Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain the provisions of the ``Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act of 2003,'' a bill that I have introduced today to assist Medicare-eligible veterans struggling with the costs of prescription medications. I fully understand that Congress, and the President, are working very hard on legislation to take on the larger issue of providing a prescription drug benefit for all American seniors. I applaud that effort, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to see that Congress enacts legislation to help all seniors who struggle with the ever-increasing costs of necessary medications. But in the meantime, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I offer legislation to allow Medicare-eligible veterans to obtain prescription drugs from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, at the significantly discounted costs that VA, as a high-volume purchaser of prescriptions medications, is able to secure in the marketplace. Earlier this year, VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi was forced to limit access to VA care by suspending new enrollments of non-service- disabled middle and higher income veterans who were not enrolled for care as of January 17, 2003. The Secretary was forced to so act because the number of patients provided care by VA has more than doubled in just five years. And as a result, VA's medical care system has been overwhelmed and, as a consequence, VA has been unable to provide timely access to healthcare for all veterans who have sought it and appointment waiting times have grown to alarming levels. But in almost every news story that followed the Secretary's difficult decision, it was noted that many of the new enrollees who had overwhelmed VA's capacity to provide care were Medicare-eligible veterans who were able to get Medicare-financed care elsewhere--but who were seeking access to the relatively generous prescription drug program provided to veterans under VA care. Currently, VA provides enrolled patients with prescription medications for $7.00 for each 30-day supply. But to get such prescriptions, the veteran must obtain the full range of medical care from VA. This fact, coupled with the Secretary's decision to close enrollment, means that veterans who are now--or who will be--eligible for Medicare who had not enrolled for VA care prior to January 17, 2003, will be unable to access VA's generous prescription drug benefits. This legislation would provide some relief for those veterans. In addition, I anticipate that it may induce some VA-enrolled Medicare-eligible veterans--those who were happy with their Medicare- financed care but who enrolled for VA care to gain access to VA- supplied drugs--to return to non-VA care with knowledge that they will be able to get their non-VA prescriptions filled through VA. Enactment of this provision, then, would reduce--not exacerbate--VA patient backlog numbers. The premise of this legislation is straightforward: VA fills and distributes more than 100 million prescriptions each year for its 4.5 million veteran-patients. As a result, it has significant purchasing power--power which, coupled with VA's formulary program, allows it to negotiate very favorable prices for prescription drugs. According to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the average ``cash cost'' of a prescription in 2001 was $40.22. The average VA per- prescription cost in 2001 was $22.87--almost 50 percent less. The average per-prescription price paid by VA this year is up to just under $25--a slower growth rate than the 6.7 percent annual growth experienced in the population at large since 2001. My purpose is to afford Medicare-eligible veterans access to such discounts. I do not propose that VA be directed to supply drugs to all Medicare-eligible veterans at VA expense, or even with a partial VA subsidy. VA has stated that such a mandate would divert VA funding-- which, clearly, is already stretched to the limit--away from VA priority patients: the service-connected, the poor, and those with special needs. I accept VA's statement of concern; I accept and I insist--that scarce funding be directed, first, to meet the needs of priority patients. This legislation, therefore, requires that VA recover the costs of drugs it supplies under this program from veterans who bring their prescriptions from outside doctors to VA. I do not propose to tell VA in this bill how to recover these costs. VA is better positioned than I to make such judgments. Thus, my legislation provides flexibility to VA to design and test payment mechanisms to best accomplish cost recovery while still easing veterans' access to the drugs they need. It might be that enrollment fees, a copayment structure, or a simple ``cost-plus''--for administrative expenses pricing format--or some combination of those mechanisms--works best. And it might be that different approaches work best in different regions of the country. I intend for the VA to experiment with different pricing structures to determine what works best. But I also intend that veterans get a break on prescription drug pricing. Those who would benefit from this program are World War II and Korean War veterans who answered their country's call over 50 years ago. As they age, many desperately need relief from high drug prices. My purpose is not to disparage the drug companies; their discoveries have truly been marvels. But that is precious little