Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have introduced today, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, S. 2485, a proposed bill to modify provisions of law relating to the administration of real property assets by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, VA. The Secretary of Veterans' Affairs submitted the elements of this proposed legislation to the President of the Senate by letters dated August 15, 2003, and October 3, 2003. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In this case, however, I have departed from my usual course of simply introducing administration-advanced measures as forwarded to me. Measures that the administration forwarded in August and October, 2003, relate to similar subject matter, namely the administration of VA-controlled real property assets. It is my belief that these provisions, inasmuch as they are related, might be considered in a more orderly fashion as parts of a single piece of legislation. To facilitate that, I have included sections 401-403 of the administration's August 15, 2003, request, and sections 5-6 of the administration's October 3, 2003, request, in the single bill which I have introduced today. As is always my policy with respect to any such ``by request'' legislation, I reserve the right to oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2484, a proposed bill to simplify and improve pay provisions for physicians and dentists, and to authorize alternate work schedules and executive pay for nurses. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this proposed legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated July 18, 2003. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In this case, I delayed introduction of this measure so that certain provisions of the proposed legislation, which proposes extensive changes in the physician pay policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), might be reviewed by the Committee's staff, and by potentially-interested parties, prior to its introduction. I am pleased to state that many constructive ideas have been expressed, and the Committee's staff, working with the VA, the National Association of VA Physicians and Dentists, the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Federation of Federal Employees, and other representatives of VA's labor force, have identified prospective modifications to the proposed bill's text which, all appear to agree, would represent improvements over the language of the legislation forwarded to the Senate in July 2003. Even so, the bill I introduce today is the bill which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs sent to the Committee in July 2003. I have introduced that bill so that the original ``by request'' legislation might be available to the Senate, and to the public, as part of the public record. As is always my policy with respect to any such ``by request'' legislation, I reserve the right to oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Indeed, as I have indicated, the Committee's staff, with the assistance of VA and other interested parties, is already working on modifications to the bill as proposed by the administration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and a section-by-section analysis which accompanied it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have introduced today, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, S. 2485, a proposed bill to modify provisions of law relating to the administration of real property assets by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, VA. The Secretary of Veterans' Affairs submitted the elements of this proposed legislation to the President of the Senate by letters dated August 15, 2003, and October 3, 2003. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In this case, however, I have departed from my usual course of simply introducing administration-advanced measures as forwarded to me. Measures that the administration forwarded in August and October, 2003, relate to similar subject matter, namely the administration of VA-controlled real property assets. It is my belief that these provisions, inasmuch as they are related, might be considered in a more orderly fashion as parts of a single piece of legislation. To facilitate that, I have included sections 401-403 of the administration's August 15, 2003, request, and sections 5-6 of the administration's October 3, 2003, request, in the single bill which I have introduced today. As is always my policy with respect to any such ``by request'' legislation, I reserve the right to oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation which I have introduced today which would, among other things, improve the education and housing benefits of our Nation's veterans. Education and housing benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, were the essence of one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the 20th Century, the 1944 GI Bill of Rights. Sixty years later, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 2004, which I introduce today, would build on that historic legacy. Section 101 of the bill would allow for significant increases in Montgomery GI Bill, MGIB, educational assistance benefits by expanding on ``buy up'' legislation which I authored in 1999 and which was enacted as part of Public Law 106-419. Under the provisions of the existing ``buy up'' program, active duty service members can increase their monthly MGIB ``pay-out'' by making voluntary in-service contributions of up to $600 in addition to the $1,200 aggregate contribution which is made to secure basic eligibility for MGIB benefits. In return for this added $600 ``investment,'' a veteran can secure an increase in his or her monthly MGIB benefit of $150 per month. Assuming the veteran completes a 36-month course of full-time study, the added benefit amount to $5,400, an effective yield of $9 for every added dollar contributed. The legislation which I have introduced today would expand the ``buy-up'' program by allowing service members to voluntarily contribute more--up to $2000--to the program, in return for which they could ``buy'' up to an additional $18,000--or $500 per month over 36 months--in potential MGIB benefits. A service member who contributes the full $2,000 could thus increase his or her aggregate MGIB entitlement to $53,460, the amount that the College Board, an association of over 4,000 colleges and other educational organizations, estimates is necessary today to finance the average cost of tuition, fees, books, room and board, transportation, and expenses for a resident student at a four-year public institution of higher learning. Section 102 of this bill would authorize VA to carry out a 4-year pilot program under which veterans could extend, for up to 2 years, their eligibility period to use MGIB education benefits. Current law states, in summary, that a veteran is entitled to 36 