Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition of the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to bring to his attention two projects that are of great importance to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: NutriCore Northeast and Geisinger Rural Aging Study.

Mr. SPECTER. I am keenly aware of the tight budgetary constraints under which you are operating, and I appreciate whatever assistance you may be able to provide with respect to these requests. food aid programs

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2080, which is at the desk.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah. Amendment No. 2080

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an amendment which I am offering following a letter on July 8, 2003, to the Secretary of Agriculture, cosigned by some 20 Senators. This amendment provides that the Secretary must take immediate action concerning the Commodity Credit Corporation's purchase price for dairy products. The market price for individual products has fallen below the support levels, thus allowing the price of milk products to fall below the statutory level of $9.90 per hundredweight. In the year 2000, 7 out of 12 months the price was below the $9.90 set at $8.57. In 2002, 4 out of 12 months were below the support price, and currently, in 2003, 6 out of 12 months were below the support price set at $9.11. This amendment prohibits the expenditures in the Department of Agriculture unless they follow the clear-cut mandate of existing law, which is to have the prices set. I had understood a few moments ago that this was cleared on both sides, but it may be that there are some objections to be lodged. It is my hope that this can be worked out in the course of the afternoon. I thank my colleagues for yielding these few minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I have sought recognition today to explain briefly the provisions of S. 1132, the proposed Veterans Benefits Enhancements Act of 2003. This legislation, which was approved by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on September 30, 2003, incorporates provisions drawn from 13 different bills that were considered by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs over the course of the first session. S. 1132, as so amended, is a lengthy bill--almost 50 pages--and so I will not endeavor in this statement to explain in detail each and every provision of the bill. Rather, I will discuss the highlights in this statement, and refer my colleagues to the committee report that accompanied approval of the bill for a more extended explanation of the bill. The starting point for S. 1132, as reported, was S. 1132, the proposed ``Veterans' Survivors Benefits Enhancements Act of 2003,'' which I introduced on May 22, 2003. That bill, as its title indicates, focused on the needs of the surviving families of veterans who were gravely injured or killed in war. It contained provisions to increase widows' and orphans' educational assistance benefits, and to increase dependency and indemnity compensation (so-called ``DIC'') benefits-- benefits provided to the widows and surviving children of service members whose deaths are service related--in cases where the widow has at home at least one dependent child. The bill, as introduced, would have also extended eligibility for burial in a VA national cemetery to all surviving spouses of veterans, including a group now denied eligibility--service members' widows who are remarried at the time of their deaths. And finally, S. 1132, as introduced, would have extended benefits now provided to spina bifida-afflicted children of Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange to the children of veterans who served in another area where Agent Orange was widely used in 1967- 1969, the Korean demilitarized zone, and who are afflicted with the same birth defect. I am pleased that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs approved all but one of these provisions; one provision--the proposed increase in DIC benefits for widows with dependent children--was, unfortunately, too costly to proceed with at this time. I am pleased, as well that at mark up, the committee's members approved the addition of a number of other measures which were drawn from other bills that had been referred to the committee for consideration. Among those provisions are the following: Provisions derived from bills introduced by Senators Murray (S. 517), Craig (S. 1239), and Graham of Florida (S. 1281) to improve medical care and compensation benefits afforded to former prisoners of war; Provisions derived from administration-requested legislation (S. 1213) to increase benefits afforded to Filipinos who fought alongside U.S. troops in World War II; Provisions derived from administration-requested legislation (S. 1133) to improve the VA's educational assistance, life insurance, and State cemetery grant programs; and Provisions derived from a bill introduced by Committee Ranking Member, Bob Graham, (S. 1281) to authorize further funding and oversight of the Department of Defense and Institute of Medicine activities to identify the causes of, and treatments for, injuries related to exposures to Agent Orange, radiation, and other environmental dangers by service members. The bill also contains various measures to assure that, despite the enactment of the significant improvements contained within the bill, the bill will nonetheless be in compliance with Budget Enforcement Act strictures against the enactment of ``mandatory account'' spending measures without accompanying ``pay-go'' offsets. S. 1132, as amended, is good legislation that is supported, on a bipartisan basis, by all of