Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since Medicare was established in 1965, people are living longer and living better. Today Medicare covers more than 40 million Americans, including 35 million over the age of 65 and nearly 6 million younger adults with permanent disabilities. Congress now has the opportunity to modernize this important Federal entity to create a 21st century Medicare Program that offers comprehensive coverage for pharmaceutical drugs and improves the Medicare delivery system. The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act would make available a voluntary Medicare prescription plan for all seniors. If enacted, Medicare beneficiaries would have access to a discount card for prescription drug purchases starting in 2004. Projected savings from cards for consumers would range between 10 to 25 percent. A $600 subsidy would be applied to the card, offering additional assistance for low-income beneficiaries defined as 160 percent or below the Federal poverty level. Effective January 1, 2006, a new optional Medicare prescription drug benefit would be established under Medicare Part D. This bill has the potential to make a dramatic difference for millions of Americans living with lower incomes and chronic health care needs. Low-income Medicare beneficiaries, who make up 44 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries, would be provided with prescription drug coverage with minimal out-of-pocket costs. In Pennsylvania, this benefit would be further enhanced by including the Prescription Assistance Contract for the Elderly, PACE, program which will work in coordination with Medicare to provide increased cost savings for low- income beneficiaries. For Medical services, Medicare beneficiaries will have the freedom to remain in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, or enroll in a Health Maintenance Organization, HMO, or a Preferred Provider Organization, PPO, also called Medicare Advantage, These programs offer beneficiaries a wide choice of health care providers, while also coordinating health care effectively, especially for those with multiple chronic conditions. Medicare Advantage health plans would be required to offer at least the standard drug benefit, available through traditional fee- for-service Medicare. We already know that there are many criticisms directed to this bill at various levels. Many would like to see the prescription drug program cover all of the costs without deductibles and without co-pays. There has been allocated in our budget plan $400 billion for prescription drug coverage. That is, obviously, a very substantial sum of money. There are a variety of formulas which could be worked out to utilize this funding. The current plan, depending upon levels of income has several levels of coverage from a deductible to almost full coverage under a catastrophic illness. One area of concern is the so-called ``donut hole'' which requires a recipient to pay the entire cost of drug coverage. As I have reviewed these projections and analyses, it is hard to say where the line ought to be drawn. It is a value judgment as to what deductibles and what the co-pays ought to be and for whom. Though I am seriously troubled by the so-called donut hole, it is calculated to encourage people to take the medical care they really need, and be affordable for those with lower levels of income. Then, when the costs move into the catastrophic illness range, the plan would pay for nearly all of the medical costs. I am pleased that this bill contains a number of improvements for the providers of health care to Medicare beneficiaries. Physicians who are scheduled to receive cuts in 2004 and 2005 will receive a 1.5 percent increase over that time. Moreover, rural health care providers will receive much needed increases in Medicare reimbursement through raises to disproportionate share hospitals and standardized amounts, and a decrease in the labor share in the Medicare reimbursement formula. Hospitals across Pennsylvania will benefit from upgrades to the hospital market basket update and increase in the indirect medical education. Furthermore, the bill will provide $900 million for hospitals in metropolitan statistical areas with high labor costs due to their close proximity to urban areas that provide a disproportionately high wage. These hospitals may apply for wage index reclassification for three years staring in 2004. I would not that I do have concerns with this legislation with regard to oncological Medicare reimbursement and the premium support demonstration project for Medicare Part B coverage. Proposed reductions in the average wholesale price for oncological pharmaceuticals may have a grave effect on oncologists' ability to provide cancer care to Medicare Beneficiaries. Every Medicare beneficiary suffering from cancer should have access to oncologists that they desperately need. I will pay close attention to the effects that this provision has on the quality and availability of cancer care for beneficiaries and oncologists' ability to provide that care. Further, the premium support demonstration project for Medicare Part B premiums poses a concern. Some metropolitan areas may face up to a five percent higher premium for fee-for-service care than neighboring areas. While these provisions remain troublesome, we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good with this piece of legislation. The Medicare Prescription Drug legislation has been worked on for many years. I believe this bill will provide a significant improvement to the vital health care seniors so urgently need. I congratulate the members of the conference committee including majority leader Frist, Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Finance Committee, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for the outstanding work which they have done on an extraordinarily complex bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with respect to the omnibus appropriations bill, the Senator from Missouri is correct that we ought to complete it. He has pointed out the importance of having the increases for veterans. I would add