months of MGIB benefit, but only during a 10-year ``delimiting period'' beginning on the date of discharge from service. Section 102 of my bill would allow a veteran with a ``left-over'' entitlement to apply for a one-time extension of the delimiting period so that he or she might gain vocational or job readiness skills necessary to obtain or maintain employment. I believe that as the workforce evolves, so too must workers in order to stay competitive. Providing veterans with some flexibility in the use of a benefit they have earned--at a point in life beyond the ``delimiting period''--is a sensible approach to helping veterans obtain the skills they may need to stay competitive in a 21st Century workforce. Section 103 of this legislation would prohibit veterans' education benefits from being considered when determining a veteran's entitlement to Federal financial aid administered by the Department of Education. Under current law, such benefits are already excluded from eligibility calculations in determining eligibility for some forms of assistance granted by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, e.g., Pell grants and subsidized Stafford loans, but not for other forms of assistance, e.g., unsubsidized Stafford loans and campus-based aid. This legislation would rectify that anomaly by excluding veterans' education benefits from all such eligibility determinations. Section 104 of the bill would fix yet another anomaly of law applicable to Reservists who are called to active duty. Current law generally specifies that such Reservists are eligible for MGIB benefits if they have served a minimum of 2 consecutive years of active duty. Current law also requires that service members contribute $100 a month during their first 12 months of service to gain eligibility for MGIB benefits. Because the Department of Defense (DoD) activates Reservists for indefinite periods of time, it is impossible for a Reservist to know at the beginning of his or her activation period--when a decision has to be made on contributing the requisite $100 per month--whether he or she will, in fact, end up serving 2 consecutive years of active duty and, thus, whether he or she will become eligible for MGIB benefits. Due to that uncertainty, activated Reservists are, quite reasonably, hesitant to make the requisite contributions. The DoD and VA have worked around this problem; they permit Reservists who end up serving 2 consecutive years to pay the $1,200 contribution at some later point-- but the law does not explicitly authorize that allowance. This legislation would update the law to authorize these ``late'' contributions. Section 201 of this legislation would increase the maximum amount of the VA home loan guaranty from $60,000 to $83,425. A guaranty of $60,000 allows a veteran to purchase, without a down payment, a home with a value of four times that amount, or $240,000. In many areas of the country, the median cost of housing is over $300,000, effectively limiting the utility of this benefit. This legislation would raise the VA guaranty limit to make the effective amount of a VA loan equal to the so-called conforming loan rate in the non-VA secondary mortgage markets. Sections 202 and 203 of this bill would expand on legislation I authored in 2002 that added a pilot adjustable rate mortgage, ARM, feature to VA's loan guaranty program. Currently, the pilot program, which expires on September 30, 2005, allows VA to guarantee only so- called ``hybrid'' ARMs. Even then, restrictive adjustment caps have effectively limited the program to only one type of hybrid ARM financing. This bill would give VA permanent authority to guaranty a full range of ARM financing, to include traditional 1-year ARMs and hybrid ARMs with interest rates fixed for periods of 3, 5, 7, or 10 years, consistent with the ARM provisions of the National Housing Act. I believe the housing benefit for veterans should, at the very least, equal that of benefits available for non-veterans through the FHA program. Section 204 of this legislation resurrects legislation that was approved by the Senate during the 106th Congress, but which failed to pass the House. Current law mandates that VA collect a funding fee when veterans obtain a loan with a VA guaranty, but it also allows for a waiver of the funding fee if the veteran seeking housing assistance has suffered a service-connected disability. For the funding fee to be waived under current law, however, the veteran must already be receiving compensation, an event which can only occur after the service member has been discharged from service. Because VA has a presence at over 136 military discharge sites (where it conducts pre-discharge medical examinations), it is common for someone who is still in service to be adjudged disabled by VA. But because such a service member cannot yet receive veterans' compensation, VA cannot waive the funding fee even though an active-duty service can make use of his or her entitlement to a VA-guaranteed home loan while still in service. This legislation would rectify that situation by, prospectively, allowing VA to waive funding fees for active duty service members who are eligible to receive compensation as a result of a pre-discharge examinations, but who are not yet discharged from service. Section 301 of this legislation would rectify what I perceive to be an unintended oversight of the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998. That statute granted Federal job preferences to two classes of veterans--those who are ``preference eligible'' due to service during wartime or because of service-connected disability, and those who served on active duty for at least three years. The statute also authorized administrative and judicial redress but, by oversight, it limited such redress to the ``preference eligible'' class of veterans only. This legislation would extend current remedies to all veterans who are eligible for Federal job preferences. Section 311 of this legislation would prohibit the collection of co- payments from veterans receiving VA-provided hospice care. The requirement for co-payments for hospice care is, I think, unduly burdensome in cases where the end of life is near. The Bush administration concurs; it requested this exemption in its fiscal year 2005 budget proposal. I am glad to advance this provision on behalf of the President. Section 321 of this bill would extend three non-controversial statutory authorities that are now scheduled to expire. The first would extend, until 2009, the requirement that the VA's Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War submit a biennial report of its recommendations for improvements to benefits afforded to former prisoners of war. The second would make permanent VA authority to provide counseling and treatment services to veterans who have experienced sexual trauma while in service. The third would extend, until December 31, 2009, a reporting requirement