the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Further, its key provisions are supported by VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi and by the major veterans' service organizations. I ask that the Senate approve it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after extensive consideration of the views of many constituents who have contacted me on this very important bill, I decided to vote against it because of the open questions on the impact on climate and the consequences for the national and State economies, which are very fragile at the moment. It is always a difficult matter to balance environmental protection and the need for economic development and jobs. I believe that global warming is a matter of great international importance and the 43 votes in favor of this bill puts the administration and others on notice that there is considerable sentiment for stronger action to address this problem. I have voted for environmental protection for renewable energy and conservation measures, and I have initiated legislation to limit the amount of oil which will be consumed at various intervals in the future. As a Pennsylvania Senator, I have a particular interest in the continued use of coal, our Nation's most abundant energy supply, especially in the context of the billions of tons of bituminous coal in the western part of Pennsylvania and anthracite coal in the eastern part of Pennsylvania. This bill would have a serious impact on our steel industry, our chemical industry, and manufacturing. In this context, it is very difficult to adopt a limit by the year 2010 since we cannot predict at this time what the situation will be with our national and State economies. In addition, it is very difficult to limit industry in the United States when we do not have a plan for the rest of the world in curbing green house gas emissions. That would have a harmful effect on the competitiveness of the United States. An international plan is necessary. Unilateral action by the United States would not solve the problem. I have, with other Senators, urged the President to work through international means to address global climate change. I support his efforts and those of the individual companies to curb voluntarily domestic emissions, but it is likely that stronger action will have to be taken in the future on a multilateral basis. These questions remain: What would the reductions under this legislation do to climate change? What are the anticipated costs? Who would pay the costs? What are particularly vulnerable industries that could not, for instance, pass on any increased energy costs? What is the expected impact on fuel supply and demand, particularly with regard to fuel-switching and natural gas prices? What will happen to economic growth and overall competitiveness in a global economy if only U.S. emissions are reduced? While I was unable to support this particular bill, I believe it will give impetus to action to deal with global warming. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue in the hopes of finding common ground and a sensible balance between the goals of environmental protection and economic development. I encourage supporters and opponents of this bill to consider the concerns of each other and work in earnest to bridge the many differences in support of the common good.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel Industry National Historic Site'' to be operated by the National Park Service in southwestern Pennsylvania. The importance of steel to the industrial development of the United States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethnic endemic to this great Nation. The National Park Service recently reported that Congress should make remnants of the U.S. Steel Homestead Works an affiliate of the national park system, rather than a full national park, which had been considered in prior years, including legislation I offered two years ago in the 107th Congress. Due to the current backlog of maintenance projects at national parks and the resulting moratorium on new national parks, the legislation offered today instead creates a national historic site that would be affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place for such a site than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a significant role in early industrial America and continues to today. I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance this historical steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area, which includes the City of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area expressed through appropriations levels of roughly $1 million annually since fiscal year 1998. I am hopeful that this support will continue. However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the historical recognition needed for this important heritage. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. It is important to note why southwestern Pennsylvania should be the home to the national site that my legislation authorizes. the combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern United States allowed the steel industry to thrive. Today, the remaining buildings and sites devoted to steel production are threatened with further deterioration or destruction. Many of these sites are nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some of these sites include the Carrie Furnace Complex, the Hot Metal Bridges, and the United States Steel Homestead Works, which would all become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my legislation. Highlights of such a national historic site would commemorate a wide range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and interpretation from