe this bill can provide desperately needed access to inexpensive, effective prescription drugs for America's seniors. The time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge my colleagues to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Small Business Economic Stimulus Act of 2004. In recent months, there have been clear signs that America's economic downturn has ended and that we are entering a period of renewed growth and prosperity. Yet not all of the economic news has been good. As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many companies that they cannot afford to make needed investments in equipment or research at this time. As they postpone such investments, they also push off into the future the economic growth and opportunity that would flow from them. As a result, I continue to meet far too many Pennsylvanians who are out of work. Thus while the economy is improving, it is still incumbent upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to aid this recovery and grow jobs. There is more we can do. The bill I introduce today, the Small Business Economic Stimulus Act of 2004, will help American companies take the steps they need to grow and hire. Since small businesses create approximately 75 percent of new jobs in America, my bill focuses on the needs of small business in particular. My bill has three parts. Part one renews and extends three tax provisions which are crucial to encouraging new investments in R&D and equipment. Part two provides greater resources to trade offices and trade promotion with a particular emphasis on programs that will enable America's small businesses to better compete in foreign markets. Part three creates a structure for association health plans which will enable small businesses to negotiate less expensive health plans for their employees, thereby saving money while continuing to provide coverage. Together, these provisions amount to a targeted, measured, yet crucial shot in the arm for American small business and the American economy. The bill I introduce today will permanently extend the research and development tax credit. The R&D tax credit, which expired on June 30, has proven to be of enormous value to American business. We all understand the importance of research and development to the American economy. Most leading American companies owe their market dominance to the innovations coming from R&D labs. Yet R&D is expensive, and it is often among the first items to be cut when budgets get tight. The R&D tax credit serves America by providing an economic incentive to companies to continue to invest in the R&D that will provide the growth and opportunities of the future. Studies have shown that the R&D tax credit significantly increases research and development expenditures. The marginal effect of $1 of the research credit creates approximately $1 of additional private research and development spending in the short-run, and as much as $2 of extra R&D spending in the long run. This is good for the American economy and the American taxpayer. In fact, one study estimates that a permanent research credit would result in our gross domestic product increasing by $10 billion after 5 years and by $31 billion after 20 years. In addition, the extension of the R&D tax credit will have benefits beyond the purely economic. For example, the research and development tax credit has proven to be critical to the U.S. biomedical research arena. The tax credit has contributed to many successes in U.S. scientific research and innovation, such as rapid progress in finding cures for life threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer and multiple sclerosis. Today's diseases--Alzheimer's, AIDS, heart, liver and kidney disease, prostate cancer and arthritis--are complex and are in the final stages for research breakthroughs. If we allow the incentives to invest in medical progress to lapse, the consequence may be irrevocable and society may rue that decision for years to come. Given the importance of the R&D tax credit, it makes little sense for Congress to continue to renew it for short terms. The investment of funds in research and development is not a temporary fix but something that should be consistently encouraged. Towards this end, my bill permanently extends the R&D tax credit. Such a permanent extension will send a strong signal to American companies that the value of R&D is recognized here in Washington. The permanent extension will also provide greater certainty to companies seeking to make plans years in advance. My legislation will also renew two less well known but important tax provisions which encourage capital investments. My bill extends for another year a provision that allows companies to take an immediate 50- percent depreciation on purchases of qualified equipment and machinery. This accelerated depreciation is currently set to expire in December, 2004; equipment purchased thereafter would be subject to standard depreciation tables. My bill provides that necessary equipment purchased between December 2004 and December 2005 will continue to qualify for the accelerated depreciation. The availability of accelerated depreciation--especially at the high rate of 50 percent--makes an enormous difference to companies contemplating large capital investments. Companies which simply could not afford these investments under standard depreciation face a dramatically altered balance sheet once the accelerated depreciation is factored in. Investments that did not previously make economic sense will now be economically advantageous. As these investments are made, companies will grow and hire. This change in the balance sheet will reap a concrete benefit in jobs and growth. In addition, my legislation extends the section 179 exclusion at the current level of $100,000 through December 2007. This is another esoteric sounding provision that will produce very real economic benefits. Under this provision, companies can immediately expense, that is, recognize as an expense to be deducted from revenues for tax purposes, up to $100,000 invested in equipment and machinery. The standard section 179 deduction is only $25,000. Once again, this provision will have the effect of making investments economically advantageous when they otherwise would not be. The greater capital investment thereby fostered will lead to greater growth and job opportunities. Beyond these tax incentives, my bill also seeks to help American business through our trade policy. My legislation focuses on two programs in particular which help small businesses find markets for their products abroad. My bill includes an increase in funding of $27 million for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, USTDA. The USTDA has proven to be critical to small businesses seeking to sell their products abroad. The USTDA helps American businesses study and identify opportunities in foreign markets so that they can determine which options will be profitable. To a small American business facing a very large global economy, the USTDA serves as an accessible and inexpensive international sales department. USTDA's unique public-private partnership truly extends the effectiveness of taxpayers' dollars. Historically, $35 worth of exports are generated for every dollar invested by USTDA. As a result, $21 billion in U.S. exports have been shipped overseas in concert with USTDA's programs. My legislation also includes $5 million in funding to promote the benefits available under the Export Trading Company Act of 1982. This legislation was enacted to stimulate U.S. exports by authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to issue export trade certificates of review to groups of small businesses. A certificate of review protects the holder and the members identified in the certificate from State and Federal Government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Given the realities of international trade, these antitrust exemptions are crucial. In order to compete in a challenging foreign market such as China, for example, it is extremely advantageous to have a full-time sales representative on the ground there. Yet few small businesses can afford to hire full-time representatives and send them to China. The antitrust exemptions in the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 would enable a group of small businesses to band together to hire a sales representative, open an office, and pursue the other necessities of international trade. The Export Trading Company Act is good legislation which solves a critical problem. Yet few American businesses exploring international trade are aware of the opportunities under this act, let alone take advantage of them. As a result, the enormous economic opportunities created by this law continue to go unrealized. I think that a minimal investment in marketing and promoting this act will pay for itself many times over in increased exports, growth and jobs. Finally, my bill includes a provision that will enable small businesses to join together to negotiate more affordable health care plans for their employees. This provision will provide an enormous economic boost to America's businesses--with the saving they gain from better health insurance rates they can invest, grow and hire. Yet this provision also provides clear benefits beyond the purely economic. By making health insurance more affordable, this provision will help reverse the growth in the ranks of the uninsured. According to a poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Americans worry more about rising health care costs than they do about terrorist attacks. There is a reason for such concern. More than 43 million Americans under age 65 lack health insurance coverage. The ranks of the uninsured consist primarily of working families with low and moderate incomes--not just the unemployed. Nearly 26 million individuals