imposed on VA's Special Medical Advisory Group. Finally, Section 331 of my legislation would update the definition of minority group members for purposes of the work of VA's Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. Mr. President, the principal thrust of this legislation is to improve and modernize aspects of VA education and housing programs which were first conceived 60 years ago. These improvements, and others contained in this bill, merit the support of the Senate. I request that support, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to provide a cost-of-living, COLA, adjustment for certain veterans' benefits programs. This COLA adjustment would affect payments made to nearly 3 million Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, beneficiaries, and would be reflected in beneficiary checks that are received in January 2005, and thereafter. An annual cost-of-living adjustment in veterans benefits is an important tool which protects veterans' cash-transfer benefits against the corrosive effects of inflation. The principal programs affected by the adjustment would be compensation paid to disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation, DIC, payments made to the surviving spouses, minor children and other dependants of persons who died in service, or who died after service as a result of service- connected injuries or diseases. The President's budget anticipates inflation to be at a 1.3-percent level at the close of this year as measured by the consumer price index, CPI, published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. If inflation is held to the 1.3-percent level, that will be the level of COLA adjustment under this legislation since it ties the increase directly to the CPI increase as measured by the Department of Labor. Whatever the CPI increase eventually turns out to be, however, veterans' and survivors' benefits payments must be protected by being increased by a like amount. The Senate has already concurred with that judgment with passage of a budget resolution which assumes an increase equal to the CPI, and which sets aside the funds necessary to finance the COLA increase envisioned by this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support this vital legislation. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to provide a cost-of-living, COLA, adjustment for certain veterans' benefits programs. This COLA adjustment would affect payments made to nearly 3 million Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, beneficiaries, and would be reflected in beneficiary checks that are received in January 2005, and thereafter. An annual cost-of-living adjustment in veterans benefits is an important tool which protects veterans' cash-transfer benefits against the corrosive effects of inflation. The principal programs affected by the adjustment would be compensation paid to disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation, DIC, payments made to the surviving spouses, minor children and other dependants of persons who died in service, or who died after service as a result of service- connected injuries or diseases. The President's budget anticipates inflation to be at a 1.3-percent level at the close of this year as measured by the consumer price index, CPI, published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. If inflation is held to the 1.3-percent level, that will be the level of COLA adjustment under this legislation since it ties the increase directly to the CPI increase as measured by the Department of Labor. Whatever the CPI increase eventually turns out to be, however, veterans' and survivors' benefits payments must be protected by being increased by a like amount. The Senate has already concurred with that judgment with passage of a budget resolution which assumes an increase equal to the CPI, and which sets aside the funds necessary to finance the COLA increase envisioned by this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support this vital legislation. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the nominee for confirmation to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Franklin Van Antwerpen, has a very distinguished academic record. He has been on the bench for 25 years, 12 years on the State court bench in Northampton County and 13 years on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleagues, the leaders, and the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for working out the impasse. He will be an excellent judge for the Third Circuit. I yield time to my distinguished colleagues.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his support and comments. I have considered and still am considering the possibility of a Senate resolution on this subject. We pass resolutions with some rapidity around here, and it may well be that most of the resolutions do not accomplish a whole lot. But it is time, in my judgment, that we spoke out on this issue. The Senator from New Mexico is exactly right. Saddam was captured in mid-December. Five months have passed, and it is time to proceed. Mr. President, 9/11 has occurred and thousands of Americans were killed in that brutal attack by flying hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and one probably was headed for the Capitol but went down in western Pennsylvania. While many of us are worried on a daily basis, the President receives a CIA briefing every morning, and there is great concern about homeland security. In the public mind, the threat recedes. Understandably, it is human nature to have a short attention span. But what is going on in Iraq today is enormously problemsome. The United States is taking it on the chin in world public opinion and especially in the Arab world. When you have the brutal assassination of Nicholas Berg--his head was cut off in public view-- and the Secretary of State has to remonstrate, criticize the Arab world for not condemning that act of brutality, and meanwhile we are subjected to all sorts of criticism--and the criticism on the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is well placed, it is justified. But we are acting on it, and we acknowledge the problems, the President has and the Secretary of State has--people forget why we are there. It is very painful to have the casualties and fatalities, but we are dealing with large stakes in establishing a democracy there. If Saddam's defalcations and crimes were put on the public record, people would understand why we are there and how important it is to change. When the Iraqi resistance comes up and the Iraqi terrorists come up, let them understand that when there is a change in sovereignty, that they are acting against their own people, a duly constituted Iraq Government which would bring Saddam to trial. We cannot bring him to trial. Nobody would trust a trial by the United States, as good and fair as our system is, and as just as we are with procedural due process. We ought to let it be known that it is our recommendation that the Iraqis will have to make the final decision. I would like to start consideration, which is why I have taken a few minutes of our time today, not that there is any rush on the Senate floor. The Senator from New Mexico and I are the only ones here. I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his support and comments. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss a matter which I have talked to executive officials about, and my colleagues in the Senate about, and that is to urge consideration for a prompt trial of Saddam Hussein. The judgment, I think, is correct to try Saddam Hussein in Iraq so the people of Iraq and the people of the world will have confidence in what happens at a trial. It has obviously been difficult to constitute a judicial tribunal to try Saddam Hussein. But now, as we are approaching June 30 and the prospect of the transfer of sovereignty-- and there is proceeding for an interim government and a constitution--I think the time has come to lay the groundwork for a trial of Saddam Hussein. I believe it would be very salutary to have on the public record the atrocities where Saddam has been charged: crimes against humanity; genocide; murder; torture; embezzlement; public corruption; conspiracy to murder Israelis by soliciting suicide bombers and paying their families once the suicide bombing was completed. There is no doubt the United States and the coalition of the willing--Great Britain and others who have supported the United States--have been subjected to a great deal of criticism in world public opinion, and especially in the Arab world. It is my thought that much of that criticism would be dissipated if there was presented in a public trial the evidence of Saddam Hussein's atrocities. We have had a great deal of speculation on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. Just yesterday, a casing was found which contained chemical substances, a question as to whether that weapon of mass destruction was in Saddam's hands immediately before the war began. We know with certainty that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in December of 1998 before he kicked out the United Nations. This may have been an old shell or it may have been a recent shell. The issue of weapons of mass destruction is still subject to speculation. Yet evidence may be established that Saddam did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction when the United States and Great Britain and the coalition of the willing moved against Saddam Hussein. Once the evidence is submitted of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, I believe the issue of weapons of mass destruction, while still important, will recede into the background. We have had the issue raised, and properly so, of the abusive treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Those investigations have to be pursued and the guilty have to be punished. We have seen the brutal assassination, murder and beheading of Nicholas Berg, and we have seen the Secretary of State Colin Powell roundly criticize the Arab world for not condemning that brutal assassination. I have had an opportunity recently to view a video which purports to be atrocities by Saddam Hussein on film, the ghastly, ghoulish beheading of a man purportedly in Saddam's custody. I say ``purportedly'' because I haven't seen the authentication of the tape as acts committed by Saddam's henchmen or Saddam's subordinates. But a trial would bring out the evidence as to what Saddam did on genocide. A trial would bring out the specifics of the use of weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, Saddam's own people. A trial would bring out the use by Saddam Hussein of chemical weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. I had occasion to talk to a man, an Iranian who recounted an incident where he was the victim of a chemical attack by Iraqi forces under the control of Saddam Hussein. A trial of Saddam Hussein would disclose the specifics on the torture he committed and the embezzlement and secreting of vast wealth which belonged to Iraq, deposited in foreign accounts, great sums of cash which were found by U.S. forces when Iraq was invaded. It would be my hope that plans would be made now for the prosecution of Saddam. A prosecution will take some time to prepare. We couldn't proceed to have a trial realistically before June 30. But if we set in motion now the works to establish a court, security would be a matter of considerable concern. Judges have to be designated. Prosecutors have to be designated. There would be the opportunity for defense counsel. There has been some speculation as to some counsel already having been designated or in the process of being designated. But this would be something that ought to be accomplished at a very early date. I have had some experience in the criminal process. From the experience I have had, it would not be all that complicated, once you have the provisional government established, a court, give it criminal jurisdiction, which it could be granted under the appropriate Iraqi procedures, and the designation of the trial judge or the designation of prosecutors, to move on with the trial. I think once the details of Saddam's brutality are put on the public record, it would have a very profound effect on world public opinion, including Arab public opinion. I think it would put in an understandable light the action by the United States in toppling Saddam Hussein in the interest of stability in the Mideast and in the interest of bringing a violent perpetrator to justice. There is no doubt that it is very painful to see the casualties and fatalities of our service men and women in Iraq, the brutal assassination yesterday of the Iraqi leader, but I submit that if we are able to succeed with establishing a democracy in Iraq, it will be a historic achievement. It will put great pressure on Iran, where there is an interest in developing nuclear weapons, which is a separate subject that we have to move against on the international front with the United Nations. Hopefully when the G-8 meets in the near future, they will take action to impose international safeguards, standards, and inspections to be sure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. It will put a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop the tyranny on the Saudis and the terrible degradation of Arab women throughout the entire region, lend security to the Mideast. It would be very helpful to security for Israel, and that is a lofty goal worth our very resolute efforts. But in the interim, I would like to see consideration started and a debate progress and thought given to the trial of Saddam Hussein, which would be very helpful to reinforce the position of the United States and influence world public opinion, especially the Arab world, of the justification for U.S. military action to bring down Saddam Hussein.