to that the importance of increases in the appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, where I chair the subcommittee. I would like to comment briefly on two points in the appropriations bill for my subcommittee. One of them involves the issue of overtime pay. The Senate passed, by a decisive majority, 54 to 45, a prohibition on any expenditures to implement the regulation on overtime which would cut out overtime for many Americans who really need that compensation, especially in light of the fragility of the economy at the present time. In the House of Representatives, the regulations stood by three votes. Then on a later vote in the House of Representatives, by 18 votes, the House directed the conferees to strike the regulation, not to fund it until September 30, 2004. When the omnibus was in the final stages of preparation last week, it was apparent to me that any course of action would leave the regulation in effect. If Senator Harkin and I had insisted on keeping in the Senate amendment striking funding for the regulation, then our appropriations bill was scheduled to be taken out of the omnibus and our three Departments, Health, Education, and Labor, would be funded on a continuing resolution and the regulation would remain in effect. If we agreed to remove the amendment striking the funding, then of course the regulation would go into effect. So either way, the regulation was going to go into effect. By having our bill included in the omnibus, we had $4 billion more for vital programs in NIH, for Head Start, for education, Leave No Child Behind, and workers' safety. So in effect we did not have a Hobson's choice, we had no choice at all. Either way we went, the regulation would remain in effect. If we agreed to take it out so we would be included in the omnibus, then the prohibition against funding would fall. If we were taken out and made a part of the continuing resolution, then the regulation would stay in effect. It is my hope, when this matter goes forward, the vote in the Senate will remain and the provision remains in the Senate bill to strike the funding for the regulation. So that battle is not over. We intend to continue to fight it right down to the wire, until the omnibus appropriations bill is adopted. One other point, and I will be brief. I know my other colleagues are waiting to speak. One other point, and that involves the House language to prohibit funding for patents for human tissue. That provision in the appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State is going to cause enormous uncertainty. It is very expensive, and a very long process, to have a patent. There will be many people, who will be interested in proceeding with patents, who will not understand the ramifications of the language on human tissue. I am against human cloning. I made that point emphatically clear in our conference, where I offered an amendment, a motion to strike the House language, which passed on the Senate side 18 to 8, but the House refused to agree. So the language remained in the bill. But I believe the scientific community in America is going to march on the Congress to stop the meddling with scientific research with vague prohibitions which can only lead to grave difficulties and which impede medical science. One concluding thought. I thank those on the other side of the aisle who, as I understand it, have removed the holds on all of the pending nominees. Just a word in support of Pennsylvania Attorney General Michael Fisher, who is up for confirmation for the Third Circuit. I have known Attorney General Fisher for the better part of three decades. He has an extraordinary record in the Pennsylvania Legislature and as the State attorney general and as candidate for Governor. I ask unanimous consent that a full statement of his resume be printed in the Record at the conclusion of these remarks.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wireless Consumer Privacy Protection Act. As every Senator is aware, consumers today rely on their wireless telephones as a vital and important means of communication. Wireless telephones enable families to stay connected, permit commerce to be conducted anywhere at any time, and provide a vital link in the event of an emergency. Some people have even abandoned traditional telephones and now use their wireless phones as their primary phone service. In fact, just this month, the Federal Communications Commission began requiring number portability for wireless phones so that consumers, if they wish, can make their wireless phone their only phone. The wireless industry is on the verge of introducing a ``wireless white pages'' service, and though this step could have positive benefits, it raises concerns about how consumers' expectation of privacy will be protected. The legislation I am introducing today along with Senator Boxer ensures that consumers expectations will be preserved. An important reason that Americans increasingly trust their cell phone service is that they have a great deal of privacy on their cell phone numbers. For more than 20 years of cellular service, consumers have become accustomed to not having their wireless phone numbers available to the public. The protection of wireless telephone number is important. For example, wireless customers are typically charged for incoming calls. Without protections for wireless numbers, subscribers could incur large bills, or use up their allotted minutes of use, simply by receiving calls they do not want--from telemarketers and others. Because consumers often take their cell phones with them everywhere, repeated unwanted calls are particularly disruptive, and may even present safety concerns for those behind the wheel. It may surprise my colleagues that today, no federal or state law or regulation prohibits a carrier from divulging your wireless telephone number. And with the industry poised to introduce wireless director assistance services, it is important for Congress to act now to preserve the expectation of privacy that consumers have in their wireless phone numbers. Because wireless directory assistance offer great benefits as well as posing