Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I pay tribute to a very distinguished lawyer, Thomas P. Swanton, who has been in my office for more than 2 years on assignment from the Department of Justice, and I thank the Attorney General and the Department of Justice for this program which enables Senators to have excellent legal service and gives a different perspective to those who are assigned to a Senate office. Tom Swanton is an extraordinary lawyer. He has come to my office with extensive trial skills and has done extraordinary work on counseling in my office, on post-9/11 legislation, on working on nominations, on legislative packages involving the death penalty, and the war on terrorism. He has worked hard on these issues--each time jumping in feet first, soaking up knowledge, and moving legislation forward in this often complicated process. From his first assignment, he earned the respect of my staff, as well as mine. Tom's primary duty consisted of working as my legal counsel for Judiciary matters where he handled a wide variety of issues. He also proved to be of invaluable assistance in crafting several pieces of post-September 11 legislation, all the while leading an investigation on terrorism financing. His skills and judgment in this arena are exceptional. My staff and I were constantly impressed with the wealth of knowledge he demonstrated. Tom also provided a tremendous service to the people of Pennsylvania in working on issues such as class action reform and the Patents Bill of Rights. He demonstrated a remarkable amount of enthusiasm and initiative throughout his entire fellowship. His dedication to each project was remarkable, and the assistance he provided to my office will not be easily matched. However, for Tom this level of dedication is par for the course. Since his graduation from West Point in 1983, he has consistently served our country. Prior to his service with the U.S. Attorney's office, Tom served in the United States Army and is currently a LTC in the Army Reserve. Tom's personal record is equally distinguished. Those who know him well consistently praise his qualities as a devoted husband and father of four beautiful children. I urge my colleagues to join me today in commending Tom Swanton for his service as a legal fellow and for his devotion and leadership to our country.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor in any event.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this morning a group of Senators met with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a very informative session as part of Prime Minister Sharon's visit to the United States where yesterday he met with President Bush. An item which has been worked on for many years has been the effort to try in the U.S. courts Palestinian terrorists who murder U.S. citizens abroad. The Terrorist Prosecution Act, which I wrote back in 1986, provides for exterritorial jurisdiction where U.S. courts have jurisdiction to try a Palestinian terrorist who murders an American citizen. There are two prominent cases which could lend themselves to this approach. One case involves a Palestinian terrorist who is in the United States, where we have jurisdiction over him, where we need the cooperation of Israel in providing the witnesses. It was a matter which I discussed this morning with the Prime Minister, and we are working to see if we can secure that kind of cooperation. It was pointed out that sort of cooperation has been present in the past, and we are seeking to bring that about here. Another possible prosecution would involve a Palestinian terrorist who confessed on television, so there is no issue about the voluntariness of his confession. There is a potential problem in that Israel opposes the death penalty and characteristically will extradite only where there is assurance from the country receiving the individual that the death penalty will not be sought. I believe there are exceptions under Israeli law where Israeli national security is involved. I believe the threat of the war on terrorism would qualify under that section. There is a second aspect, and that is the vindication of U.S. rights where American citizens are murdered by Palestinian terrorists in Israel. I think there is a very real issue about vindicating U.S. interests. We are going to continue to pursue that line. One other observation in the brief amount of time remaining. The meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was a very warm and a very good meeting. One of the items which I think bears a little focus is the unusual rapport between these two men, where President Bush referred to Prime Minister Sharon by his first name ``Ariel,'' and Prime Minister Sharon reciprocated by referring to President Bush as ``George.'' I think that signifies an unusually warm relationship. It brings to mind comments by Prime Minister Begin who visited the United States back in June of 1982 and met with a group of Senators, and at that time made a comment that President Reagan had asked Prime Minister Begin to call President Reagan ``Ron.'' Prime Minister Begin said that he deferred, which led President Reagan to say to Prime Minister Begin: Well, Menachem, if you don't call me Ron, I won't call you Menachem. Prime Minister Begin went through that circle but refused to call the President by his first name, referring to the President as a Head of State. I think it is a very encouraging sign when the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel are on a first name basis. That bodes very well for the relationship. I note the time of 1 o'clock has arrived.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Kentucky. I have sought recognition to comment about a very profound speech which was made by former Ambassador Peter R. Rosenblatt to the American Jewish Committee in Detroit, a speech which has a unique historical perspective, makes an analysis of the new-fashioned war, the asymmetrical war of terror, comments about the trio of terrorists, those who harbor terrorists, and the possession of weapons of mass destruction, and has a perceptive analysis of the complex role of the United States on working through the complex relationships with so many countries and the United Nations as we assert our role as the world's sole superpower. This is a speech worth reading very broadly. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain briefly the provisions of legislation I have introduced today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical Badge, CMB, or a similar badge to be designed by the Secretary of the Army, to pilots and crew of the Army's helicopter medical ambulance units--commonly referred to by their call sign ``DUST OFF''--who have flown combat missions to rescue and aid wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. The legacy of the DUST OFF mission was recently brought to my attention by a group of Pennsylvania constituents who have been sharing the DUST OFF story in an attempt to persuade the Army to recognize the service and sacrifice DUST OFF crews made, especially during the Vietnam War, in saving the lives of thousands of fallen comrades by extracting the wounded from forward positions to bases where they would receive life-saving medical care. The Army began using helicopters to evacuate wounded soldiers during the Korean War. However, because of their smaller size, Korean War helicopters were used solely as a means of transporting the wounded from the combat zones. It was not until the early 1960's that a group of Army aviators envisioned using the newer, larger, UH-1A ``Huey'' helicopters to serve as mobile air ambulances where a medic and crew could provide life-saving treatment en route to the medical aide station. The road to establish air ambulance units within the Army was rocky and uncertain. Combat commanders often considered the use of helicopters for this purpose a diversion of valuable resources. However, through determination, skill, and the American fighting spirit, air ambulance crews proved they were a valuable and reliable resource in providing support to the combat mission. Indeed, between 1962 and 1973, DUST OFF crews evacuated more than 900,000 allied military personnel and Vietnamese civilian casualties to medical assistance sites. Captain John Temperelli, Jr. was the first commander of the 57th Medical Detachment, Helicopter Ambulance, who would lead the first DUST OFF unit in Vietnam. Army Captain Temperelli is considered the ``pioneer'' of DUST OFF; however, it was Army Major Charles L. Kelly, the unit's third commander, who would establish the traditions and the motto that DUST OFF crews hold sacred today. Major Kelly, like his predecessors, believed in the mission of rescuing fallen comrades--so much so that he gave his life to the mission. On July 1, 1964, Major Kelly and his crew received a call to evacuate a wounded soldier. When they arrived, Major Kelly was instructed by an American advisor on the ground to leave the area; the landing zone was too ``hot.'' Major Kelly responded with the phrase that would become the DUST OFF motto: ``When I have your wounded.'' As Major Kelly hovered over the battlefield, an enemy bullet struck him in the heart; he was killed. It was with news of Major Kelly's death and the story of DUST OFF's dedication to the wounded that DUST OFF earned its permanency in the Army. I recently received a book written by a Pennsylvania native, Army Chief Warrant Officer 5 Mike Novosel, titled DUSTOFF: The Memoir of an Army Aviator. Mr. Novosel--a Medal of Honor recipient who served two tours in Vietnam and was a veteran of two other wars--knows first hand the sacrifice, courage and dedication to duty that DUST OFF crews displayed in Vietnam and continue to display today. In his two tours as a DUST OFF pilot in Vietnam, Mr. Novosel flew 2,543 missions and extracted 5,589 wounded. In his book, Mr. Novosel shares many amazing stories of landing in ``hot'' landing zones to allow his medic and crew chief, who were also exposed to enemy fire, to rescue and care for the wounded. But as Mr. Novosel has said, his experience as a DUST OFF pilot was not uncommon. Thousands of brave soldiers risked their lives every day by flying into combat zones to evacuate the wounded. I am honored that Mr. Novosel and others have brought the story of DUST OFF to my attention. It is my sincere hope that the Army will recognize DUST OFF pilots and crew with an appropriate badge which acknowledges the combat service of these brave individuals. When the War Department created the Combat Medical Badge, CMB, in WWII, as a companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge, CIB, it did so to recognize that ``medical aidmen . . . shared the same hazards and hardships of ground combat on a daily basis with the infantry soldier.'' DUST OFF pilots and crew equally shared the hazards and hardships of ground combat with the infantry soldier. The fact that they were not directly assigned or attached to a particular infantry unit--a fact that, under current Army policy, makes them eligible to receive a CIB or CMB-- should not bar special recognition of their service, service that one author has characterized as ``the brightest achievement of the U.S. Army in Vietnam.'' I had not introduced a bill until today because I wanted to hear testimony from DUST OFF participants about their experiences under fire. I also wanted to provide the Army with an opportunity to explain its position and, perhaps, rethink its opposition to the awarding of an appropriate designation to DUST OFF crew members. Earlier today, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the matter. Based on testimony offered today by three Vietnam veterans--Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., Michael J. Novosel, M.O.H., Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., John M. Travers, and Mr. William Fredrick ``Fred'' Castleberry--I am now more convinced than ever of the worthiness of this legislation. The Army again expressed its opposition today; I do hope that it will reconsider. On the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are etched the names of over 400 medics, pilots, and crew that gave their lives so others might live. The forward thinking, enthusiasm, and dedication of DUST OFF crews in Vietnam are attributes seen in today's DUST OFF crews. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would recognize the nature of the service these individuals have performed, and continue to perform, while serving on DUST OFF crew. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain briefly the provisions of legislation I have introduced today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to award the Combat Medical Badge, CMB, or a similar badge to be designed by the Secretary of the Army, to pilots and crew of the Army's helicopter medical ambulance units--commonly referred to by their call sign ``DUST OFF''--who have flown combat missions to rescue and aid wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. The legacy of the DUST OFF mission was recently brought to my attention by a group of Pennsylvania constituents who have been sharing the DUST OFF story in an attempt to persuade the Army to recognize the service and sacrifice DUST OFF crews made, especially during the Vietnam War, in saving the lives of thousands of fallen comrades by extracting the wounded from forward positions to bases where they would receive life-saving medical care. The Army began using helicopters to evacuate wounded soldiers during the Korean War. However, because of their smaller size, Korean War helicopters were used solely as a means of transporting the wounded from the combat zones. It was not until the early 1960's that a group of Army aviators envisioned using the newer, larger, UH-1A ``Huey'' helicopters to serve as mobile air ambulances where a medic and crew could provide life-saving treatment en route to the medical aide station. The road to establish air ambulance units within the Army was rocky and uncertain. Combat commanders often considered the use of helicopters for this purpose a diversion of valuable resources. However, through determination, skill, and the American fighting spirit, air ambulance crews proved they were a valuable and reliable resource in providing support to the combat mission. Indeed, between 1962 and 1973, DUST OFF crews evacuated more than 900,000 allied military personnel and Vietnamese civilian casualties to medical assistance sites. Captain John Temperelli, Jr. was the first commander of the 57th Medical Detachment, Helicopter Ambulance, who would lead the first DUST OFF unit in Vietnam. Army Captain Temperelli is considered the ``pioneer'' of DUST OFF; however, it was Army Major Charles L. Kelly, the unit's third commander, who would establish the traditions and the motto that DUST OFF crews hold sacred today. Major Kelly, like his predecessors, believed in the mission of rescuing fallen comrades--so much so that he gave his life to the mission. On July 1, 1964, Major Kelly and his crew received a call to evacuate a wounded soldier. When they arrived, Major Kelly was instructed by an American advisor on the ground to leave the area; the landing zone was too ``hot.'' Major Kelly responded with the phrase that would become the DUST OFF motto: ``When I have your wounded.'' As Major Kelly hovered over the battlefield, an enemy bullet struck him in the heart; he was killed. It was with news of Major Kelly's death and the story of DUST OFF's dedication to the wounded that DUST OFF earned its permanency in the Army. I recently received a book written by a Pennsylvania native, Army Chief Warrant Officer 5 Mike Novosel, titled DUSTOFF: The Memoir of an Army Aviator. Mr. Novosel--a Medal of Honor recipient who served two tours in Vietnam and was a veteran of two other wars--knows first hand the sacrifice, courage and dedication to duty that DUST OFF crews displayed in Vietnam and continue to display today. In his two tours as a DUST OFF pilot in Vietnam, Mr. Novosel flew 2,543 missions and extracted 5,589 wounded. In his book, Mr. Novosel shares many amazing stories of landing in ``hot'' landing zones to allow his medic and crew chief, who were also exposed to enemy fire, to rescue and care for the wounded. But as Mr. Novosel has said, his experience as a DUST OFF pilot was not uncommon. Thousands of brave soldiers risked their lives every day by flying into combat zones to evacuate the wounded. I am honored that Mr. Novosel and others have brought the story of DUST OFF to my attention. It is my sincere hope that the Army will recognize DUST OFF pilots and crew with an appropriate badge which acknowledges the combat service of these brave individuals. When the War Department created the Combat Medical Badge, CMB, in WWII, as a companion to the Combat Infantryman Badge, CIB, it did so to recognize that ``medical aidmen . . . shared the same hazards and hardships of ground combat on a daily basis with the infantry soldier.'' DUST OFF pilots and crew equally shared the hazards and hardships of ground combat with the infantry soldier. The fact that they were not directly assigned or attached to a particular infantry unit--a fact that, under current Army policy, makes them eligible to receive a CIB or CMB-- should not bar special recognition of their service, service that one author has characterized as ``the brightest achievement of the U.S. Army in Vietnam.'' I had not introduced a bill until today because I wanted to hear testimony from DUST OFF participants about their experiences under fire. I also wanted to provide the Army with an opportunity to explain its position and, perhaps, rethink its opposition to the awarding of an appropriate designation to DUST OFF crew members. Earlier today, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the matter. Based on testimony offered today by three Vietnam veterans--Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., Michael J. Novosel, M.O.H., Chief Warrant Officer, Ret., John M. Travers, and Mr. William Fredrick ``Fred'' Castleberry--I am now more convinced than ever of the worthiness of this legislation. The Army again expressed its opposition today; I do hope that it will reconsider. On the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are etched the names of over 400 medics, pilots, and crew that gave their lives so others might live. The forward thinking, enthusiasm, and dedication of DUST OFF crews in Vietnam are attributes seen in today's DUST OFF crews. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would recognize the nature of the service these individuals have performed, and continue to perform, while serving on DUST OFF crew. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Alaska. His presentation was not a tirade. For those of us who have heard the Senator from Alaska speak on many occasions, there was nowhere near a tirade from the Senator from Alaska. That was a reasoned analysis of the substitution of funds. When the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the subcommittee, presents his argument, it has great weight. The subcommittee has very carefully considered the allocations. But this amendment seeks to make a rather modest change. We have here a $29 billion appropriations bill. When you talk about high-risk areas, it is my view that $1 billion is a minimum. The figure might realistically be appraised for much more than $1 billion. It is true that during the course of the last vote there were many Senators in the well who voted against waiving the Budget Act and who said had there been an offset they would be favorably disposed. That is not a carte blanche commitment. It depends upon what the offset is. We are talking about two accounts. The information analysis, infrastructure protection, operating expenses still has a very considerable sum of money, $636.340 million. The science and technology research, development, acquisition and operations, where we have taken $62.640 million, still has more than $800 million. What we are looking at here really is an analysis of what the highest risk area is. Again, I come back to the activities of President Bush today. Where was President Bush today? He made a trip to Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, he went to the airport, which is high risk. Then he was on a long bridge which spans the Schuylkill River, which is high risk. Then he went along a highway again where there is very heavy congestion and high risk. Then he was at the seaport, again an area which is high risk. It is a matter of making an analysis. I have great respect for what the Senator from Mississippi has done on this subcommittee. Perhaps the total figure of $29 billion is not sufficient. Perhaps it ought to be slightly more--not to take an offset from these two accounts. But I supported the Senator from Mississippi on every one of his tabling motions. Other Senators have offered much greater amendments, one in the range of $1.8 billion. It is true that on one of the motions to table by the Senator from Mississippi on firefighters, I deviated on a motion to waive the Budget Act, which was nowhere near successful because of giving a little spiritual support to the firefighters who I think have done such an outstanding job. But I believe a careful analysis of the $250 million for high-risk areas contrasted with the funds that would have been taken from these other accounts which are still very well funded is appropriate. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I will make a few additional comments and then conclude. The case in opposition to the proposed amendment has not been compelling. The risks of terrorism are ever present. The urban areas pose decisively high risks. Taking a look at airports, seaports, bridges, tunnels, and rail lines in the overall picture of homeland defense, the amendment calls for a relatively modest sum of money. I can represent to my colleagues that there is enormous concern among the mayors and officials in urban high-risk areas as to what is happening. This extra consideration will be very warmly received knowing that the Senate of the United States, and hopefully the full Congress in conference, recognizes this sort of unique risk and is prepared to back up their efforts. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in light of the tenor of the debate, as I have noted the response that enough has been said, I yield back the remainder of the proponents' time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very similar to the last amendment, except that we have provided for an offset. This amendment seeks to raise the allocation from $750 million to $1 billion for high-risk areas, and there is an offset of $62.640 million from technology, research, development, and acquisition operations, which would bring this figure to the precise amount that is requested by the administration, so that this reduction should pose no real problem. And there is a reduction of $187,360 from the information analysis and infrastructure protection and operating expenses. This, again, still leaves that account with considerable funding in the net amount of $636.340 million. The last vote was 50-46, 50 for the motion to waive the Budget Act. There were some seven Republican Senators who voted in favor of waiving the Budget Act, which I think is a sign of some substantial support on this side of the aisle. A number of my colleagues in the well commented that had there been an offset, there would have been a more favorable consideration. The essence of this amendment is to more finely target where we are spending the money for homeland defense. We really do not seek to take advantage of the information analysis section or the science, technology, research, and development section, but I think a fair appraisal would be that taking a look at the risks on homeland security, they are more profoundly present in the urban areas. Again, I refer to the trip the President made earlier today to Philadelphia, accompanied by Senator Santorum and myself, and that route is illustrative--landing at Philadelphia National Airport, which is a major target; going over an enormous bridge, which is a major target; the Delaware River, which is a major target; and going through tunnels. I compliment Senator Cochran for the work that has been done as chairman of the subcommittee. I have worked with him as well. I do believe that this sort of an increase--relatively modest--would be a great encouragement to make the cities safer. I know from my conversations with the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the mayor of New York, they are very much concerned about the tremendous additional expenses. Earlier today, I made references to the high additional costs of the cities, illustrated by the fact that in just a 2-week period, from February 7 to 20, when the threat went from yellow to orange, the city of Philadelphia alone had an additional expense of $1.3 million.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order pursuant to the applicable provisions of law. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from New York wish?

Mr. SPECTER. So done.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Schumer, Senator Warner, Senator Clinton, Senator Mikulski, Senator Corzine, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, Senator Lautenberg, and myself and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to increase the funding for high threat urban areas from $750 million to $1 billion for fiscal year 2004 of the Homeland Security bill. It is well known that the threat of terrorism is with us on a daily basis, and it is our hope that another terrorist attack such as the one on September 11, 2001 can be avoided. Our intelligence agencies are working at a high pitch to try to avoid such a terrorist attack, but we know it is relatively easy to infiltrate our borders, that we have vast areas where we are accessible from the sea, land, and air, and that it is possible to bring in explosives and dangerous items by way of bioterrorism or explosives. There is no doubt that the high-risk areas, urban areas, are more susceptible for these kinds of attacks because