are employed and still are without health care coverage. My bill will give small businesses the same market-based advantages when negotiating health insurance for their employees that large companies and unions currently enjoy. As independent entities, small businesses have little leverage when they negotiate with health insurance providers, and the situation they face is often one of take it or leave it. Even when small businesses band together in local purchasing pools, the group is often not large enough to attract new insurance companies with less expensive plans. My act will allow small businesses to join together in large national pools under the auspices of bona fide associations and either purchase insurance from a provider or self-insure the same way that large employers and unions do. For example, the American Restaurant Association could negotiate a plan on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of employees who work for its member businesses. Once the plan is in place, each individual restaurant could choose to participate in this plan at much better rates than they could ever have negotiated on their own. I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership and hard work on this issue of association health plans. On March 6, 2003, Senator Snowe introduced S. 545, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. This long and very detailed bill addresses all of the issues needed to make association health plans a reality. I signed on as a cosponsor of S. 545 on June 9, 2003, and I have included the text of S. 545 in my bill. It is my sincere hope that the economic recovery will continue and will pick up steam in the months to come. There is great reason for optimism. But our optimism must not blind us to the continuing problems that Americans face. There are measures that Congress can take--today-- which will help our businesses to grow, hire new employees, and provide health insurance to these employees at a more affordable rate. These measures will, in the long run, more than pay for themselves. We must take these steps and do our part. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Economic Stimulus Act of 2004.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Prescription Drug and Health Improvement Act of 2004, which is legislation designed to reduce the high prices of prescription drugs. Americans, specifically senior citizens, pay the highest prices in the world for brand-name prescription drugs. With 43 million uninsured Americans and many more senior citizens without an adequate prescription drug benefit, filling a doctor's prescription is unaffordable for many people in this country. The United States has the greatest health care system in the world; however, too many seniors are forced to make difficult choices between life-sustaining prescription drugs and daily necessities. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that in 2003 per capita spending on prescription drugs rose approximately 12 percent, with a similar rate of growth expected for this year. Much of the increase in drug spending is due to higher utilization and the shift from older, lower cost drugs to newer, higher cost drugs. However, rapidly increasing drug prices are a critical component. High drug prices, combined with the surging older population, are also taking a toll on State budgets and private sector health insurance benefits. Medicaid spending on prescription drugs increased at an average annual rate of nearly 20 percent between 1998 and 2001. Until lower priced drugs are available, pressures will continue to squeeze public programs at both the State and Federal level. To address these problems, my legislation would reduce the high prices of prescription drugs to seniors by: one, allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers; and two, eliminate the coverage gap in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. The bill's $400 billion price tag over the next 10 years would be offset by, three, reducing medical errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and, four, increasing the use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health care. Prescription Drug Negotiation: This legislation would repeal the prohibition against interference by the Secretary of HHS with negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and prescription drug plan sponsors and instead authorize the Secretary to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered prescription drugs. It will allow the Secretary of HHS to use Medicare's large beneficiary population to leverage bargaining power to obtain lower prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. Price negotiations between the Secretary of HHS and prescription drug manufacturers would be analogous to the ability of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers. This bargaining power enables veterans to receive prescription drugs at a significant cost savings. In my capacity as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I introduced the Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act, S. 1153, which was reported out of committee on June 20, 2004. This legislation would broaden the ability of veterans to access the Veterans Affairs Prescription Drug Program. All Medicare-eligible veterans will be able to purchase medications at a tremendous price reduction through the Veterans Affairs' Prescription Drug Program. In many cases this would save veterans who are Medicare beneficiaries up to 90 percent on the cost of commonly prescribed medications. Similar savings would be available to America's seniors from the savings achieved using the HHS bargaining power, like the Veterans Affairs bargaining power for the benefit of veterans. Medicare Coverage Gap Elimination: The bill would eliminate the coverage gap, also known as the ``doughnut hole,'' for beneficiaries in the Medicare prescription drug program. Beginning in January 2006, Medicare beneficiaries with an individual income of over $13,470 and couples with an income over $18,180, 150 percent of the poverty level, will pay a monthly premium, approximately $35, a $250 deductible, and coinsurance of 25 percent up to an initial coverage limit of $2,250, but then do not receive coverage until they exceed $5,100 of total spending. Specifically, Medicare beneficiaries will have to make out- of-pocket payments for prescription drug purchases from $2,250 to $5,100 in total spending. After $5,100 in total spending, the coinsurance payment for those beneficiaries is 5 percent. Medicare beneficiaries below 150 percent of the poverty level do not have a gap in drug coverage. My legislation would eliminate the gap in coverage for those over 150 percent of the poverty level in the Medicare prescription drug program, by extending the 25 percent beneficiary coinsurance payment from $2,250 to $5,100 in total spending. This provision comes at an expected cost of $400 billion over 10 years, which will be paid for through savings from reducing medical errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and increasing the use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health care. Reducing Medical Errors and Increasing the Use of Medical Technology: The bill provides grants for demonstration programs to test best practices for reducing errors, testing the use of appropriate technologies to reduce medical errors, such as electronic medication systems, and research in geographically diverse locations to determine the causes of medical errors. The implementation of automated prescription drug dispensers will prevent adverse drug reactions, which in turn can cause further illness resulting in increased care needed to correct the error. The utilization of electronic records will reduce the incidence of repeat medical tests, which will result in significant cost savings. On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, issued a report entitled ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The IOM report estimated that anywhere between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized Americans die each year due to avoidable medical mistakes. However, only a fraction of these deaths and injuries are due to negligence. Most errors are caused by system failures. The IOM issued a comprehensive set of recommendations, including the establishment of a nationwide, mandatory reporting system; incorporation of patient safety standards in regulatory and accreditation programs; and the development of a non-punitive ``culture of safety'' in health care organizations. The report called for a 50-percent reduction in medical errors over 5 years. After the report was issued, I held a series of three Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee hearings on medical errors: Dec. 13, 1999--to discuss the findings of the Institute of Medicine's report on medical errors; Jan. 25, 2000--a joint hearing with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to discuss a national error reporting system and the VA's national patient safety program; Feb. 22, 2000--a joint hearing with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to discuss the administration's strategy to reduce medical errors. After hearing from Government witnesses and experts in the field on medical errors, I included $50 million in the fiscal year 2001 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education for a patient safety initiative. In the Senate report, I also directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to: one, develop guidelines on the collection of uniform error data; two, establish a competitive demonstration program to test ``best practices''; and three, research ways to improve provider training. The committee also directed AHRQ to prepare an interim report to Congress concerning the results of the demonstration program within 2 years