significant privacy concerns, the legislation I am introducing today strikes an important balance. It enables those consumers who want to be reached to be accessible, while providing privacy protections that are important to consumers. First, this legislation permits wireless subscribers to choose not to be listed in wireless directory assistance databases. This feature gives consumers the ultimate ability to keep their numbers entirely private. Second, for those in the directory assistance database, the bill requires wireless providers to use systems that give users privacy protections and control over the use of their wireless numbers. These services must not divulge a subscriber's wireless number (unless the subscriber consents to disclosure), the service must provide identifying information to the wireless subscriber so that the subscriber knows who is calling through the forwarding service, and the service must give a subscriber the option of rejecting or accepting each incoming call. Finally, this legislation prohibits wireless carriers from charging any special fees to consumers who wish to receive the privacy protections provided by the bill. Customers should not have to pay extra for the privacy protections that they have come to expect. There should be no ``privacy tax'' for consumers to continue the privacy protection they have long enjoyed, and this bill ensures that will be the case. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wireless Consumer Privacy Protection Act. As every Senator is aware, consumers today rely on their wireless telephones as a vital and important means of communication. Wireless telephones enable families to stay connected, permit commerce to be conducted anywhere at any time, and provide a vital link in the event of an emergency. Some people have even abandoned traditional telephones and now use their wireless phones as their primary phone service. In fact, just this month, the Federal Communications Commission began requiring number portability for wireless phones so that consumers, if they wish, can make their wireless phone their only phone. The wireless industry is on the verge of introducing a ``wireless white pages'' service, and though this step could have positive benefits, it raises concerns about how consumers' expectation of privacy will be protected. The legislation I am introducing today along with Senator Boxer ensures that consumers expectations will be preserved. An important reason that Americans increasingly trust their cell phone service is that they have a great deal of privacy on their cell phone numbers. For more than 20 years of cellular service, consumers have become accustomed to not having their wireless phone numbers available to the public. The protection of wireless telephone number is important. For example, wireless customers are typically charged for incoming calls. Without protections for wireless numbers, subscribers could incur large bills, or use up their allotted minutes of use, simply by receiving calls they do not want--from telemarketers and others. Because consumers often take their cell phones with them everywhere, repeated unwanted calls are particularly disruptive, and may even present safety concerns for those behind the wheel. It may surprise my colleagues that today, no federal or state law or regulation prohibits a carrier from divulging your wireless telephone number. And with the industry poised to introduce wireless director assistance services, it is important for Congress to act now to preserve the expectation of privacy that consumers have in their wireless phone numbers. Because wireless directory assistance offer great benefits as well as posing significant privacy concerns, the legislation I am introducing today strikes an important balance. It enables those consumers who want to be reached to be accessible, while providing privacy protections that are important to consumers. First, this legislation permits wireless subscribers to choose not to be listed in wireless directory assistance databases. This feature gives consumers the ultimate ability to keep their numbers entirely private. Second, for those in the directory assistance database, the bill requires wireless providers to use systems that give users privacy protections and control over the use of their wireless numbers. These services must not divulge a subscriber's wireless number (unless the subscriber consents to disclosure), the service must provide identifying information to the wireless subscriber so that the subscriber knows who is calling through the forwarding service, and the service must give a subscriber the option of rejecting or accepting each incoming call. Finally, this legislation prohibits wireless carriers from charging any special fees to consumers who wish to receive the privacy protections provided by the bill. Customers should not have to pay extra for the privacy protections that they have come to expect. There should be no ``privacy tax'' for consumers to continue the privacy protection they have long enjoyed, and this bill ensures that will be the case. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since Medicare was established in 1965, people are living longer and living better. Today Medicare covers more than 40 million Americans, including 35 million over the age of 65 and nearly 6 million younger adults with permanent disabilities. Congress now has the opportunity to modernize this important Federal entity to create a 21st century Medicare Program that offers comprehensive coverage for pharmaceutical drugs and improves the Medicare delivery system. The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act would make available a voluntary Medicare prescription drug plan for all seniors. If enacted, Medicare beneficiaries would have access to a discount card for prescription drug purchases starting in 2004. Projected savings from cards for consumers would range between 10 to 25 percent. A $600 subsidy would be applied to the card, offering additional assistance for low-income beneficiaries defined as 160 percent or below the Federal poverty level. Effective January 1, 2006, a new