they pose a target where terrorists could reach a large number of people, evidenced by September 11 when the Trade Towers were attacked, going after thousands of people, the plane that went into the Pentagon, and the plane which was most likely headed for the Capitol, doing a maximum amount of damage. It is obviously necessary to be as prepared as we can be within reason, and in order to avoid having the terrorists win, we have to set a goal of concern but not being terrified, and a way not to be terrified is to be prepared--hopefully, adequately prepared. Candidly, it is very difficult to make a determination factually as to how much money is adequate. Is $50 million adequate or is $1 billion adequate? Nobody can say with absolute certainty. But we believe this is a relatively modest increase in the appropriations for high-risk areas and that it is well warranted by the facts. Earlier today, Senator Santorum and I traveled with President Bush to Philadelphia where he spoke. His path is illustrative of the kinds of special risks that are present in an urban area such as the city of Philadelphia. First, we landed at the airport, which is a natural target. Next, we went along the highways, another target. Then we traveled over an enormous bridge spanning the Schuylkill River, then along the seaport. At every step of the way, we were looking at high-risk areas, and the number of policemen and security personnel, in addition to the Secret Service and Federal personnel, was very substantial. In addition to the kinds of areas traversed by the President--the airport, the bridges, the seaport, and the highways--the major urban areas have subways, tunnels, and railyards, all of which exposes them to greater risks. It is not only the major cities, the urban areas, which have the high risks but there is risk really all across America. No one knows if the terrorists will strike again, where the terrorists will strike again, when the terrorists will strike again, but we have to be prepared. During the July recess, I made it a point to travel through 14 Pennsylvania counties and visit first responders. I went to the city of Pittsburgh--a big city, obviously--to take a look at what was being done there, to take a look at the paraphernalia, the clothes worn by the firefighters as first responders. They are very expensive. I looked at the mechanical units that detect anthrax in the air, that detect bioterrorism substances in the area. I went to a series of small towns, including the Indiana Volunteer Fire Association. I went to the Oil City Fire Department. In the smaller communities there is great concern. They are worried a terrorist attack on a small community would alarm smaller communities all over the country. Whereas smaller communities might feel it is the big cities that are the first lines, perhaps it will be the smaller communities. The funds are distributed to the smaller communities from the States. If there is an increase in funding for a State such as Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, or Maryland, for the high-risk areas, there will obviously be more funds available for smaller communities. The big cities are being called upon to spend a great deal of money when the threat line is elevated. In fiscal year 2002, the city of Philadelphia spent $21.2 million on increased domestic security costs overtime by the police, fire, and public health employees associated with rapid assessment teams. This year, from February 7 to February 20, the threat level was increased from yellow to orange in the city of Philadelphia, costing an additional $1.3 million during that 2-week period alone for domestic protection. The city of Pittsburgh has also had to bear the costs of increased protection resulting from September 11. In fiscal year 2002, the Pittsburgh Department of Public Safety spent almost $7 million for additional protection. I visited the Allegheny County Threat Center and the first responders in Pittsburgh. The money spent so far is clearly insufficient. I repeat, no one knows exactly what the costs would be to make it sufficient, but there would be some reassurance in the high- risk areas and also in the balance of the country where the smaller communities will get increased funding as a result of a special allocation to the high-risk areas which would enable State governments to allocate more to the smaller communities with this additional allocation, with this additional appropriation. Other urban areas are similarly affected. For example, the increased police protection in New York City costs approximately $5 million a month; protection at the United Nations costs in the range of $8 million a month. This is just a thumbnail sketch. It could be amplified with every city, every urban area, every high-risk area in the country. It is our submission in putting forward this amendment that this is a modest additional protection on a very serious threat which confronts our Nation today. How much time remains for the proponents?

Mr. SPECTER. Agreed to.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Schumer, Warner, and Clinton.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to join the junior Senator from Ohio and my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, to urge the Chairman of the Senate. Appropriations Committee to ensure that the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Defense Appropriations bill we send to the President provides funding for at least one squadron of Abrams M1A2 SEP tanks for the U.S. Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Like all Americans, I proudly watched on the nightly news as the U.S. Army's Abrams tanks again proved themselves an indispensable asset in the recent war in Iraq. A critical element in the success in those battles--and any likely future conflict--is the U.S. Army's CounterAttack Corps. The armed reconnaissance regiment of the CATK is the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which needs the most up to date equipment to best protect our fighting men and women. The 3rd ACR must be upgraded to the Abrams M1A2 SEP to reflect new technologies. The ground combat vehicle defense industrial base is critical to our national security as we transform our military services into more lethal, survivable and sustainable entities, particularly as we prepare for new programs such as Future Combat Systems. I am proud that Scranton, Pennsylvania is a critical part of that industrial base. In Scranton, some two hundred highly dedicated, highly skilled workers--many of whom are members of UAW Local 1193-- manufacture critical components of the M1A2 SEP, such as turret race rings, LRUs and suspensions. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Conference to ensure that the fighting men and women of the 3rd ACR and the workers that together make up the backbone of our national security are protected well into the future by providing funding for at least one squadron of M1A2 SEP tanks in the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as the Senate debates the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues to consider the importance of protecting our Naval ships and sailors, particularly in strategic ports, such as the port of Phildelphia, where heavy commercial and military traffic coexist. I strongly believe that it is critical we do everything we can to ensure the installation of safeguards against future acts of terrorism. We must avoid another tragedy like the October 12, 2000 terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen which claimed the life of 17 U.S. Sailors. Recently, quad hull steel caisson technology has been identified as an effective protection mechanism for such ships and their crews. I encourage the Defense Appropriations Committee to pursue a demonstration project focusing on this technology that can lead to full production of these quad hull modules on a timely basis.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to a trusted member of my staff, Frank L. Brown. Frank is my legislative counsel for judicial nominations, minority outreach, immigration, civil rights and Department of Justice appropriations. He joined my staff on December 15, 1998. Frank became a part of my staff after receiving his B.A. from Johnson C. Smith University and his J.D. from the University of South Carolina Law School. During his time with me, I have seen him grow into one of my most trusted advisers. He is a bright, articulate, and loyal young man with quite the personality. He has represented my office and the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in a most professional and caring manner. Unfortunately, the time has come for him to pursue other career objectives. Frank is about to become the Assistant Director/Government Relations Specialist of Boys and Girls Harbor Inc. located in Harlem, NY. This organization is a non-profit that provides various educational services for over 7,000 low-income African-American and Hispanic-American children. I am confident that Frank will be a positive role model for those young people he will work with in New York City. Even though I regret his departure, I know that he will continue to be a part of the Arlen Specter staff family for many years to come. I wish him nothing but success in his future endeavors.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I thank my colleagues and the clerical staff awaiting my arrival from the customary Monday travel day from Philadelphia to Scranton to Harrisburg to Washington. For those who may be about to venture onto the Baltimore Washington Parkway, the traffic is very heavy indeed. Although when I arrived in the Senate Chamber and I saw active debate, I am not quite sure my late arrival has caused too much inconvenience. I support legislation which would address the serious problems faced today by doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals and at the same time provide balance to treat fairly people who are injured in the course of medical treatment. While most of the attention has been directed to medical malpractice verdicts, the issues are much broader, involving medical errors, insurance company investments and administrative practices. I support caps on noneconomic damages so long as they do not apply to situations like the paperwork mix-up leading to the erroneous double mastectomy of a woman or the recent death of a 17-year-old woman on a North Carolina transplant case where there was a faulty blood test. An appropriate standard for cases not covered could be analogous provisions in Pennsylvania law which limit actions against governmental entities or in the limited tort context which exclude death, serious impairment of bodily function, and permanent disfigurement or dismemberment. Beyond the issue of caps, I believe there could be savings on the cost of medical malpractice insurance by eliminating frivolous cases by requiring plaintiffs to file with the court a certification by a doctor in the field that it is an appropriate case to bring to court. This proposal, which is now part of Pennsylvania State procedure, would be expanded federally, thus reducing claims and saving costs. While most malpractice cases are won by defendants, the high cost of litigation drives up malpractice premiums. The proposed certification would reduce plaintiff's joinder of peripheral defendants and cut defense costs. Further savings could be accomplished through patient safety initiatives identified in the report of the Institute of Medicine. On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine--IOM--issued a report entitled: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. The IOM Report estimated that anywhere between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized Americans die each year due to avoidable medical mistakes. However, only a fraction of these deaths and injuries are due to negligence; most errors are caused by system failures. The IOM issued a comprehensive set of recommendations, including the establishment of a nationwide, mandatory reporting system; incorporation of patient safety standards in regulatory and accreditation programs; and the development of a non-punitive culture of safety in health care organizations. The report called for a 50 percent reduction in medical errors over 5 years. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, held three hearings to discuss the IOM's findings and explore ways to implement the recommendations outlined in the IOM report. The FY 2001 Labor-HHS appropriations bill contained $50 million for a patient safety initiative and directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality--AHRQ--to develop guidelines on the collection of uniform error data; establish a competitive demonstration program to test best practices; and research ways to improve provider training. In Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003, $55 million was included to continue these initiatives. We are awaiting a report, scheduled to be issued in September by the Department of Health and Human Services, which will detail the results of the patient safety initiative. There is evidence that increases in insurance premiums have been caused, at least in part, by insurance company losses, the declining stock market of the past several years, and the general rate-setting practices of the industry. As a matter of insurance company calculations, premiums are collected and invested to build up an insurance reserve where there is considerable lag time between the payment of the premium and litigation which results in a verdict or settlement. When the stock market has gone down, for example, that has resulted in insufficient funding to pay claims and the attendant increase in insurance premiums. A similar result occurred in Texas on homeowners' insurance where cost and availability of insurance became an issue because companies lost money in the market and could not cover the insured losses on hurricanes. In structuring legislation to put caps on jury verdicts, due regard should be given to the history and development of trial by jury under the common law where reliance is placed on average men and women who comprise a jury to reach a just result reflecting the values and views of the community. Jury trials in modern tort cases descend from the common law jury in trespass, which was drawn from and intended to be representative of the average members of the community in which the alleged trespass occurred. This coincides with the incorporation of negligence standards of liability into trespass actions. This ``representative'' jury right in civil actions was protected by consensus among the state drafters of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. The explicit trial by jury safeguards in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution were adaptations of these common law concepts harmonized with the Sixth Amendment's clause that local juries be used in criminal trials. Thus, from its inception at common law through its inclusion in the Bill of Rights and today, the jury in tort/negligence cases is meant to be representative of the judgment of average members of the community--not of elected representatives. The right to have a jury decide one's damages has been greatly circumscribed in recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. An example is the analysis that the Court has recently applied to limit punitive damage awards. In recent cases, the Court has shifted its Seventh Amendment focus away from 2 centuries of precedent in deciding that federal appellate review of punitive damage awards will be decided on a de novo basis and that a jury's determination of punitive damages is not a finding of fact for purposes of the re-examination clause of the Seventh Amendment which provides that ``no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re- examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law''. Then, earlier this year, the Court reasoned that any ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages greater than 9/1 will likely be considered unreasonable and disproportionate, and thus constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property in non-personal injury cases. Plaintiffs will inevitably face a vastly increased burden to justify a greater ratio, and appellate courts have far greater latitude to disallow or reduce such an award. These decisions may have already, in effect, placed caps on some jury verdicts in medical malpractice cases which may involve punitive damages. Consideration of the many complex issues on the Senate floor on the pending legislation will obviously be very difficult in the absence of a markup in committee or the submission of a committee report and a committee bill. The pending bill is the starting point for analysis, discussion, debate, and possible amendment. I am prepared to proceed with the caveat that there is much work to be done before the Senate would be ready, in my opinion, for consideration of final passage. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. 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 proposal before the Senate would make available a voluntary Medicare prescription drug plan for all seniors. If enacted, Medicare beneficiaries 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. For these seniors, copayments would not exceed 20 percent of the cost of the drugs. For medical services, Medicare beneficiaries will have the freedom to remain in traditional fee-for-service Medicare for drug coverage, or to enroll in Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) or Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs), also called MedicareAdvantage, which offers beneficiaries a wide choice of health care providers, while also coordinating health care effectively, especially for those with multiple chronic conditions. MedicareAdvantage health plans would be required to offer at least the standard drug benefit, available through traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The legislation which is pending has been worked on, now, for many years. I congratulate the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for the outstanding work which they have done. This is an extraordinarily complex subject, and it is a very complex bill. 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, provides a deductible, then a copay, then what is called a donut hole where the recipient pays the entire costs of their drug coverage, and when it gets to a certain high level, it is catastrophic and there is coverage that pays almost all of it. As I have reviewed these projections and these analyses, it is hard to say where the line ought to be drawn. It is a value judgment as to what deductibles ought to be, and for whom, and what the copays ought to be and for whom. I am seriously troubled by the so-called donut hole. But it is calculated to encourage people to take the medical care they really need, and at lower levels of income to have certain copays, which it is projected will be affordable. Then, when the costs move into the so-called catastrophic range, to have the plan pay for nearly all of the medical costs. I think passage by the Senate would be a significant step forward. The House of Representatives, as usual, has a different plan--as is customary, with our bicameral legislative approach. Then the bill can be improved in conference. The legislative process has the committee turning out a bill, and then many amendments, which generally are not known to Members in advance of brief debate and then votes. It is in the conference, after the bill is analyzed, that another fresh look is taken at