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. In the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. I have also sought recognition to comment about the status of pending asbestos legislation under S. 2290, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. The Judiciary Committee passed out of committee a bill in July of last year, largely along party lines, which I supported because I thought it important to move the legislation forward even though I had grave reservations about the quality of the bill. There was no doubt that there was an urgent need for Federal legislation on this subject because some 70 corporations have gone bankrupt, thousands of individuals who have been exposed to asbestos have deadly diseases, mesothelioma and other ailments, and were not being compensated because their employers, potential defendants, were bankrupt. I enlisted the aid--he is still a very young man, although a senior judge--of the former chief judge for the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Edward Becker, who is now a senior judge, having taken that status in May of last year, and I asked him to assist in trying to resolve many of the problems in the asbestos issue. For 2 days in August of last year he and I met in his chambers with representatives of the manufacturers, the insurers, the reinsurers, the AFL-CIO, and the trial lawyers, trying to work through many of the problems. On many intervening days since last August, he and I have met with those parties in my conference room, trying to work out many of the complex issues. These efforts were recognized by the majority leader, Senator Frist, and the leader of the Democrats, Senator Daschle, who asked Judge Becker to take on formal status as a mediator. He has spent many hours, many days working under the auspices of the leaders. Right now, the efforts to find a legislative solution have been held in abeyance because of the differences between the manufacturers, insurers, and reinsurers on one side, and the stakeholders, representing the injured parties, the AFL-CIO, and the trial lawyers, on the other, as to what the amount of the trust fund ought to be. The concept of a trust fund is an outstanding idea. Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, deserves great credit for moving the legislation in the direction of a trust fund with a schedule of payments analogous to workmen's compensation so the cases would not have to go through the litigation process. But a fund would be established to pay them once their damages were determined; credit also to Senator Leahy, the ranking member, and credit also to members of the Judiciary Committee and the leadership, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, and many others. I asked Judge Becker to submit a memorandum summarizing where the issue stood, which at an appropriate time I will ask to have printed in the Record. Judge Becker's memorandum notes: . . . the achievements on an administrative structure for processing claims, and on provisions for judicial review. And, further: . . . other significant matters such as the definition of exigent claims, timing of payments, and . . . some consensus on certain concepts such as the anatomy of the ``start up''. . . . There was: . . . a much clearer understanding [as a result of these mediation efforts] on the troublesome issue of projecting disease incidence . . . and claim filings over the next [many] years. Judge Becker noted that: . . . there are still some loose ends to be tied down, especially on the issue of distribution of non-cancer asbestos claimants with increasing degrees of lung impairment claims . . . And noted further: . . . a significant breakthrough on the related issue of partial ``sunset''. . . . And then itemized some of the issues which have yet to be resolved: Treatment of pending claims and bankruptcies; subrogation of workers compensation payments; and the venue of any revision to the tort system as a vehicle for ``sunset''. . . . As noted, these mediation efforts have achieved a great deal. Much of the controversy has been resolved and many of the other issues, although not resolved, have seen very substantial progress. There is a considerable difference, as noted, as to what the fund ought to be with the insurers, reinsurers, and manufacturers on one side and the injured workers represented by the AFL-CIO and the trial lawyers on the other side. Judge Becker notes in his memorandum he is duty-bound not to make a disclosure as where the parties stand, but also noted there have already been disclosures by the parties. So it is not really a secret matter. But I will respect the confidentiality the leaders asked for, and not talk about that. I think maybe a certain hiatus in the negotiations would be appropriate. Judge Becker concluded his intensive 6 days of mediation last week. I have been talking to the parties on both sides and it is my hope to reconvene the mediation process. If the matter goes back to committee, it will not have the input from all of the stakeholders which is so important and so vital in understanding all the issues and trying to come to agreement. The parties may be motivated by reconstituting negotiations because of their desire to find a way to have agreement as opposed to having the Senate impose decisions that are not agreed to by the parties. I think it would be unfortunate if the Senate imposed the judgment as to where we stand on these complex issues because I think they require a lot more detail and a lot more study than the Judiciary Committee can give them. It is a much better forum to have the parties continue to work. As to the amount of money, it is my hope there will be flexibility on all sides. We ought not to consider this as a matter for extracting the last dollar one way or another because there are so many thousands of injured workers who have mesothelioma, which is deadly, who are not being compensated because their companies are bankrupt. There are some 70 companies in bankruptcy. It would be an enormous help to the economy if there could be a resolution of this very troublesome problem. I ask unanimous consent the full text of Judge Becker's memorandum to me, dated May 11, be printed in the Record following my comments.