optional Medicare prescription drug benefit would be established under Medicare Part D. This bill has the potential to make a dramatic difference for millions of Americans living with lower incomes and chronic health care needs. Low-income Medicare beneficiaries, who make up 44 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries, would be provided with prescription drug coverage with minimal out-of-pocket costs. In Pennsylvania, this benefit would be further enhanced by including the Prescription Assistance Contract for the Elderly (PACE) program which will work in coordination with Medicare to provide increased cost savings for low- income beneficiaries. For medical services, Medicare beneficiaries will have the freedom to remain in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, or enroll in a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) or a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO), also called Medicare Advantage. These programs offer beneficiaries a wide choice of health care providers, while also coordinating health care effectively, especially for those with multiple chronic conditions. Medicare Advantage health plans would be required to offer at least the standard drug benefit, available through traditional fee-for-service Medicare. We already know that there are many criticisms directed to this bill at various levels. Many would like to see the prescription drug program cover all of the costs without deductibles and without copays. There has been allocated in our budget plan $400 billion for prescription drug coverage. That is, obviously, a very substantial sum of money. There are a variety of formulas which could be worked out to utilize this funding. The current plan, depending upon levels of income has several levels of coverage from a deductible to almost full coverage under a ``catastrophic'' illness. One area of concern is the so-called ``donut hole'' which requires a recipient to pay the entire cost of rug coverage. As I have reviewed these projections and analyses, it is hard to say where the line ought to be drawn. It is a value judgment as to what deductibles and what the copays ought to be and for whom. Though I am seriously troubled by the so-called donut hole, it is calculated to encourage people to take the medical care they really need, and be affordable for those with lower levels of income. Then, when the costs move into the ``catastrophic'' illness range, the plan would pay for nearly all of the medical costs. I am pleased that this bill contains a number of improvements for the providers of health care to Medicare beneficiaries. Physicians who are scheduled to receive cuts in 2004 and 2005 will receive a 1.5 percent increase over that time. Moreover, rural health care providers will receive much needed increases in Medicare reimbursement through raises to disproportionate share hospitals and standardized amounts, and a decrease in the labor share in the Medicare reimbursement formula. Hospitals across Pennsylvania will benefit from upgrades to the hospital market basket update and increases in the Indirect Medical Education. Furthermore, the bill will provide $900 million for hospitals in metropolitan statistical areas with high labor costs due to their close proximity to urban areas that provide a disproportionately high wage. These hospitals may apply for wage index reclassification for three years starting in 2004. I would note that I do have concerns with this legislation with regard to oncological Medicare reimbursement and the premium support demonstration project for Medicare Part B coverage. Proposed reductions in the average wholesale price for oncological pharmaceuticals may have a grave effect on oncologists' ability to provide cancer care to Medicare Beneficiaries. Every Medicare beneficiary suffering from cancer should have access to oncologists that they desperately need. I will pay close attention to the effects that this provision has on the quality and availability of cancer care for beneficiaries and oncologists' ability to provide that care. Further, the premium support demonstration project for Medicare Part B premiums poses a concern. Some metropolitan areas may face up to a five percent higher premium for fee-for-service care than neighboring areas. While these provisions remain troublesome, we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good with this piece of legislation. The Medicare Prescription Drug legislation has been worked on for many years. I believe this bill will provide a significant improvement to the vital health care seniors so urgently need. I congratulate the members of the conference committee including Majority Leader Frist, Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Finance Committee, and the Ranking Member, Senator Baucus, for the outstanding work which they have done on an extraordinary complex bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to join my colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island to introduce the National Commission on Digestive Diseases Act. Each year, more than 62 million Americans are diagnosed with digestive diseases and disorders. These conditions, such as colorectal, liver and pancreatic cancers, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and chronic hepatitis C require patients to undergo rigorous courses of medical therapies and treatment. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I am acutely aware that while promising research developments have been made in these areas, the causes of many of these diseases are unknown and their incidence is on the rise. In 2001, the Lewin Group conducted a study of the economic burden to our society resulting from the direct and indirect costs associated with just 17 of the over several hundred digestive diseases. The results of this study revealed that the total costs associated with physician care, inpatient and outpatient hospital care as well as loss of work for patients with digestive disorders was $42 billion in the year 2000. It is clear from this study and the findings of digestive disease specialists around the country that these disorders represent enormous health and economic consequences for the nation. The National Commission on Digestive Diseases Act would address the burden of digestive diseases in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. This legislation would create a panel of scientists in the relevant disciplines, patient representatives, employers and other appropriate experts to conduct a comprehensive study on the current state of scientific and clinical knowledge in digestive diseases. The commission would then be charged with evaluating the resources necessary to expedite the discovery of treatments and cures for patients with these diseases and develop a 5-10 year long-range plan for effectively addressing these needs. In 1976, Congress created a Commission on Digestive Diseases Research which serves as the successful model for this new initiative. Following 18 months of deliberations, the 1970s commission created a long-range plan and recommendations that laid the groundwork for significant progress in the area of digestive diseases research. The state of scientific knowledge has changed substantially since the late 1970s, however, and the advent of genetics and genomics research, as well as the discovery of additional digestive diseases, compels us to look anew at the challenges that digestive diseases present to patients and those who care for them. It is my hope that this legislation will advance our understanding of the causes, effective treatments, possible prevention, and cures for digestive diseases. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to join my colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island to introduce the National Commission on Digestive Diseases Act. Each year, more than 62 million Americans are diagnosed with digestive diseases and disorders. These conditions, such as colorectal, liver and pancreatic cancers, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and chronic hepatitis C require patients to undergo rigorous courses of medical therapies and treatment. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I am acutely aware that while promising research developments have been made in these areas, the causes of many of these diseases are unknown and their incidence is on the rise. In 2001, the Lewin Group conducted a study of the economic burden to our society resulting from the direct and indirect costs associated with just 17 of the over several hundred digestive diseases. The results of this study revealed that the total costs associated with physician care, inpatient and outpatient hospital care as well as loss of work for patients with digestive disorders was $42 billion in the year 2000. It is clear from this study and the findings of digestive disease specialists around the country that these disorders represent enormous health and economic consequences for the nation. The National Commission on Digestive Diseases Act would address the burden of digestive diseases in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. This legislation would create a panel of scientists in the relevant disciplines, patient representatives, employers and other appropriate experts to conduct a comprehensive study on the current state of scientific and clinical knowledge in digestive diseases. The commission would then be charged with evaluating the resources necessary to expedite the discovery of treatments and cures for patients with these diseases and develop a 5-10 year long-range plan for effectively addressing these needs. In 1976, Congress created a Commission on Digestive Diseases Research which serves as the successful model for this new initiative. Following 18 months of deliberations, the 1970s commission created a long-range plan and recommendations that laid the groundwork for significant progress in the area of digestive diseases research. The state of scientific knowledge has changed substantially since the late 1970s, however, and the advent of genetics and genomics research, as well as the discovery of additional digestive diseases, compels us to look anew at the challenges that digestive diseases present to patients and those who care for them. It is my hope that this legislation will advance our understanding of the causes, effective treatments, possible prevention, and cures for digestive diseases. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition today to explain briefly the provisions of S. 1156, the proposed Veterans Health Care, Capital Asset, and Business Improvement Act of 2003, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, Senator Graham of Florida, and I propose be amended to incorporate provisions contained in S. 1156 as reported by the Committee on Veterans Affairs on November 10, 2003, and also to contain provisions derived from H.R. 1720, passed by the House on October 29, 2003, H.R. 2357, passed by the House on July 21, 2003, H.R. 2433, passed by the House on September 10, 2003, H.R. 3260, passed by the House on October 8, 2003, and H.R. 3387, passed by the House October 29, 2003. This bill, as so amended, incorporates agreements reached between the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I am privileged to chair, and our counterpart committee in the House of Representatives, on legislation relating to the provision of health care services by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I thank the Ranking Member, Senator Graham of Florida, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey and Representative Lane Evans of Illinois, for their advocacy for veterans and for their cooperation in resolving issues raised by the bills considered in our respective bodies. Inasmuch as S. 1156, as reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, itself incorporated provisions drawn from nine separate Senate bills, S. 1156 as presented to the Senate today is properly viewed as a bill that incorporates provisions from 14 separate pieces of legislation. A bill containing such a range of material would not have been knitted together, as this one has been, without a spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship from the other body. The Ranking Member, Senator