of the beginning of the projects. The fiscal year 2002 Senate report directed AHRQ to submit a report detailing the results of its initiative to reduce medical errors. HHS combined both reports into one, which it submitted to me earlier this year. Since fiscal year 2001, the Labor/HHS Subcommittee has included within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funding for research into ways to reduce medical errors. The fiscal year 2002 appropriation was $55 million, in fiscal year 2003 another $55 million was provided, and in fiscal year 2004 the appropriation was increased to $79.5 million. The bill seeks to assist development of private sector technology standards to reduce medical errors by examining information technology, providing grants, and coordinating implementation by private sector entities. This would help ensure that this Federal investment will help further the national health information infrastructure by sharing the information collected through these demonstration projects with other health facilities nationally. These efforts would help reduce medical errors and bring the Nation's health systems into the 21st century with a projected cost savings of $150 billion over 10 years. Primary and Preventive Care Services: The bill includes provisions for the use of nonphysician providers such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists by increasing direct reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid without regard to the setting where services are provided. The services provided by non- physician providers would insure that patients would receive benefits and services to which they are entitled without compromising the high standards of medical care. The use of these health care professionals would provide a significant cost savings to health care systems. The bill creates a medical student tutorial program providing grants to encourage students early on in their medical training to pursue a career in primary care and provides grant assistance to medical training programs to recruit such students. This program is advantageous for medical students by providing valuable primary care experience, while offering services at a lower cost to primary care facilities. The savings from this provision is estimated at $250 billion over a 10-year period. I believe this bill can provide desperately needed access to inexpensive, effective prescription drugs for America's seniors. The time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge my colleagues to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Small Business Economic Stimulus Act of 2004. In recent months, there have been clear signs that America's economic downturn has ended and that we are entering a period of renewed growth and prosperity. Yet not all of the economic news has been good. As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many companies that they cannot afford to make needed investments in equipment or research at this time. As they postpone such investments, they also push off into the future the economic growth and opportunity that would flow from them. As a result, I continue to meet far too many Pennsylvanians who are out of work. Thus while the economy is improving, it is still incumbent upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to aid this recovery and grow jobs. There is more we can do. The bill I introduce today, the Small Business Economic Stimulus Act of 2004, will help American companies take the steps they need to grow and hire. Since small businesses create approximately 75 percent of new jobs in America, my bill focuses on the needs of small business in particular. My bill has three parts. Part one renews and extends three tax provisions which are crucial to encouraging new investments in R&D and equipment. Part two provides greater resources to trade offices and trade promotion with a particular emphasis on programs that will enable America's small businesses to better compete in foreign markets. Part three creates a structure for association health plans which will enable small businesses to negotiate less expensive health plans for their employees, thereby saving money while continuing to provide coverage. Together, these provisions amount to a targeted, measured, yet crucial shot in the arm for American small business and the American economy. The bill I introduce today will permanently extend the research and development tax credit. The R&D tax credit, which expired on June 30, has proven to be of enormous value to American business. We all understand the importance of research and development to the American economy. Most leading American companies owe their market dominance to the innovations coming from R&D labs. Yet R&D is expensive, and it is often among the first items to be cut when budgets get tight. The R&D tax credit serves America by providing an economic incentive to companies to continue to invest in the R&D that will provide the growth and opportunities of the future. Studies have shown that the R&D tax credit significantly increases research and development expenditures. The marginal effect of $1 of the research credit creates approximately $1 of additional private research and development spending in the short-run, and as much as $2 of extra R&D spending in the long run. This is good for the American economy and the American taxpayer. In fact, one study estimates that a permanent research credit would result in our gross domestic product increasing by $10 billion after 5 years and by $31 billion after 20 years. In addition, the extension of the R&D tax credit will have benefits beyond the purely economic. For example, the research and development tax credit has proven to be critical to the U.S. biomedical research arena. The tax credit has contributed to many successes in U.S. scientific research and innovation, such as rapid progress in finding cures for life threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer and multiple sclerosis. Today's diseases--Alzheimer's, AIDS, heart, liver and kidney disease, prostate cancer and arthritis--are complex and are in the final stages for research breakthroughs. If we allow the incentives to invest in medical progress to lapse, the consequence may be irrevocable and society may rue that decision for years to come. Given the importance of the R&D tax credit, it makes little sense for Congress to continue to renew it for short terms. The investment of funds in research and development is not a temporary fix but something that should be consistently encouraged. Towards this end, my bill permanently extends the R&D tax credit. Such a permanent extension will send a strong signal to American companies that the value of R&D is recognized here in Washington. The permanent extension will also provide greater certainty to companies seeking to make plans years in advance. My legislation will also renew two less well known but important tax provisions which encourage capital investments. My bill extends for another year a provision that allows companies to take an immediate 50- percent depreciation on purchases of qualified equipment and machinery. This accelerated depreciation is currently set to expire in December, 2004; equipment purchased thereafter would be subject to standard depreciation tables. My bill provides that necessary equipment purchased between December 2004 and December 2005 will continue to qualify for the accelerated depreciation. The availability of accelerated depreciation--especially at the high rate of 50 percent--makes an enormous difference to companies contemplating large capital investments. Companies which simply could not afford these investments under standard depreciation face a dramatically altered balance sheet once the accelerated depreciation is factored in. Investments that did not previously make economic sense will now be economically advantageous. As these investments are made, companies will grow and hire. This change in the balance sheet will reap a concrete benefit in jobs and growth. In addition, my legislation extends the section 179 exclusion at the current level of $100,000 through December 2007. This is another esoteric sounding provision that will produce very real economic benefits. Under this provision, companies can immediately expense, that is, recognize as an expense to be deducted from revenues for tax purposes, up to $100,000 invested in equipment and machinery. The standard section 179 deduction is only $25,000. Once again, this provision will have the effect of making investments economically advantageous when they otherwise would not be. The greater capital investment thereby fostered will lead to greater growth and job opportunities. Beyond these tax incentives, my bill also seeks to help American business through our trade policy. My legislation focuses on two programs in particular which help small businesses find markets for their products abroad. My bill includes an increase in funding of $27 million for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, USTDA. The USTDA has proven to be critical to small businesses seeking to sell their products abroad. The USTDA helps American businesses study and identify opportunities in foreign markets so that they can determine which options will be profitable. To a small American business facing a very large global economy, the USTDA serves as an accessible and inexpensive international sales department. USTDA's unique public-private partnership truly extends the effectiveness of taxpayers' dollars. Historically, $35 worth of exports are generated for every dollar invested by USTDA. As a result, $21 billion in U.S. exports have been shipped overseas in concert with USTDA's programs. My legislation also includes $5 million in funding to promote the benefits available under the Export Trading Company Act of 1982. This legislation was enacted to