comfort to a Medicare participant who, whatever the drug's overall utility might be, cannot afford both the drug and food or shelter or heat. Many such persons reside in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where, just last month, a genuine titan in the industrial history of the United States, Bethlehem Steel, ceased to exist. Many retired steelworkers who are also veterans--and who never needed VA because of company-paid benefits--have lost their health insurance coverage and, with it, prescription drug benefits. These people need a break. This bill could provide it. The premise of this legislation is simple: veteran access to VA market-driven discounts. Yet, the assistance it could provide might be profound. I do hope that Congress will find a way to provide prescription drug benefits to all seniors. But for now, I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that the problem might be solved--or at least reduced--for seniors who served. They deserve it, and we should do it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain briefly the provisions of the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Long- Term Care and Personnel Authorities Enhancement Act of 2003,'' a bill that I have introduced today. Title I of the bill would extend through calendar year 2008 authorities that now specify that the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, will provide to veterans enrolled for VA medical care outpatient- based long-term care services, such as Adult Day Health Care, Home Health Aide assistance, Non-Institutional Respite Care, and Home-based Primary Care. These services provide alternatives to institutional care and, in many cases, they obviate the need for institutional care by allowing veterans to remain in their own homes with care-giving assistance provided by VA. In addition, this bill would lower, from 70 percent to 50 percent, the threshold level of service-connected disability that would qualify a veteran for highest-priority for institutional care should he or she need it. VA currently provides highest-priority access to hospital and outpatient clinic-based care to veterans who have suffered a service- connected disability rated by VA as 50 percent disabling or higher. Highest-priority access to inpatient-based long-term care services, however, is only granted by law to veterans who are 70 percent or more disabled, unless such care is needed specifically to treat a less- disabling service-connected disability. When this provision of law was enacted in 1999, Congress set the threshold for priority access to nursing home care at 70 percent, rather than at 50 percent, due primarily to concerns that a lower threshold--which was actively considered--might cause VA to be faced with an unforeseen level of demand that could not be met. Since then, however, VA has reported that ``there was only a small increase in the numbers of veterans 70 percent service-connected or greater who were estimated to need nursing home care but who actually received that care from VA.'' In light of that, I see no compelling reason to continue distinguishing between nursing home care and all other types of care that are made available to 50 percent or higher service-connected veterans on a highest-priority basis. This bill would provide, in effect, that hospital care, outpatient clinic-based care, and nursing home care will equally be made available to all such enrolled veterans. Title I of the bill would also make technical changes to VA authority to contract for nursing home and adult day health care services by allowing VA to enter into agreements with providers under standards similar to those allowed by Medicare. According to VA, these changes will allow a greater number of smaller community-based providers to contract with VA by reducing the regulatory burdens placed upon them as a condition to contracting eligibility. Title II of the bill authorizes major construction for long-term care facilities in Beckley, WV and Lebanon, PA. Each of these states has a substantial elderly population and each is need of expansion to their VA long-term care programs. Title III of the bill would change current law to allow VA to more easily hire and retain certain clinical staff members. Under current law, VA hires many clinical professionals, such as physicians and nurses, under streamlined authorities set forth in title 38 of U.S. Code. But other key clinical professionals, such as clinical social workers, psychologists, and pharmacists, may only be hired through the standard ``civil service'' authorities specified in Title 5, U.S. Code. Further, members of such professions may only be paid and promoted in accordance with the standard civil service General Schedule, GS, pay scale. The process of hiring staff under these procedures is arduous and lengthy, consuming three months or more and placing VA at great competitive disadvantage in securing the services of best qualified candidates. This bill would convert many of these positions into ``hybrid Title 38'' status and permit VA greatly increased hiring and promotion flexibility, and compensation at special, locally-based, pay scales. Such clinicians, however, would retain their standard civil service grievance, vacation, and discipline protections. Title III of the bill also contains provisions to correct a long- standing inequity relating to retirement benefits for certain part-time VA nurses; to expand a successful pilot program allowing for contract- physician disability compensation medical examinations; and to afford certain wage-grade canteen workers an opportunity to compete favorably for VA employment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the Daschle amendment numbered 834 be modified to be placed in the form of a Senate resolution; that the resolution, be adopted the preamble be adopted, with a motion to reconsider being laid upon the table.