Graham of Florida, and I appreciate the leadership of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. Since this is a lengthy bill--over 50 pages--I will not endeavor in this statement to explain in detail each and every provision. Rather, I will discuss the highlights briefly in this statement, and refer my colleagues to a Joint Explanatory Statement, which I ask be incorporated into the Record as if read, for a detailed explanation of the bill as amended. The starting point for S. 1156, as presented to the Senate today, was S. 1156, the proposed Veterans' Health Care Authorities Extension and Improvement Act of 2003. That bill was marked up by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on September 30, 2003, and reported on November 10, 2003. S. 1156, as reported, contained a number of elements; its key provisions would have extended mandates that VA provide nursing home care and outpatient-based long term care services to our senior veterans; improved VA assisted living and mental health programs; modified VA personnel provisions relating to non-physician providers of healthcare services and employees of VA's Veterans Canteen Service; and authorized major medical facility projects and projects related to VA's Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services, CARES, initiative. Each and all of these provisions, with some modifications as appropriate, are contained in S. 1156 as presented to the Senate today. The major change between the bill, as reported, and the current bill is the addition of provisions contained in House-passed legislation. House-approved provisions incorporated into the bill would allow radiation-exposed veterans higher priority access to VA health care; exempt former prisoners-of-war from pharmaceutical copayments; create in VA an Office of Research Oversight; authorize VA to allow ``Saturday premium pay'' to licensed practical nurses and nursing assistants; and authorize additional needed VA construction projects. All of these added provisions are constructive and useful. I ask that my colleagues in the Senate approve this legislation. It is good bipartisan legislation that is supported by VA's extraordinary Secretary, the Honorable Anthony J. Principi, and by the major veterans service organizations. I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanies my statement today be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition today to explain briefly the provisions of H.R. 2297, the proposed Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, that the Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, Senator Graham of Florida, and I propose be approved, as amended, by the Senate. H.R. 2297, as so amended and as presented to the Senate today, incorporates agreements reached between the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs, which I am privileged to chair, and our counterpart Committee in the House of Representatives, on legislation relating to the provision of non-healthcare-related benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs. H.R. 2297, as amended, contains provisions derived from S. 1132, the proposed Veterans Benefits Enhancements Act of 2003, as approved by the Senate on October 31, 2003, and S. 1156, as reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on November 10, 2003. It also contains provisions derived from H.R. 2297, as approved by the House on October 8, 2003; H.R. 1257, as approved by the House on May 22, 2003; and H.R. 1460, as amended from the bill approved by the House on June 24, 2003. Inasmuch as S. 1132, as approved by the Senate earlier this year, had itself incorporated provisions derived from 11 Senate bills--meaning that H.R. 2297 contains provisions derived from 15 separate bills--it is apparent that this bill represents the work and ideas of many sponsors with many differing interests. I thank the Ranking Member, Senator Graham of Florida, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey and Representative Lane Evans of Illinois, for the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship that they showed in addressing the sometimes- competing interests in play as 15 pieces of legislation were knitted into a single, coherent whole. Since this is a lengthy bill--over 50 pages--I will not endeavor in this statement to explain in detail each and every provision. Rather, I will discuss the highlights briefly in this statement, and refer my colleagues to a Joint Explanatory Statement. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a detailed explanation of the bill as amended.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. In the absence of any other Senator on the floor, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 1888 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 267 located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I now turn to another subject; that is, a resolution to designate the year 2004 as the Year of Polio Awareness. During the 1940s and the early 1950s, between 30,000 and 50,000 cases of polio were recorded annually in the United States, causing widespread fear and panic. I recall as a youngster a public swimming pool in Wichita, KS, in which there was a total scare, wondering if going to the swimming pool would cause polio. The polio virus damages nerves that control muscles which results in muscle weakness. In severe illness, the person could lose the ability to move both arms and legs, may be unable to breathe without help and they may die. Of course, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the personal symbol for the incapacitation of someone with polio, although it was only physical. He was a magnificent President and a great leader of the United States during the Depression and World War II. A great physical toll was taken on President Roosevelt. The year 2004 will mark the 50th anniversary of the successful nationwide trial to administer the injectable polio vaccine to children. The invention of injectable polio vaccines eliminated naturally occurring polio cases in the United States. However, as few as 57 percent of American children currently receive the full dose of vaccines, including the polio vaccination. The need for continued diligence to protect this country's youth from polio is critical. Unfortunately, those who were stricken with polio before vaccines were developed have not received the proper help they need. The year 2004 will also mark the 130th anniversary of the first diagnosed case of post-polio sequelae. Post-polio sequelae is a condition that may develop several decades after a person has had polio. It affects the muscles and nerves, causing weakness, fatigue, pain, and other symptoms.