industrial process advancements to labor-management relations. It is important to note that the site I seek to become a national site under this bill includes the location of the Battle of Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The Battle of Homestead marked a crucial period in the Nation's workers' rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve resources such as the Homestead battleground and the Hot Metal Bridge. For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it is time for the Federal Government to join this effort to recognize their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill. I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Mike Doyle, who has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who sponsors the companion legislation, H.R. 521, pending in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working with southwestern Pennsylvania officials and Mr. August Carlino, President and Chief Executive Office of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, in order to bring this national historic site to fruition. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and I intend to work for its swift passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation that will honor the importance of the steel industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by creating the ``Steel Industry National Historic Site'' to be operated by the National Park Service in southwestern Pennsylvania. The importance of steel to the industrial development of the United States cannot be overstated. A national historic site devoted to the history of the steel industry will afford all Americans the opportunity to celebrate this rich heritage, which is symbolic of the work ethnic endemic to this great Nation. The National Park Service recently reported that Congress should make remnants of the U.S. Steel Homestead Works an affiliate of the national park system, rather than a full national park, which had been considered in prior years, including legislation I offered two years ago in the 107th Congress. Due to the current backlog of maintenance projects at national parks and the resulting moratorium on new national parks, the legislation offered today instead creates a national historic site that would be affiliated with the National Park Service. There is no better place for such a site than in southwestern Pennsylvania, which played a significant role in early industrial America and continues to today. I have long supported efforts to preserve and enhance this historical steel-related heritage through the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area, which includes the City of Pittsburgh, and seven southwestern Pennsylvania counties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland. I have sought and been very pleased with congressional support for the important work within the Rivers of Steel Heritage Area expressed through appropriations levels of roughly $1 million annually since fiscal year 1998. I am hopeful that this support will continue. However, more than just resources are necessary to ensure the historical recognition needed for this important heritage. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. It is important to note why southwestern Pennsylvania should be the home to the national site that my legislation authorizes. the combination of a strong workforce, valuable natural resources, and Pennsylvania's strategic location in the heavily populated northeastern United States allowed the steel industry to thrive. Today, the remaining buildings and sites devoted to steel production are threatened with further deterioration or destruction. Many of these sites are nationally significant and perfectly suited for the study and interpretation of this crucial period in our Nation's development. Some of these sites include the Carrie Furnace Complex, the Hot Metal Bridges, and the United States Steel Homestead Works, which would all become a part of the Steel Industry National Historic Site under my legislation. Highlights of such a national historic site would commemorate a wide range of accomplishments and topics for historical preservation and interpretation from industrial process advancements to labor-management relations. It is important to note that the site I seek to become a national site under this bill includes the location of the Battle of Homestead, waged in 1892 between steelworkers and Pinkerton guards. The Battle of Homestead marked a crucial period in the Nation's workers' rights movement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals, and public and private entities have attempted to protect and preserve resources such as the Homestead battleground and the Hot Metal Bridge. For the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations, it is time for the Federal Government to join this effort to recognize their importance with the additional protection I provide in this bill. I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Mike Doyle, who has been a longstanding leader in this preservation effort and who sponsors the companion legislation, H.R. 521, pending in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working with southwestern Pennsylvania officials and Mr. August Carlino, President and Chief Executive Office of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, in order to bring this national historic site to fruition. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and I intend to work for its swift passage.