stimulate U.S. exports by authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to issue export trade certificates of review to groups of small businesses. A certificate of review protects the holder and the members identified in the certificate from State and Federal Government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Given the realities of international trade, these antitrust exemptions are crucial. In order to compete in a challenging foreign market such as China, for example, it is extremely advantageous to have a full-time sales representative on the ground there. Yet few small businesses can afford to hire full-time representatives and send them to China. The antitrust exemptions in the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 would enable a group of small businesses to band together to hire a sales representative, open an office, and pursue the other necessities of international trade. The Export Trading Company Act is good legislation which solves a critical problem. Yet few American businesses exploring international trade are aware of the opportunities under this act, let alone take advantage of them. As a result, the enormous economic opportunities created by this law continue to go unrealized. I think that a minimal investment in marketing and promoting this act will pay for itself many times over in increased exports, growth and jobs. Finally, my bill includes a provision that will enable small businesses to join together to negotiate more affordable health care plans for their employees. This provision will provide an enormous economic boost to America's businesses--with the saving they gain from better health insurance rates they can invest, grow and hire. Yet this provision also provides clear benefits beyond the purely economic. By making health insurance more affordable, this provision will help reverse the growth in the ranks of the uninsured. According to a poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Americans worry more about rising health care costs than they do about terrorist attacks. There is a reason for such concern. More than 43 million Americans under age 65 lack health insurance coverage. The ranks of the uninsured consist primarily of working families with low and moderate incomes--not just the unemployed. Nearly 26 million individuals are employed and still are without health care coverage. My bill will give small businesses the same market-based advantages when negotiating health insurance for their employees that large companies and unions currently enjoy. As independent entities, small businesses have little leverage when they negotiate with health insurance providers, and the situation they face is often one of take it or leave it. Even when small businesses band together in local purchasing pools, the group is often not large enough to attract new insurance companies with less expensive plans. My act will allow small businesses to join together in large national pools under the auspices of bona fide associations and either purchase insurance from a provider or self-insure the same way that large employers and unions do. For example, the American Restaurant Association could negotiate a plan on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of employees who work for its member businesses. Once the plan is in place, each individual restaurant could choose to participate in this plan at much better rates than they could ever have negotiated on their own. I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership and hard work on this issue of association health plans. On March 6, 2003, Senator Snowe introduced S. 545, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. This long and very detailed bill addresses all of the issues needed to make association health plans a reality. I signed on as a cosponsor of S. 545 on June 9, 2003, and I have included the text of S. 545 in my bill. It is my sincere hope that the economic recovery will continue and will pick up steam in the months to come. There is great reason for optimism. But our optimism must not blind us to the continuing problems that Americans face. There are measures that Congress can take--today-- which will help our businesses to grow, hire new employees, and provide health insurance to these employees at a more affordable rate. These measures will, in the long run, more than pay for themselves. We must take these steps and do our part. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Economic Stimulus Act of 2004.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss briefly the 9/11 Commission report and to comment on the status of intelligence in the United States. In a context where we have been put on notice by the Director of the FBI and the Secretary of Homeland Security that we may expect an attack by al-Qaida on U.S. soil some time between now and the election, it is of utmost importance we move ahead to put under a single umbrella all of the intelligence agencies in the United States. The 9/11 Commission report is one further statement that there is a need to put all the intelligence agencies under one umbrella. When we debated the Homeland Security bill back in 2002, I made the submission on the floor of the Senate repeatedly--on September 3, September 10, September 30, November 14, and November 19--that I thought it imperative the new Secretary of Homeland Security should have the authority to direct--not just to ask but to direct--all of the intelligence agencies, to have some effective structure to put all of the intelligence agencies under one umbrella. I submitted that contention based upon my view that had all of the information been at hand, the attack on 9/11 might well have been prevented. Had the FBI Phoenix report gotten to the right people in headquarters, had the information on Zacarias Moussaoui been properly handled with an appropriate standard for probable cause, had the terrorists in Kuala Lumpur been kept out of the United States--known by the CIA, but let in by Immigration and Naturalization--had those facts and others been pulled together, 9/11 might well have been prevented. When I chaired the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress, it was apparent to me at that time all of the intelligence agencies should be under one umbrella. I made that suggestion in legislation at that time. The Scowcroft report has made the same conclusion. We recently had a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee which pointed out many deficiencies in the CIA. Today we have had the report by the 9/11 Commission, all of which leads to one conclusion, which is hard to dispute; and that is, all the intelligence agencies ought to be under one umbrella. At a news conference earlier today, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and I announced our intention to take the 9/11 Commission report and put it into legislative language, to introduce it when we return after the August break. In so doing, we are not subscribing to all of the provisions of the 9/11 Commission conclusions. But we agree there ought to be a focus of attention, and there ought to be debate, and there ought to be action at an early date. It was suggested during the course of that news conference that when we come back in a post-election session, which I think is a virtual certainty, we take up the issue of reorganizing the intelligence structure in the United States. If we do not come back in a post- election session as lameducks to finish much of the unfinished business, or to finish all of the unfinished business, then the suggestion was made there ought to be a special session. I repeat that in cosponsoring legislation to encompass the 9/11 Commission report, it is not in total agreement with all of the provisions. I have reservations as to whether it is appropriate to designate a Director as opposed to a Secretary with Cabinet rank to take on the onerous job of struggling with the culture of concealment of the FBI and the culture of concealment of the CIA and the resistance of the Defense Intelligence Agency. We will have an opportunity to consider that in a legislative package. When the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction filed its report in 1999--a commission which I cochaired, a commission which came out of the recommendations of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress when I chaired the Intelligence Committee--the structure was to give the Vice President of the United States the responsibility to coordinate all of the activities of weapons of mass destruction because it was so important and because if you wanted to deal with the Secretaries of the various Departments, it would require somebody of the stature of the Vice President to do that. It may be that we will revisit the concept of having the Vice President undertake that kind of a responsibility because we are dealing with very strong, powerful forces, which have already started resistance--from the Department of Defense not wanting to give up power or fiscal control; resistance by the CIA, with the Acting Director speaking out very forcefully in opposition to the 9/11 Commission's prospective conclusions, even before the report was filed, and in defending what the CIA had done. There is much which has to be examined as to where the FBI stands. When we examined the letter from Special Agent Coleen Rowley--13 pages, single spaced--at a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing in June of 2002, we found out the FBI did not even have the right standard for probable cause for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. When we have seen what the CIA has done in the very strong criticism levied a few weeks ago by the Senate Intelligence Committee, we see there is much, much which has to be done. There have to be improvements in the FBI. There have to be improvements in the CIA. And