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to offer legislation to halt Saudi Arabia's support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents. I offer this bill on behalf of Senator Collins, Senator Schumer, Senator Graham of South Carolina, Senator Wyden, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Bayh. The activities of al-Qaida have shaken the world. They certainly shook the United States on September 11, 2001. Evidence has come to light that there has been enormous financing of al-Qaida, Hamas, and other organizations by the Saudis. Hearings have been held by a number of committees, including the Governmental Affairs Committee presided over by the distinguished Senator who is presiding this evening, Ms. Collins. We made a detailed examination, in a hearing in which I participated along with Chairman Collins, to inquire into what the Saudis had done and to find details of Saudi backing of so-called charitable organizations, recognizing that those charitable organizations were, in large part, a front; that perhaps there was some charitable activity but a tremendous amount of funding went to terrorist activities. The Saudis are a very wealthy nation. They are reported to have contributed as much as $4 billion to Hamas over the course of the latest intifada. We have worked through the Governmental Affairs Committee, and also the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, to establish a basic point that anybody who contributes to an organization knowing it to be a terrorist organization is really an accessory before the fact to murder, and that when people contribute to Hamas knowing Hamas engages in suicide bombing, they are accessories to murder. The Terrorist Prosecution Act, which I wrote back in 1986, authorizes prosecutions in Federal court of anyone who assaults, maims, or murders an American citizen anywhere in the world. Many United States citizens have been murdered while visiting in Israel, and I have talked to Attorney General Rubenstein of Israel and Attorney General Ashcroft of the United States, trying to work out arrangements to bring those terrorists to the United States for trial where we have the potential to impose the death penalty. We have been very lenient with the Saudis, in my judgment, over the years, really out of deference to the importance of Saudi oil. It is really an open scandal that we have not taken action to secure some independence from our reliance on Saudi oil. In 1996, Khobar Towers was the scene of an attack by terrorists. I chaired the Intelligence Committee that year, during the 104th Congress. I made a trip to Khobar Towers and inspected what went on. A car bomb came very close, there was an enormous blast, and 19 airmen were killed and about 400 injured. In that situation, the Saudis would not allow Federal investigators to talk to the suspects. I personally met with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and asked him to allow our investigators--the FBI--to talk to those suspects. Crown Prince Abdullah said the United States should not meddle in Saudi internal affairs. It was hardly a Saudi internal affair when 400 airmen were wounded and 19 airmen were killed. Notwithstanding the efforts of FBI Director Louis Freeh, who made several personal trips there, and my efforts in talking to Crown Prince Abdullah, they refused to allow the United States to have its representatives talk to those suspects. Later indictments were issued. Iran was a named co-conspirator in the Federal indictment. While there has not been proof, the background circumstances lend some consideration to the thought that those who were involved in Khobar Towers may well have been involved in September 11. We recently passed the Syria Accountability Act. I believe in the overall scheme of operations in the Mideast that the Saudis are a much greater threat to U.S. interests, and there ought to be a very firm approach as to how we deal with the Saudis. The bill which I am introducing today has detailed recitation of the findings by organizations which have studied the record of the Saudis. The United Nations Security Council resolution mandates that all states refrain from providing any foreign support, active or passive, to people involved in terrorist acts. The Council on Foreign Relations concluded in an October 2002 report on terrorist finances: For years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaida, and, for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye. The Middle East Media Institute concluded in their July 3, 2003, report again characterizing the Saudis' activities as supporting terrorists. The New York Times cited sources reported on April 17, 2003, that at least 50 percent of the current operating budget of Hamas comes from the people of Saudi Arabia. This resolution would call on the Government of the United States to prohibit the export to Saudi Arabia of any defense articles or services listed in the Arms Exports Control Act and prohibit import to Saudi Arabia of any items within the Commerce Control List and to restrict travel of Saudi diplomats appropriately. The President's certification would be present to relieve these sanctions under specified circumstances.