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senate will soon take up in executive session the nomination of Thomas M. Hardiman to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and I recommend to my colleagues that he be confirmed. He has an outstanding academic record. Mr. Hardiman received his bachelor's degree, cum laude, from the University of Notre Dame in 1987. He received his law degree, cum laude again, from Georgetown University Law Center. He was notes and comments editor of the Georgetown Law Journal, which is an indication of academic achievement and legal excellence in writing. He has been admitted to the bars of Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He has been in the active practice of law since 1990. He currently is a partner in the prestigious Pittsburgh firm of Reed Smith. He has been very active with professional affiliations as a Pennsylvania Young Lawyers Division delegate to the American Bar Association's House of Delegates. He served as a hearing officer for the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board. He has been active in community affairs, president of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Pittsburgh, and he currently serves as director of that organization. He was formerly an adjunct faculty member of LaRoche College. As suggested by the dates of graduation, Mr. Hardiman is a young man, in his late thirties. I think he brings an element of diversity to the court, tempering some of the judges who are older. But starting at the age of 38 affords an opportunity to develop skills and expertise on the district court as a trial judge. From what I know about him, and I have observed him over the better part of the past decade, he has the capability perhaps to become an appellate judge. That will depend upon the development of his skills and his professional accomplishments as a judge. He was recommended by the nonpartisan nominating panel which Senator Santorum and I have. He is a vigorous young man. He has a family, a wife and three children, residing in Fox Chapel. I think he will make an outstanding addition to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Philip Bongiorno, a Pennsylvania native and church leader of the Assemblies of God whose life work has been to serve the people of his state, of his country, and of the world. Born in Erie, PA, on September 22, 1932, Reverend Bongiorno entered Eastern Bible Institute in Green Lane, PA, in 1951 and subsequently graduated in 1955. In 1952, Reverend Bongiorno married his wife of 51 years and began his ministry as an Assemblies of God evangelist. Numerous Pennsylvania communities have been the beneficiaries of Reverend Bongiorno's dedicated service. From 1956 to 1978, he led congregations in Milesburg, Punxsutawney, Sarver, and Harrisburg. In 1961, colleagues recognized his leadership by electing Reverend Bongiorno as Sectional Presbyter. He was elected to the Board of Directors of Teen Challenge in 1971, where he continues to serve, and again in 1976 to the Board of Trustees of Valley Forge Christian College, the successor college of his alma mater. It was there that he faithfully served until 2002. In addition, Reverend Bongiorno, as District Superintendent, was the denominational leader from 1978 to 2002 for all English-speaking Assemblies of God congregations in Pennsylvania and Delaware. In his honor, the Penn-Del District of the Assemblies of God has named its Carlisle, PA--based conference center after him and in recognition of his 26 years of service and leadership, the Valley Forge Christian College has affixed his name to the first new student residence hall constructed on the campus grounds. Philip Bongiorno is honored today in the U.S. Senate because he has been faithful to his calling, he has served selflessly and widely, and he has led with distinction.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are faced today with one of the fastest growing crimes in America, identity theft. Recent estimates place the number of new identity theft victims at approximately 7 million in a single 12 month period--nearly 800 new victims per hour. Another study found that victims spend an average of 600 hours recovering from identity theft crimes, sometimes spanning several years. Only three years ago, the average time spent addressing identity theft was 175 hours. In addition to the lost time, victims spend an average of $1,400 in their efforts to rectify the damage inflicted by identity thieves. Identity theft is one crime for which the victims are virtually on their own to resolve. In most States, the burden is on the one harmed--and the only method by which an individual can attempt to repair their good name and credit is by pursuing civil action against creditors and debt collectors. Today, I will introduce PITFALL, the Prevent Identity Theft From Affecting Lives and Livelihoods Act of 2003. PITFALL addresses identity theft after the fact--to help victims after the harm is inflicted. The overriding goal of the legislation is to prevent creditors and debt collectors, when existing laws fail to protect identity theft victims, from harassing victims and further sabotaging their financial well-being once a State's highest law enforcement officer has conclusively determined liabilities were fraudulently incurred, with no culpability on the part of the victim. While there has been much discussion and action aimed at preventing identity theft, it is time to focus on those individuals for which prevention is too late. Please join me in this effort to remove the burden from innocent victims in restoring peace and financial security to their lives.