the bill to produce the best legislative product in the public interest. Amendment No. 983 I have already offered an amendment relating to end of life directives, number 983, which was adopted by unanimous consent. Commenting on it very briefly, we find statistically that nearly 30 percent of Medicare expenditures occur during a person's last year of life. We find, beyond the last year of life, a tremendous percentage of medical costs occur in the last month, in the last few weeks, in the last week, or in the last few days. Nobody should decide for anybody else what that person should have by way of end-of-life medical care. What care ought to be available is a very personal decision. The living wills would give an individual an opportunity to make that judgment, to make a decision as to how much care he or she wanted near the end of his or her life and that is, to repeat, a matter highly personalized for the individual. But if that decision was made to eliminate some of the very high costs at the very end of life, there would obviously be substantial savings to our medical system. As long as that comports with the will of the individual, that is something which ought to be considered. The amendment directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include in its annual ``Medicare And You'' handbook, to be provided to each beneficiary, a section that specifies information on advanced directives and details on living wills, durable powers of attorney for health care, and directs the Secretary of HHS, in the introductory letter to the ``Medicare And You'' handbook, to reference the inclusion of advanced directives. Amendment No. 1085 I have also submitted an amendment which is pending at the desk, amendment No. 1085, which has not yet been acted upon but which I will call up at an appropriate time. This is an amendment which would update the Medicare physician fee formula. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The projections from the Medicare payment formula called for a 4.4-percent reduction on March 1, which would have been very problematic. The fact is, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, now projects a Medicare conversion factor figure of 4.2 percent will be projected for the year 2004. This reduction threatens to destabilize an important element of the Medicare Program; namely, physician participation and willingness to accept Medicare payments. This instability is a result of the sustainable growth rate, a system of annual spending which targets physicians' services under Medicare. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment would provide that the conferees on Medicare reform and prescription drug legislation should include in the conference agreement a provision to establish a minimum percentage update in physician fees for the next 2 years, and should consider adding provisions which would mitigate the swings in payment, such as establishing multiyear adjustments to recoup the variance and creating tolerance corridors for variations around the updated target trend. Amendment No. 1118 I have also submitted an amendment designated as amendment No. 1118, which provides for a lifestyle modification program demonstration. This is projected on the factor that heart disease kills some 500,000 Americans each year. The costs of coronary disease currently relate to an expenditure of some $58 billion annually. There has been a test program of the Medicare lifestyle modification program operating in some 12 States which has been demonstrated to reduce the need for coronary procedures by 88 percent. This program could reduce cardiovascular expenditures by as much as $36 billion annually. Lifestyle choices such as diet and exercise affect heart disease and heart disease outcomes by 50 percent or greater. This program has also been applied to men with prostate cancer, who have shown significant improvements in prostate cancer markers using a similar approach in lifestyle modifications. My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should carry out the lifestyle modification program demonstration at the national level and then provide it on a permanent basis, and include as many Medicare beneficiaries as would like to participate in the project on a voluntary basis. I have submitted one additional amendment, which is No. 1128 and which relates to State pharmaceutical assistance programs for the elderly and disabled. Currently, 18 States have comprehensive pharmacy assistance programs which provide prescription drug coverage for more than 1.1 million older and disabled Americans. In my own State, Pennsylvania's Pharmaceutical Assistance Contract for the Elderly, known as PACE, established in 1984 provides prescription drug coverage to 230,000 Medicare beneficiaries, the vast majority of whom have incomes below 160 percent of the Federal poverty level. This enrollment is comprised largely of 70- and 80-year-old widows who have multiple diseases and limited educational background who have been enrolled in the PACE program for more than a decade. There is a serious concern that if there is not a coordinated program, people will not be informed as to how to move from PACE to another program. This affects not only Pennsylvania but, as I stated, 17 other States. The pending bill does not provide for coordination of benefits between State pharmaceutical programs and private insurers. Without a coordination of benefits for State plans to facilitate enrollment in private plans, many of these State program beneficiaries will be unable to assess the new Medicare drug benefit. This amendment provides for coordination of benefits between States and private insurance companies and facilitates the enrollment of State pharmacy assistance beneficiaries in the private plans. Without this amendment, the majority of seniors enrolled in their State pharmacy programs will not be able to effectively access private plans. I note the presence of other Senators who are seeking recognition. I attempted to be brief in my general statement about the bill and also in my descriptions of these four amendments, one of which has already been adopted. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, there be printed in the Record a summary of the end-of-life directive amendment, a summary of the updating of the Medicare physician fee formula, a summary of the lifestyle modification program, and a summary of the State pharmaceutical assistance programs for the elderly and disabled, and also printed in the Record at this point the amendments themselves.