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on two subjects this afternoon. First, this is the 50-year anniversary of the historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education where the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that separate but equal education facilities violated the U.S. Constitution and ordered the integration of schools in the United States. That is historic because for the first time it gave real meaning to equality and the equal protection of the law clause of the 14th amendment. Prior to Brown v. Board of Education, segregation had been the rule of the day. The 14th amendment, incorporating the equal protection clause and due process of law, was enacted in 1868. At that time, the galleries of the Senate were segregated, and the manager of the 14th amendment in the House of Representatives, in commenting about what equal protection meant, did not mean that the races would share accommodations together. Then in the celebrated case of Plessy v. Ferguson decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1896, an 8-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the equal protection clause was satisfied if the facilities were equal even though they were separate. That remained the law of the land for the next 58 years until 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education. The decisions in this field are the best examples of the vitality of the U.S. Constitution and the way the Constitution reflects the fundamental values of a society, which have changed in the course of time. Justice Cardoza, in the celebrated case of Palko v. Connecticut, articulated the changing constitutional doctrine when he talked about the fundamental values of our society. There are still some who contend that original intent is the only way to interpret the U.S. Constitution. In the first place, it is very hard to divine what the intent was of the Founding Fathers in 1787 when the Constitution was signed, even more difficult to figure out the intent of the ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution; and then when there is the equal protection clause, there is no doubt that the intent of those who spoke to equal protection was not to have integration. When the fundamental values of our society changed in the intervening years, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that and interpreted the Constitution and equality and equal protection in a very different way. When I was in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, I saw firsthand the changing values that led to new and different constitutional doctrines. The case of Mapp v. Ohio decided in 1961 started a cavalcade or an avalanche of Supreme Court decisions which changed the constitutional law of defendants' rights. In Wolf v. Colorado in 1949, the Supreme Court of the United States said that the due process clause of the 14th amendment did not incorporate the fourth amendment prohibition against search and seizure. Back in 1916, in Weeks v. The United States, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure could not be introduced in a criminal prosecution. But that was not applicable to the States until the U.S. Supreme Court broadened what due process meant and said the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure was a fundamental value in our society and it applied to State prosecutions as well. I recall one case that came up in the Philadelphia criminal court not long thereafter where the defense advanced the concept of unreasonable search and seizure and cited Mapp v. Ohio, and the Philadelphia judge said, well, that is a Ohio case, and disregarded the constitutional law. He later found out that Ohio cases were binding in Pennsylvania when they are decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mapp v. Ohio was then followed by a case involving a right to counsel, and it was decided that there was a constitutional right to counsel. Justice Black said that anyone who was hauled into court had a right to counsel in a State prosecution. Then the Escobedo v. Illinois case in 1964 concluded that a defendant was entitled to certain warnings, and Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 expanded that doctrine. In my tenure in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office I saw firsthand on an ongoing basis the prosecutor's job being made more complicated, but understandably so, and in the long trail of history, decisions which improved the quality of our civilization so that due process of law had broader concepts. The principal case in the field continues to be Brown v. Board of Education, and it is time to reminisce a bit, time to focus. There is still a great deal more to be done on equality in our society. If we take a look at the statistics of earnings of African Americans versus Caucasians--way down. If we take a look at the earning opportunities for women, the glass ceiling still prevails. There is decided improvement in the Senate. When I was elected, only Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas had been in this Chamber as a woman, and Senator Paula Hawkins was elected in 1980 as the second woman. Now the number is 14 and growing. The Senate is a better place for the additional women whom we have. At the top of the list is the distinguished Presiding Officer--or near the top of the list, or tied for the top of the list; I do not want to get into too many comparisons--the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Santorum, in expressing sympathy for the parents and family of Mr. Nick Berg, who was the victim of a brutal assassination. Actually, it was a decapitation. It is hard to express the shock of this kind of barbaric conduct. It is subhuman what they did--taking a video of this man, who identifies himself, identifies his mother, his father, his siblings, and then, in view of the video, they decapitate him, with the anguish of a man being brutally murdered. It is just subhuman conduct. We ought to put on notice these murderers, assassins, that whatever it takes, the civilized world will bring them to justice. The news reports are that they were wearing masks and hoods to conceal their identities. I have seen investigations succeed even where people were wearing masks and hoods. They will talk about it, or someone will talk about it. In a cruel, barbaric world, this conduct descends to new levels. This incident will unleash as intensive a manhunt as has ever been witnessed, with the United States leading the way--obviously, because it is an American citizen from a Philadelphia suburban town. We will be joined by all of the civilized world in bringing these malefactors, these perpetrators to justice. Just because they are wearing hoods, because their identities are disguised, doesn't mean they cannot be identified and apprehended. I know every last thing will be done to bring them to justice. And then, beyond the identification of these specific assassins, these specific terrorists will renew our determination, which is already at the 100-percent level, to bring the terrorists to justice. They already murdered thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001, and Iraq is a magnet for terrorists from all over the area. This underscores the necessity to confront the terrorists in Iraq. If we don't confront them there, we will be doing it again in the United States. This is an incident which will receive enormous attention to try to determine the perpetrators and to bring them to justice. There are some other matters which have been suggested as to Mr. Nick Berg's being in custody, one report taken into custody by the Iraqis and held by U.S. military personnel. I am advised a lawsuit was started, and then Mr. Berg was released. We are now making an effort to identify the attorneys in the matter to try to get some background before we talk to the parents and the relatives of the victim of this atrocious conduct. There is also a question of bringing back the remains of Mr. Berg. We shall do our best to facilitate that and to help the family. This atrocity is obviously going to receive widespread attention. In a cruel, brutal world, this descends to new depths. Again, our sympathy to the parents. We will pursue the matter to bring these specific perpetrators to justice and to bring the terrorists to justice, generally. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: Is it true that I have 10 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset I wish to put on the record my concerns about not being protected on time. Through my deputy, I had called the cloakroom to advise that I wanted to speak on the bill. I had intended to come to the floor and to ask some questions of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and the proponent from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg. I would have objected to a time agreement had I been notified, if I have to be on the floor to protect my rights at all times. My deputy asked for 10 minutes, which was not my instruction, but that is my problem. But then I didn't even have 10 minutes. When I came out I found there was time allotted, but to get 10 minutes I had to negotiate with Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley didn't want to give me time because I would end up with Senator Harkin, although I had intended to try to find out a little more about the two pending amendments. So I think we have to be a little more considerate about Senators who notify the cloakroom that they want time so their rights are protected so that every Senator does not have to sit here all day long. The Appropriations subcommittee which I chair, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, had a hearing this morning. This is a very complicated regulation. I had intended to try to have a colloquy with a number of Senators to find out a little more about what this regulation really means. On the face of it, as we had discussed at the hearing this morning, there is very little change between current regulation on administrative employees and the proposed final regulation. For example, the current regulation defines administrative employees as ``customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment.'' Compare that with the final regulation on administrative employees: ``Primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.'' So in both instances they are talking essentially about exercising judgment and exercising discretion and independent judgment. When we questioned the Department of Labor representative at the hearing this morning, there was very little added by the additional phrase ``with respect to matters of significance.'' That is so generalized as hardly to clarify anything to avoid litigation. In the context where the principal complaint for having a new regulation is to avoid litigation, it hardly changes or clarifies anything. A similar situation exists with the definition of professional employees where it is stated on the current regulation, professional employee is defined ``primary duty of performing work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study.'' Contrast that with the new proposed final regulation defining professional employees: ``Primary duty of performing work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized instruction.'' It is virtually identical, hardly going to clarify matters to eliminate litigation. Then on the proposed final regulation, defining customarily can mean the employee has attained the knowledge through ``a combination of work experience and intellectual instruction.'' The point is, the new proposed regulation adds virtually nothing to the regulation which is pending. It is true that it has been a long time since the regulation was amended. I subscribe to the generalized view that if we could make the regulation clearer to avoid litigation, that would be a very important objective. But in the course of an extended hearing this morning, where we heard from the representative of the Department of Labor and two witnesses who were for the final proposed regulation and two against, there is no indication that this new regulation is going to clarify anything at all. One of the issues raised this morning was how many workers would be affected. The sum and substance of the testimony in an exchange among the witnesses was that the 1.3 million workers who were supposed to have additional overtime is an inflated figure. I don't have time in the 10 minutes allotted to go into greater detail on that particular point. There has been added to the proposed regulation a new concept of a team leader which is not in existing law and would allow employers to deny overtime pay to workers who ``lead a team of other employees assigned to complete major projects,'' even if there is no direct supervisory responsibility. Now, in addition, this term ``team leader,'' I think, is going to provide additional complexity, so that a proposed final regulation here, instead of simplifying and directing and being an effective instrumentality to eliminate litigation, appears to me to be no advance over the current regulation, and when you come down to the injection of a new concept of team leader, it creates additional complications. To repeat--something I don't like to do--I hoped to have a discussion with the proponents of both measures to shed some light on it. This is a very important matter, regulating overtime pay, which deserves a lot more attention than it is getting on the floor of the Senate today. I wish my rights had been protected by the cloakroom, or I would have been here to object to a time agreement so I could have participated in drawing out some of these important issues to try to achieve a result based upon a fuller understanding of this proposed regulation. On the current state of the record, I am opposed to the proposed regulation. I think the amendment offered by Senator Gregg is a step in the right direction. I intend to support the Harkin amendment. I thank the managers of the bill for scraping together a full 10 minutes for me. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe I have been yielded 5 minutes by the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the issue of asbestos, the legislation which is about to be called to the Senate floor, offered by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Utah. The Judiciary Committee reported out a prior bill in July of last year, and it was supported largely along party-line votes. One Democrat joined in the vote to send it out of committee, and I supported the vote to send the bill to the floor, having stated a number of concerns I had on specific provisions. In August, during the August recess, I enlisted the aid of the former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Edward R. Becker, who had taken senior status preceding May 5. For 2 days, in Judge Becker's chambers, he and I met with representatives of the manufacturers, the insurers, the reinsurers, the AFL/CIO, and the trial lawyers, starting to go through a wide range of issues. Since that time, we have met on 18 occasions in my office here in the Hart Building, virtually every week, with those representatives, and they had meetings in between. During the course of our extensive discussions, we have come to significant agreements on streamlining the administrative process, early startup, defining the exigent health claims, moving through the language on judicial review, and dealing with the issue of medical monitoring. A good number of those provisions were inserted in a new bill introduced by Senator Hatch and Senator Frist on April 7. The majority leader has listed the asbestos bill on a number of occasions, and each time has deferred it pending the negotiations which have been in process and I think are making good progress. I have attended all of these meetings. They have lasted, most of them, for several hours supplementing the 2 days in Judge Becker's chambers, which were both all-day events. All the parties have been very, very cooperative. The manufacturers have talked to the AFL/CIO. In between, meetings have been had with the AFL/CIO. The trial lawyers have been cooperative. There is no doubt that some among the trial lawyers may feel they have some contrary interests. I think there has been an overall view--clearly by the trial lawyers and the AFL-CIO-- that there are many injured people who have suffered from mesothelioma, which is a deadly ailment, who are not being compensated because their companies were bankrupt. In excess of 70 companies have gone bankrupt. There are hundreds of thousands of claims and there are numerous parties who have been named as defendants. The specific statistics are that the number of claims is now over 600,000. There are 8,500 companies which have been named as defendants. As I say, more than 70 companies have been bankrupt. The courts have held that someone is entitled to compensation for exposure to asbestos even though the injuries are not yet demonstrable; that even though the injuries are speculative, a jury may return a verdict based on what injuries may be sustained. That decision was made by the Supreme Court of the United States. That stands at the same time the people who have mesothelioma, which is a deadly disease, are not compensated. So it is a very serious matter on all ends: On the end of the claimants who are not being compensated because the companies are bankrupt; on the end of companies which have gone bankrupt spending a lot of money on litigation. When a request is made, when legislation is structured to give up the right to jury trial, that is a very serious matter with our common law tradition for right to trial by jury, a right which is specified in the seventh amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right to jury trial in a civil case. We are dealing with very weighty matters. We have established a scale of compensation, a schedule which is patterned along the lines of workers' compensation, but there are very weighty matters to be considered. It is my thinking that a cloture vote this week would be counterproductive. I understand the thinking to the contrary, that a cloture vote may put some pressure on the parties to move forward. There are many on both sides of the aisle who want a bill. I see the distinguished junior Senator from Delaware having risen. He probably wants to make some comments but is waiting patiently, or impatiently, but at least waiting. Senator Daschle has been a participant. His people have been in these discussions. Senator Leahy, of course, the ranking Democrat, has been an active participant, and Senator Dodd has been. Senator Carper keeps calling over the weekend, concerned about these matters. Senator Hatch has been a leader, having constructed the idea of the trust fund and having gotten $104 billion in it initially. That figure may be up to $114 billion. Senator Hatch commented about the legislation reported out, if I am incorrect--Senator Hatch is in the Chamber and can correct me--at $139 billion. So there are a lot of people who want a bill. Some of the thinking is if there is a cloture vote it will put people on record, people whose constituencies would like to see a bill, who may not want to vote against cloture, so there may be that pressure. My own view is progress has been made. I can represent emphatically that these are very complex issues. Judge Becker was the judge who wrote the opinion on the class action case brought on asbestos several years ago. His opinion was upheld by the Supreme Court. He is very knowledgeable in the field. He happens to be the winner of the outstanding jurist award among Federal judges, about 1,000 judges. He really knows the field. I have had substantial experience in litigation and legislation and have examined these complex issues and say emphatically that there has been no dawdling. Progress has been made on the complex issues, as much as could be made, at the meetings presided over by Judge Becker and myself and meetings in between time. So my view is a cloture vote is premature. Earlier today the majority leader in the Senate talked to Senator Daschle and raised the possibility about a delay but not committed to a delay. His inclination, fairly stated, is to go ahead with a cloture vote unless there can be some good reason there will be a way to expedite negotiations. Judge Becker has some commitments this week which he cannot break, but he is available part of the week and is available all of next week. I have a commitment next Tuesday that I have to work toward. It is called a primary election. I am only in town today, breaking my campaign schedule, which is very important. I have a tough fight on my hands--it is well within my pay grade--a tough fight. But I met earlier today with the parties to the asbestos matter, attended a leadership meeting, and spoke with Senator Hatch earlier today. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 8, 2004 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on Anti-Semitism.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 8, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to review the National Park Service Concessions Program, including implementation of the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 8, 2004, at 11 a.m., in SR-253, for a hearing to consider pending committee business.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 8, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''