all of this now comes into sharp focus with the events culminating in today's filing of the 9/11 Commission report--again, especially at a time when we are under siege and under threat of an al-Qaida attack between now and the election. Recent disclosures by the Senate Intelligence Committee have documented the failures of the CIA to accurately inform the country, including the President and Congress, concerning the facts or judgments on whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. As a result, some are now questioning whether the United States made the right judgment on going to war with Iraq. The action on going to war with Iraq, I submit, cannot appropriately be judged by 20/20 hindsight. Based on the facts at hand, when the Senate voted, the judgment to approve the use of force cannot rightfully be faulted. The vote of 77 to 23 encompassed a majority of Democrats, including Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards. The decision to use preemptive force was based on the standard of international law which warrants anticipatory self-defense when the threat of attack is imminent so that the defense of preemption is warranted. This standard was enunciated in 1842 by Secretary of State Daniel Webster in dealing with the so-called Caroline incident. In the floor debate on the force resolution on October 10, 2002, I quoted Hugo Crotius, considered the father of international law, who said in his 1925 book ``The Law of War and Peace'' that a nation may use self-defense in anticipation of attack when there is a ``present danger.'' He said, ``it is lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill.'' In that floor statement, I also quoted another eminent authority on international law, Elihu Root, who said in 1914 that international law did not require a nation to wait to use force in self-defense until it is too late to protect itself. It is important to revisit the Iraq war vote not to second-guess ourselves but to learn from that experience as we view escalating problems around the world which may pose an imminent threat to this country. It is important that our intelligence agencies present the full picture to decisionmakers, in particular the President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Congress, so the subtleties may be considered in making complicated judgments. Had the decisionmakers been presented with more objective comprehensive information concerning Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, it is doubtful that the ``imminence'' test under international law would have been met. It is important, in reviewing the incidents, that we not engage in self-flagellation. The comments coming out of Great Britain are informative and instructive. The New York Times reported on July 14 that: A major British report released Wednesday found extensive failures both in intelligence gathering on illicit weapons and the government's use of that intelligence to justify the Iraq war. But it cleared Prime Minister Tony Blair of accusations that he or his government distorted the evidence to build a case for war. The Times further reported: Like an earlier inquiry led by Lord Hutton, the report exonerated the government of the charge that it deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Mr. Hussein in an effort to deceive the public and Parliament. ``No single individual is to blame,'' Lord Butler said. ``This was a collective operation.'' I suggest very close similarities between British intelligence and U.S. intelligence and the reliance of the executive branch and the reliance of Congress in our vote to use force and in the action of the British, that the self-criticism ought not to be levied in the context of the findings by the British report that clears Prime Minister Blair of accusations that he or his Government distorted the evidence to build the war and the finding by Lord Hutton that no single individual is to blame but, rather, it was a collective operation. I yield the floor.

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 Department of Justice announced that Christopher Kangas was not a ``firefighter,'' and therefore not a ``public safety officer'' for purposes of the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. The DOJ based its determination on an arbitrarily narrow definition of ``firefighter,'' deciding that the only people who qualify as firefighters are those who play the starring role of spraying water on a fire or entering a burning building. According to this definition, those who play the essential supporting roles of directing traffic, performing first aid, or dispatching fire vehicles apparently don't count. 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 particularly cruel blow. 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 be 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 can benefit from it. My bill is a companion to H.R. 4472, introduced by Congressman Curt Weldon, Congressman Weldon, who is himself a former fireman and fire chief, is chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. There is no one in Congress better suited to understand this situation than Congressman Weldon, and I am honored to join him in the effort to right this wrong. I am submitting together with this bill a request under Senate rule XIV that the bill be placed directly on the Senate calendar and not be referred to committee. This is a noncontroversial, technical bill. I hope that my colleagues will join me in ensuring its speedy passage into law.

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 Department of Justice announced that Christopher Kangas was not a ``firefighter,'' and therefore not a ``public safety officer'' for purposes of the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. The DOJ based its determination on an arbitrarily narrow definition of ``firefighter,'' deciding that the only people who qualify as firefighters are those who play the starring role of spraying water on a fire or entering a burning building. According to this definition, those who play the essential supporting roles of directing traffic, performing first aid, or dispatching fire vehicles apparently don't count. 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 particularly cruel blow. 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 be 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 can benefit from it. My bill is a companion to H.R. 4472, introduced by Congressman Curt Weldon, Congressman Weldon, who is himself a former fireman and fire chief, is chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. There is no one in Congress better suited to understand this situation than Congressman Weldon, and I am honored to join him in the effort to right this wrong. I am submitting together with this bill a request under Senate rule XIV that the bill be placed directly on the Senate calendar and not be referred to committee. This is a noncontroversial, technical bill. I hope that my colleagues will join me in ensuring its speedy passage into law.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to discuss my vote and views on the Federal marriage amendment. I am voting in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed to this amendment. I do so primarily to ensure that our debate on this mater be concluded and that we return our attention to the other pressing issues of the day, including the announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that it is anticipated that al-Qaida will attack the U.S. again before the next election. We in this Chamber must grapple with many very serious issues including national security, terrorism, the economy, and our appropriations bills. It is time to return to this important work. Voting for cloture to cut off debate means only that we take up the substance of the amendment to conclude the Senate's consideration of the matter. While the cloture vote is only procedural, I do want to address the merits of the amendment. When the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld same-sex marriage earlier this year, I stated that I believed marriage was a sacred institution between a man and a woman, as evidenced by my vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. At that time, I further stated that I thought that Massachusetts would amend its State constitution, which was the basis for the Massachusetts decision, that the full faith and credit clause did not apply, and that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act trumped State court decisions. I added that if the States could not uphold the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, I would consider a U.S. constitutional amendment. That continues to be my position today. Both the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal marriage amendment seek to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Yet amending the Constitution raises a number of issues that were not raised by legislation. All of us in this body must pause and ask ourselves whether the problem before us necessitates this extra and most serious step. As a matter of traditional and sound constitutional doctrine, an amendment to the Constitution should be the last resort when all other measures have proved inadequate. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison warned ``against the extreme facility'' of constitutional amendment ``which would render the Constitution too mutable.'' In Federalist No. 49, Madison returned to this theme, noting that amendments to the Constitution should be reserved for ``certain great and extraordinary occasions.'' Madison's caution has been carefully followed throughout American history. To date, 11,212 resolutions to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress. Yet the Constitution has been amended only 27 times. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last March, Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School noted that all but two of these 27 amendments fall into two traditional categories. Most amendments to the Constitution have expanded individual rights. In this category fall the first 10 amendments--the Bill of Rights--as well as the post-Civil War amendments and the amendments extending the right to vote to women and lowering the voting age to 18. The rest of the amendments have remedied problems in the structure of government itself, such as clarifying the functioning of the Electoral College, establishing the popular election of Senators, creating the income tax, and placing term limits on our Presidents. To date, only two amendments have fallen outside of these two categories of expanding individual rights and fixing structural problems. The first such amendment was the eighteenth amendment, which prohibited the manufacture or sale of ``intoxicating liquors'' in America. The second amendment to fall outside of the two traditional categories was the twenty-first amendment, which repealed the eighteenth amendment and ended prohibition. As this history illustrates, when the Constitution is amended to incorporate the majority's position on the controversial issues of the day--and not to expand rights or fix a structural problem--the results do not withstand the test of time. We all must bear this in mind whenever we contemplate amending our Constitution. The Senate, after all, is intended to be the saucer that cools the tea, the necessary fence between the passions of the day and our Constitution and laws. We must pause where others would rush in. We are having this debate on the Federal marriage amendment today because on November 18, 2003, Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court decided in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same sex couples have the right to marry. In determining whether this court's recognition of same-sex marriage is one of the ``great and extraordinary occasions'' that warrants an amendment to our Constitution, we must at the outset consider whether there are other, lesser alternatives to deal with the issue. If lesser alternatives will work, then we clearly should not tinker with our Constitution. If, however, we cannot preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman by other means, then an amendment to the U.S. Constitution may very well be necessary. Before we even look to the Federal Government for a solution, we must first evaluate whether the States themselves have the power to stop same-sex marriages. The fact is that those States in which there have been same-sex marriages have already mobilized to stop them. The Massachusetts legislature has already passed an amendment to the Massachusetts State Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage. This amendment must be passed a second time in 2006, and then approved by the voters, before it is finally ratified. But few doubt the eventual outcome. Some may argue that waiting until 2006 to stop same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is simply too long. Yet it is clearly simpler, more direct, and faster to deal with this issue by amending one State constitution than by amending the U.S. Constitution. To enact an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, three-quarters of the States--38 States--must ratify the amendment after two-thirds passage by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The average time of ratification is approximately 2 years, with some amendments taking as long as 3 years until ratification. When a couple of cities outside of Massachusetts recently sought to recognize same-sex marriages, the State courts have moved in quickly and effectively to stop them. In February, 2004, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, permitted his city to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court issued an injunction ordering San Francisco to stop issuing these marriage licenses. Also in February, 2004, Jason West, the mayor of New Paltz, NY, conducted a number of same-sex marriages without licenses. The New York State Supreme Court issued an injunction ordering Mayor West to stop performing these ceremonies. The fact is that most States in the Union have already taken some action to prevent same-sex marriage. Even before the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, 38 States had passed laws similar to DOMA which define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and refuse to honor same-sex marriages from other States. Three States--Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada-- had ratified constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Since the Goodridge decision, 21 States have taken additional action to prohibit same-sex marriage, by strengthening prior prohibitions or enacting new ones: Seven State legislatures have adopted legislation that, if approved by the people in a referendum, would amend the State constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages; three State legislatures have adopted similar constitutional language which must be re-approved in a subsequent legislative session before being placed on the ballot; six States have citizen-initiated ballot measures to change the State constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage; and five States have adopted legislation that declares or reaffirms that same-sex marriages will not be honored in the State. Thus the States are moving effectively to preclude same-sex marriages. Even if a state fails to stop same-sex marriage, however, it is important to remember that there is a second line of defense: the remaining States of the Union would not have to recognize such marriages. In 1996, Congress enacted, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA. DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and specifically provides that: No State. . . shall be required to give effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any other State. . . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State. . . or a right or claim arising from such relationship. DOMA is good law. In fact, to date no significant challenge to the constitutionality of DOMA has been filed. No civil rights group or national advocate of same-sex marriage has sought to challenge this law in court. Those challenges that have been filed to date have been localized, individual efforts. It has been reported that a private practitioner in Florida has recently filed a case challenging the constitutionality of DOMA in the District Court in Miami. It has also been reported that DOMA has been challenged in connection with a case in bankruptcy court in Washington State where the defendant is representing herself. Thus DOMA appears poised to remain the law of the land. Even if DOMA were one day found to be unconstitutional, however, the full faith and credit clause would not obligate States to recognize out-of-State same- sex marriages. The full faith and credit clause applies to ``public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings.'' 28 USC 1738, which elaborates on the items to be accorded full faith and credit, specifies ``acts of the legislature,'' and ``the records and judicial proceedings of any court.'' Marriage is neither an act of the legislature nor a ``judicial proceeding.'' Traditionally, States have not been bound to recognize marriages if, a, they have a significant relationship with the people being married, and, b, the marriage at issue violates a strongly held public policy. For example, section 283 of the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws provides that a marriage will be valid everywhere so long as it is valid in the State where it was performed, ``unless it violates the strong public policy of another State which had the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage at the time of the marriage.'' On this basis, States have refused to recognize the marriage of a person who has recently divorced without an intervening waiting period when such marriage violates their public policy. Other States have refused to recognize marriages between certain types of relatives, even though they were legal in the State in which they were preformed. There is no Supreme Court ruling to the effect that the refusal to recognize marriages from other States on public policy grounds violates the full faith and credit clause. On this state of the record, it is premature to consider altering the Constitution, the most successful organic document in history which has preserved and enshrined the values of our Nation. If the States cannot preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, I would consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to inform the Senate family of the passing of Carey Anne Lackman Slease, my chief of staff, who passed this morning at 5:30 a.m. During the course of the day, my office staff and I have been deluged with expressions of sympathy showing the very high regard and high esteem that she was held in by our Senate family. She was afflicted with the terrible problem of breast cancer. She had a long, lingering illness. She received the very best of modern day medicine with the assistance of the National Institutes of Health. My deputy, Bettilou Taylor, who handles the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, has had extensive contact with the National Institutes of Health. When I saw Carey last night, less than 24 hours ago, she had expressed her gratitude for the kind of care which she had received. She said, in her own words, she had a good run and she was understanding and at peace with herself as she knew her imminent fate. She had left the hospital shortly after being married to her sweetheart, Clyde Slease, III, on Saturday. We have a beautiful set of wedding photographs, a clear remembrance