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. That will do it. When the Senator says a minute or 2--my remarks are easily in excess of 4 minutes but I can limit them to 4 minutes. The other consideration which I had intended to offer in the course of the remarks I have just made, in a broader focus beyond the confines of the $20 billion debt, is the issue of what is happening day in and day out in Iraq where we are spending, it is estimated, some $4 billion a month and we are sustaining casualties and fatalities which are very devastating for our country, the men and women in the armed services who are being wounded, suffering fatalities, their relatives and friends. If we move ahead with greater speed, which we will be able to do on a grant instead of a loan, it may well be that we can cut down the time we will be in Iraq, that it will facilitate the starting of electricity and the infrastructure of Iraq so we can move out and allow the Iraqi Government to take over. With the very heavy costs in casualties, fatalities and dollars, the speed that these grants can help is another factor in consideration so that on the totality of the matter in the broader picture, I am prepared to defer to the President's judgment on this matter, on this vote. The issue has created enough focus so that the administration will know when the additional funding is to be undertaken that there will be a very strong sentiment in the Congress that Iraqi resources ought to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq and that this decision to have grants instead of loans will further support the good faith and bona fides of the United States that we have not gone into Iraq for their oil but have gone into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from the despotism of Saddam Hussein and to build a democracy in that country. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his inquiry. During the course of my remarks, I abbreviated them and cut them short. As I have said to the Senator, I do not appear very often to ask for time. I see Senator Byrd approaching. In response to the Senator from Nevada, there was one other line of contention which I had intended to make. I can make it in a moment or two.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment on a vote that will be coming up on the $20 billion in the form of loans or grants. Two weeks ago yesterday, on October 1, I spoke at some length in favor of having loans. I believe that is the correct position and focus on the $20 billion in the context of viewing what is happening in Iraq, which is essentially a bankrupt country where in general bankruptcy proceedings all existing debt would be extinguished and the activities of rebuilding Iraq would be a new day; and, in light of the United Nations resolution in May of this year authorizing the United States and the United Kingdom to use Iraqi oil to rebuild Iraq, that is the appropriate course with the narrow focus on this $20 billion. In the intervening 2 weeks, I have consulted with my colleagues and with members of the administration and have rethought the issue. It is my view that in a broader context there ought to be a grant instead of loans. I have come to that conclusion after having, as I said, talked to my colleagues and having met with a group on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats, who are looking for a structure at least in part for loans, and having talked to the President the day before yesterday and Secretary of State Powell and other members of the administration. As I am viewing this $20 billion in the much broader context of the overall strategy, it is my judgment that we ought to give the President leeway to carry out his plan. The day before yesterday, a group of Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, met with President Bush and with Secretary of State Colin Powell. I have not seen the President with such fervor and such determination and such intensity since I saw him 2 days after 9/11 when he called in some Members from the impacted States. One of the planes went down in Pennsylvania. And he had blood in his eye when he said he was not going to send a $1 million missile to an empty tent. The President and the Secretary of State spoke in terms of the broader objectives of the administration beyond this $20 billion. The Secretary of State talked about the efforts to get a United Nations resolution which would give broader support to the United States' position in an effort to bring in Pakistan, Turkey, and Muslim countries to give the Arabs more confidence. I believe this type of multilateral approach is really necessary. I tried back on October 11 of last year to carry forward the Lugar- Biden amendment which would have done more to have a multilateral approach before the use of force. But that was yesterday. Today, we are looking at a very different picture. The funds for the rebuilding of Iraq could be necessary far beyond this $20 billion. I believe the narrow focus of using the Iraqi oil as authorized by the United Nations resolution is sound. Ambassador Bremer is considering the long-range plan. I think the sentiment which is fairly strong in this body for loans as opposed to grants ought to be taken into consideration and, if the President's policy is successful on having this as a grant, that there is a strong underlying fervor that there ought to be a repayment and a funding of the rebuilding of Iraq from the Iraqi resources, which is the second biggest pool of oil in the world. I am not unmindful of the arguments about how much money will be spent by the Federal Government on rebuilding schools in Iowa contrasted to rebuilding schools in Iraq; or how much money will be spent in Vermont building hospitals as opposed to spending money in Baghdad. I am not unmindful of the role of the Congress and the primacy under the Constitution on the appropriations process. In listening to the President as he outlines his broader strategy, I do believe he bears