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to salute James J. Gillin, Jr., of Philadelphia, a premier Pennsylvania business and community leader. Pennsylvanians for Effective Government, the Commonwealth's oldest and largest probusiness PAC, recently recognized Jim Gillin's contributions by selecting him to receive its prestigious new civic leadership award. The Clifford L. Jones Award, which Jim will formally receive next month, recognizes Pennsylvanians who ``have demonstrated exemplary civic leadership in support of free enterprise and democratic processes'' and focuses on a lifetime of achievement rather than a single effort. Jim Gillin certainly qualifies. He was president of the Philadelphia- based Petroleum Heat and Power Company, a major fuel distributor throughout the Delaware Valley. He was also a member of the Executive Board of Continental Bank of New Jersey, president of Transport Employers, Inc., and chairman of the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Jim was also active politically, serving as treasurer of the Philadelphia County Democratic Executive Committee and as a member of the Democratic House and Senate Council in Washington, DC. He has always been bipartisan, willing to reach across the aisle to support political leaders who support business. Jim has helped shape PEG for a quarter century, serving as chairman from 1985 through 1989 and on its board since 1979. He also played major roles at the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry during the late 1980s. PEG has made a superb choice in presenting its important new award to Jim Gillin. I join them in their tribute.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Well, I do not know how the Senator from New York can say there is a defect in judgment when I have not asserted anything yet. All I asked, Mr. President, was a question as to whether he considered Arlen Specter a far right extremist militant. And he said, no, but sometimes there are lapses in my judgment. I will ask a followup question to the Senator from New York. In the absence of any assertion or statement of judgment, where are the lapses in my judgment at the moment?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon will have time to speak. We are in a 30-minute sequence. I would follow up the question to the Senator from New York: Did he disagree with my judgment on agreeing for the confirmation of Judge Paez, along with the Democrats, nominated by President Clinton?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. It was argued a few moments ago with a chart, 168 to 4 that only ``a far-right extremist militant'' would say that was an insufficient record. So my question to the Senator from New York is, Do you consider Arlen Specter a far right extremist militant?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that calls for a yes or no answer.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I withdraw the question.

Mr. SPECTER. We will proceed with the debate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce a bill to authorize Federal funding for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. This memorial, an attraction for some 1 million visitors annually, is truly a national treasure and it has come under significant deterioration--threatening its very existence. I, along with my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, are introducing this bill to ensure that Federal funding is made available to preserve and protect our Nation's memorial to Benjamin Franklin, America's distinguished scientist, statesman, inventor, and diplomat. Unveiled in 1938, the memorial is located in the Memorial Hall of the Franklin Institute Science Museum of Philadelphia, PA--one of the Nation's premier science and technology museums. The Institute became custodian of the memorial in 1972 when Public Law 92-511 designated the Memorial Hall as the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. In 1973, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Franklin Institute and directed the Department to cooperate with the Institute in ``all appropriate and mutually agreeable ways in the preservation and presentation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial Hall as a national memorial.'' To date, the Department has not provided any Federal funding to the Franklin Institute other than $300,000, which Senator Santorum and I secured from the ``Save America's Treasures'' program in the Fiscal Year 2000 Interior Appropriations Act to help improve accessibility to the memorial. Unlike other national memorials, the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial does not receive an annual allocation of Federal funds that provides for preventative maintenance or other important activities. The significant burden of maintaining this national memorial has become a challenge to the Franklin Institute. For example, under the terms of the 1973 Agreement, the Institute is required to admit the public to Memorial Hall free of charge. Accordingly, the Institute--a non-profit organization--has absorbed the sole responsibility for providing the funds necessary to preserve and maintain the memorial. The legislation that Senator Santorum and I are introducing today finally provides the Franklin Institute with the Federal support necessary to ease the financial burden of maintaining a national memorial--enabling the Institute to continue its duties as its custodian. The bill authorizes up to $10 million in Federal funds to provide needed rehabilitation and to help enhance the experience at the memorial through the addition of exhibition space for the proper display of the finest existing collection of Franklin artifacts. The Benjamin Franklin National Memorial at the Franklin Institute serves as the Nation's primary location honoring Franklin's life, legacy, and ideals. This was further solidified in July 2002, when President George W. Bush signed into law House Resolution 2362, which created the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission. This commission, which I chair, is charged with studying and recommending activities appropriate for the 300th anniversary of Franklin's birth in 2006. As we expect visitors to the memorial from throughout the world for this celebration, it is important that the Franklin Institute, as custodian of the memorial, begin the meticulous restoration and enhancement of it promptly. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to preserve this national tribute to Benjamin Franklin for years to come.