of her from just a few days ago. And she came home, setting up a hospice, in effect, in her home. As I say, when I saw her yesterday, she was reconciled and at peace with herself, and considering the circumstances, as composed and as brave and as resolute as any human being could be. She said she was advised that it was a matter of a few days or a week or two. She was taken this morning, as I say, at 5:30. Her life was really the U.S. Senate. She graduated from Radford University. She was the oldest daughter of a retired colonel, William F. Lackman. She is survived by three sisters and three brothers--a large family of seven children--and her mother. She came to the Senate family at the age of 24, and she spent most of the remaining half of her life in the Senate, dying at the age of 48. She was a legislative assistant to Senator John Heinz from 1979 to 1985. She then founded her own firm in Los Angeles for a period of 6 years. She then came back to work for me in the early 1990s. Except for a very short stint, again, with her own firm in biotech in the public sector, she was on my staff, coming back to work for me some 2\1/2\ years ago in December 2001, when called to active duty. She did an extraordinary job for me. She was beautiful in many ways: a statuesque blonde, an amiable personality. She worked well with her colleagues. She worked well with the young staff. She was a mentor. She was very accomplished, brilliant, studious, analytical, and handled the substantive problems of the office with aplomb, dignity, and efficiency. She was one of the first women to be chief of staff in the U.S. Senate. She was acclaimed by PoliticsPA as one of Pennsylvania's most politically powerful women. She had an extraordinary career, regrettably cut short by her untimely passing at the age of 48. Funeral services will be held in Middleburg, VA, on Friday at 10 a.m., with a viewing tomorrow evening. She has made quite an impact in many realms of her professional pursuits, but really most of all in the U.S. Senate, where she had made so many friends and was held in such very high regard, really beloved by the Senate family. So it is a sad occasion for the entire Senate family, but most of all for her colleagues in my office and for me to note her passing at the very tender age of 48. Senator Santorum was in the chamber and wanted to speak but could not wait until the other speakers had concluded. I thank the Chair and, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I recognize an American patriot whose commitment and dedication to the cause of our veterans has been long established. From 1960 to 1964, Bob Shalala served on active duty in the United States Navy aboard the U.S.S. Galveston, the U.S.S. Wright and the U.S.S. Fred T. Berry. Before his active duty ended, he served as the aide to the Commanding Officer of a naval air squadron and was also selected to join the Navy's Blue Jacket Choir, which entertained audiences around the country. Returning to Pennsylvania, he started his illustrious 40-year career as a Philadelphia police officer and twice was selected as Police Officer of the Year. His remarkable career in the American Legion of Pennsylvania began with the Legion's Philadelphia Police Post. In the next 37 years, Bob gave new meaning to the word ``leadership'' as he served in every position from the Post level to District Commander to Sectional Commander to the top position--Department Commander. In between, he managed to chair a host of different committees and served as the Pennsylvania American Legion top membership recruiter for 2 years while placing second nationally in the Legion's membership effort. Not surprisingly, Bob Shalala's goal as Department Commander over the past year has been to improve and promote membership. The American Legion in the State of Pennsylvania is the largest in the country and the position of Department Commander is a formidable one. From peers and members comes that Bob accepted the challenge of leadership and has set a high standard for his successors to emulate. An excellent spokesman, Bob Shalala departs his position as Department Commander in July 2004 with the gratitude of the Department's 240,000 members for a job performed exceedingly well. As the mantle of leadership passes to a new Department Commander, I express my gratitude to Bob Shalala for serving Pennsylvania veterans with such alacrity and dedication. He has faced the churning sea and completed his mission. In nautical terms that Navy men will understand, I raise high the flag hoist signaling Bravo Zulu--well done.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I honor the many women who serve our veterans through their tireless efforts and membership in auxiliaries of such organizations as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion to name a few. These women, the wives, mothers, sisters and daughters of veterans give tirelessly of their time to provide needed assistance and funding to veterans and their families in the communities. In particular, I cite Ann Coneybeer--the outgoing President of the Pennsylvania American Legion Auxiliary. In July 2004, Ann will complete her tour of duty in this elected position. Ann had four brothers who served in World War II thus making her eligible for membership in the Legion. For the past 41 years she has been a very active member where she has served as Unit President, Western Vice President and Department Vice President. In between Ann held a number of chairmanships at the State level including Leadership, Americanism, Constitution and By-Laws, Finance, Membership, Parliamentarian, Poppy and Veterans Affairs & Rehab and Children and Youth. Serving as Chairman is often a thankless job, but Ann fulfilled these responsibilities with dedication, energy and persistence. As Ann Coneybeer departs office, I extend to her my thanks and the thanks of Pennsylvania veterans and their families for her many years of service, for her leadership and, most of all, for her belief in the cause of our Nation's veterans and our Nation's principles. She is truly a great American and it is a privilege that I honor her today.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I rise to honor James E. McMullen, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget and Strategic Planning of the Department of Labor on the occasion of his retirement. In his capacity as Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mr. McMullen was responsible for the Department's management and implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, GPRA, and provided senior departmental staff with recommendations, guidance, and assistance in making decisions and selecting appropriate alternatives to meet short- and long-range budget goals. Mr. McMullen was also responsible for the development of policies, systems, and procedures for the Department's budget of $60 billion, and was charged with planning, directing, and coordinating the formulation and presentation of the Department's budget submissions to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress. Mr. McMullen has served as Associate Deputy Secretary of Labor. In that position he assisted the Deputy Secretary in the Development of positions on major policy issues and provided policy guidance and program direction to Assistant Secretaries. Mr. McMullen previously served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. In that position, he was responsible for the day-to-day management of the Department's budget, human resources, information technology, administrative services, grant and contract policy, civil rights, and safety and health. Mr. McMullen served as the Department of Labor's Budget Director for several years. He joined the Department's Office of Budget in August 1980 and held several positions of increasing responsibility. Mr. McMullen came to the Department of Labor as a Presidential management intern. During his internship, he worked for the House Appropriations Committee and the Office of Management and Budget, as well as several locations within the Department. In April 2004 he received the Philip Arnow Award, which is the highest honor given to a career employee in the Department of Labor. In 1999 he received the Meritorious Executive Rank Award, and he has received special recognition from the William A. Jump Memorial Foundation for his outstanding achievements in public service. I have been either chairman or ranking member of the Labor-HHS- Education Appropriations Subcommittee since January 1989, working in partnership with Senator Tom Harkin. For all these years, Jim McMullen has been a fixture at our budget hearings, and has provided outstanding assistance to our committee. His will be hard shoes to fill, and he will be missed. We wish him well in his future endeavors, and thank him for his dedication to duty, hard work, and professionalism that set such a high standard for others to follow in public service.