the lion's share of the responsibility. We are going to have the donor's conference in Madrid later this month. The President is emphatic in his view that we will have a better chance to get more donors if we make a grant instead of a loan, that there will be a better chance to have other countries forgive debt and that, as he is setting out to a trip to the Far East, we ought to be in a position to be supportive as to where he thinks he can best lead the country. In so doing, I do not relinquish my vote and the authority which I have as a Senator, a Member of Congress, on our appropriations process as we will be looking at very substantial funding in the future. When I think about the issue and reflect on it and rethink beyond the narrower focus of the $20 billion to the broader strategy, I think of the metaphor of too many cooks spoil the broth. The President has a very heavy responsibility as he moves ahead to the donor's conference through his representatives and on his trip to the Far East. When I look at the delegation of authority which we have given him on appropriations, the defense budget, the foreign operations budget, and the State Department budget, it proximates in excess of $400 billion. This is about 5 percent. As I take a look at our overall Federal budget of $2.2 trillion, the $20 billion is less than 1 percent. I believe this vote, which we will cast later today, is a very important vote as to how the administration and how Secretary Powell will approach the United Nations and multilateralisism. We cast a great many votes in this body but relatively few are really important votes. This is an important vote. That is why I believe the validity of treating this as a loan is solid on the narrow focus for the $20 billion as a loan, but on the broader picture of the strategy which the President is trying to carry forward, I am prepared today to defer to him on this and to vote for a grant instead of a loan. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended so that I might speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when we go to the bill, I be recognized to speak first on the bill.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: At that point, does the schedule call for going to the bill?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I understand there are 2 minutes left for morning business on this side.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are faced today with one of the fastest growing crimes in America, identity theft. Recent estimates place the number of new identity theft victims at approximately 7 million in a single 12 month period--nearly 800 new victims per hour. Another study found that victims spend an average of 600 hours recovering from identity theft crimes, sometimes spanning several years. Only three years ago, the average time spent addressing identity theft was 175 hours. In addition to the lost time, victims spend an average of $1,400 in their efforts to rectify the damage inflicted by identity thieves. Identity theft is one crime for which the victims are virtually on their own to resolve. In most States, the burden is on the one harmed--and the only method by which an individual can attempt to repair their good name and credit is by pursuing civil action against creditors and debt collectors. Today, I will introduce PITFALL, the Prevent Identity Theft From Affecting Lives and Livelihoods Act of 2003. PITFALL addresses identity theft after the fact--to help victims after the harm is inflicted. The overriding goal of the legislation is to prevent creditors and debt collectors, when existing laws fail to protect identity theft victims, from harassing victims and further sabotaging their financial well-being once a State's highest law enforcement officer has conclusively determined liabilities were fraudulently incurred, with no culpability on the part of the victim. While there has been much discussion and action aimed at preventing identity theft, it is time to focus on those individuals for which prevention is too late. Please join me in this effort to remove the burden from innocent victims in restoring peace and financial security to their lives.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. I ask further that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired and the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period for morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison or her designee and the second 30 minutes under the control of the minority leader or his designee; provided that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1689, the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow following morning business the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1689. Under a previous agreement, there will then be 40 minutes for debate as previously stated. The majority leader has asked me to announce that rollcall votes can be expected throughout the day.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. As the Senator knows, a second requirement for States to qualify for these grants is that--whether by State statute, State or local rule, regulation or practice--they preserve biological evidence in a reasonable way. Do the Senators from Delaware and Utah agree with me that States would qualify so long as they preserve evidence in a way sufficient to permit the testing provided for in their State statutes? For example, if a State law provides a three year time limit on post- conviction DNA testing, a practice of preserving evidence throughout those three years would qualify as ``reasonable'' under this legislation. Thus, for example, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio and Utah would qualify.