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after careful consideration, I am voting to confirm Mr. J. Leon Holmes for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. I am concerned about certain of his writings/statements where he said: ``. . . concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami . . .'', ``the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband'' and analogies of pro-choice advocates to Nazis and abortion to slavery. Mr. Holmes subsequently acknowledged ``using strident and harsh rhetoric'' on abortion and wrote to Senator Blanche Lincoln that ``I am a good bit older now and I hope more mature than I was at that time,'' blaming immaturity for his past harsh statements. After discussing these issues with Mr. Holmes and noting that they were written some time ago, in 1980 and 1997 respectively, I do not believe that they reflect a fixed state of mind demonstrating a pre- disposition on judicial issues to come before his Court. I am also mindful that, as a District Court Judge, his decisions will be subject to review by the Court of Appeals. There would be a substantially different consideration if he were a Circuit Court Judge where he could cast the decisive vote on a three-judge panel where it would be unlikely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court since certiorari is granted in such a small number of cases. Mr. Holmes has a very impressive academic record, graduating first in his law school class at the University of Arkansas, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Duke University and an M.A. degree from Northern Illinois University and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. In voting for confirmation of Mr. Holmes, I also noted that he has the support of both of his home State senators. In their floor statements, Senator Blanche Lincoln and Senator Mark Pryor noted that Mr. Holmes has broad support among pro-choice advocates from Arkansas, and both Senators concluded that he should be confirmed based on their knowledge of his legal skills, temperament and character and based on his reputation in their community among others who know him. In addition to their floor statements, I talked individually to Senators Lincoln and Pryor who amplified to me their solid support for Mr. Holmes. For these reasons, I am voting to confirm Mr. J. Leon Holmes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator. I would also point out that 3rd Infantry Division is the first division to transform to a new force structure the Army calls modularity and also is likely to be called upon to return to Iraq within the next year. It strikes me as ironic that the Army's premier armored unit lacks the combat punch and network capability of the rest of the Army's major armored forces. Finally, there is the issue of the tank industrial base. In the next few months, the last Abrams Upgrade tank will roll off the production line, representing the end of significant tank work in this country. In late 2006, the last M1A2 SEP Retrofit tank--a less complex upgrade--will be produced for the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Absent funding in FY 2005 for continued tank production, the U.S. tank industrial base will cease to exist. We ignore the implications of this action at our own peril. Mr. President, I urge the Chairman to consider the modernization of the 3rd Infantry Division with M1A2 SEP tanks. future tactical truck system

Mr. SPECTER. We have encouraged the Army to pure fleet its first-to- fight armored units with M1A2 SEP tanks primarily to ensure overwhelming lethality and survivability but also to reduce the logistics burden on our soldiers. However, it has come to my attention that the Army does not intend to pure fleet its armored forces with M1A2 SEP tanks. In fact, under the Army's current plan, the 3rd Infantry Division--which spearheaded Operation Iraqi Freedom--will continue to cope with M1A1 tanks that were produced 20 years ago. Is the Chairman aware of this fact?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Stevens for his leadership in ensuring the rapid modernization of our land combat forces both in the FY 2005 Defense Appropriations bill as well as the Contingent Emergency Reserve Fund. I would also like to take a moment to address the urgent need to fund continued modernization of the M1 Abrams main battle tank fleet. It is encouraging that this Committee has taken a leadership role in resourcing the modernization of the Army's armored forces with the M1A2 SEP tank, the most modern battle tank in the world. As proven in its deployment to Iraq, the M1A2 SEP is designed for decisive combat and net-centric warfare; indeed, it represents a revolution in armored warfare. Is the Chairman aware of the capabilities afforded by the M1A2 SEP tank?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to co-sponsor legislation to add the likeness of Sojourner Truth to the statue commemorating women's suffrage located in the rotunda of the United States Capitol. Sojourner Truth (1797?-1883) was the self-given name of a woman born into slavery. The year of her birth is uncertain, and is usually taken to be 1797. Originally Isabella Van Wagener, she escaped to Canada in 1827. After New York State had abolished slavery in 1829, she returned and worked as a domestic servant for over a decade, and joined Elijah Pierson in evangelical preaching on street-corners. Later in life she became a noted speaker for both the Abolitionist movement and the women's rights movement. Perhaps one of her most famous speeches was Ain't I A Woman, a short but pointed commentary delivered in 1851 at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio. During the American Civil War, she organized collection of supplies for the Union. In 1850, she worked with Olive Gilbert to produce a biography, the Narrative of Sojourner Truth. This was a truly amazing woman who endeavored in her time to change the American experience both for her fellow freed slaves as well as women of all races. A courageous woman, Truth not only spoke out against the racial oppression that she had endured throughout her childhood but acted on her beliefs, inspiring men and women of all races with her personal strength, wisdom, and social activism. Through her courage and perseverance, Sojourner Truth, her contemporaries, and future visionaries have led our nation and the world toward greater freedom and democracy for all. Three of these women--Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony--are already portrayed by the Portrait Monument, which was presented to Congress in 1920 in honor of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. Her recognition, as an African- American would be an appropriate, noteworthy addition to the statue. I am pleased to offer this legislation to finally honor Sojourner Truth in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol and encourage the retelling of her inspirational story to the American people. This is a long overdue effort and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to co-sponsor legislation to add the likeness of Sojourner Truth to the statue commemorating women's suffrage located in the rotunda of the United States Capitol. Sojourner Truth (1797?-1883) was the self-given name of a woman born into slavery. The year of her birth is uncertain, and is usually taken to be 1797. Originally Isabella Van Wagener, she escaped to Canada in 1827. After New York State had abolished slavery in 1829, she returned and worked as a domestic servant for over a decade, and joined Elijah Pierson in evangelical preaching on street-corners. Later in life she became a noted speaker for both the Abolitionist movement and the women's rights movement. Perhaps one of her most famous speeches was Ain't I A Woman, a short but pointed commentary delivered in 1851 at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio. During the American Civil War, she organized collection of supplies for the Union. In 1850, she worked with Olive Gilbert to produce a biography, the Narrative of Sojourner Truth. This was a truly amazing woman who endeavored in her time to change the American experience both for her fellow freed slaves as well as women of all races. A courageous woman, Truth not only spoke out against the racial oppression that she had endured throughout her childhood but acted on her beliefs, inspiring men and women of all races with her personal strength, wisdom, and social activism. Through her courage and perseverance, Sojourner Truth, her contemporaries, and future visionaries have led our nation and the world toward greater freedom and democracy for all. Three of these women--Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony--are already portrayed by the Portrait Monument, which was presented to Congress in 1920 in honor of the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. Her recognition, as an African- American would be an appropriate, noteworthy addition to the statue. I am pleased to offer this legislation to finally honor Sojourner Truth in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol and encourage the retelling of her inspirational story to the American people. This is a long overdue effort and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the first nomination is Juan Sanchez. He was born in Puerto Rico. He immigrated to the United States. This is a great Horatio Alger's success story. He was educated at City College of New York, bachelor's degree with cum laude. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He has been in the private practice of law and has performed community service in the Legal Aid Society for the last 5 years. He has been a common pleas judge in Chester County, PA. He brings outstanding credentials and is a product of the nominating panel organized by my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, and myself. I yield to my colleague.

Mr SPECTER

Mr SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 22, 2004, for a hearing to consider pending legislation. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, June 22, 2004 from 10 a.m.-12 p.m, in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 10 a.m. on ``Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View From The States'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List: Panel I: The Honorable Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts. Panel II: The Honorable Marilyn Musgrave, United States Representative [R-CO], Washington, DC; The Honorable Bob Barr, former United States Representative [R-GA], 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy, American Conservative Union, Smyrna, GA.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 22, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on Aviation Security.