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this resolution provides that Social Security cost-of-living adjustments shall be maintained. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. I thank the Democratic leader.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to explain briefly the provisions of the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Long- Term Care and Personnel Authorities Enhancement Act of 2003,'' a bill that I have introduced today. Title I of the bill would extend through calendar year 2008 authorities that now specify that the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, will provide to veterans enrolled for VA medical care outpatient- based long-term care services, such as Adult Day Health Care, Home Health Aide assistance, Non-Institutional Respite Care, and Home-based Primary Care. These services provide alternatives to institutional care and, in many cases, they obviate the need for institutional care by allowing veterans to remain in their own homes with care-giving assistance provided by VA. In addition, this bill would lower, from 70 percent to 50 percent, the threshold level of service-connected disability that would qualify a veteran for highest-priority for institutional care should he or she need it. VA currently provides highest-priority access to hospital and outpatient clinic-based care to veterans who have suffered a service- connected disability rated by VA as 50 percent disabling or higher. Highest-priority access to inpatient-based long-term care services, however, is only granted by law to veterans who are 70 percent or more disabled, unless such care is needed specifically to treat a less- disabling service-connected disability. When this provision of law was enacted in 1999, Congress set the threshold for priority access to nursing home care at 70 percent, rather than at 50 percent, due primarily to concerns that a lower threshold--which was actively considered--might cause VA to be faced with an unforeseen level of demand that could not be met. Since then, however, VA has reported that ``there was only a small increase in the numbers of veterans 70 percent service-connected or greater who were estimated to need nursing home care but who actually received that care from VA.'' In light of that, I see no compelling reason to continue distinguishing between nursing home care and all other types of care that are made available to 50 percent or higher service-connected veterans on a highest-priority basis. This bill would provide, in effect, that hospital care, outpatient clinic-based care, and nursing home care will equally be made available to all such enrolled veterans. Title I of the bill would also make technical changes to VA authority to contract for nursing home and adult day health care services by allowing VA to enter into agreements with providers under standards similar to those allowed by Medicare. According to VA, these changes will allow a greater number of smaller community-based providers to contract with VA by reducing the regulatory burdens placed upon them as a condition to contracting eligibility. Title II of the bill authorizes major construction for long-term care facilities in Beckley, WV and Lebanon, PA. Each of these states has a substantial elderly population and each is need of expansion to their VA long-term care programs. Title III of the bill would change current law to allow VA to more easily hire and retain certain clinical staff members. Under current law, VA hires many clinical professionals, such as physicians and nurses, under streamlined authorities set forth in title 38 of U.S. Code. But other key clinical professionals, such as clinical social workers, psychologists, and pharmacists, may only be hired through the standard ``civil service'' authorities specified in Title 5, U.S. Code. Further, members of such professions may only be paid and promoted in accordance with the standard civil service General Schedule, GS, pay scale. The process of hiring staff under these procedures is arduous and lengthy, consuming three months or more and placing VA at great competitive disadvantage in securing the services of best qualified candidates. This bill would convert many of these positions into ``hybrid Title 38'' status and permit VA greatly increased hiring and promotion flexibility, and compensation at special, locally-based, pay scales. Such clinicians, however, would retain their standard civil service grievance, vacation, and discipline protections. Title III of the bill also contains provisions to correct a long- standing inequity relating to retirement benefits for certain part-time VA nurses; to expand a successful pilot program allowing for contract- physician disability compensation medical examinations; and to afford certain wage-grade canteen workers an opportunity to compete favorably for VA employment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S.1133, the proposed ``Veterans Programs Improvement Act of 2003.'' The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has submitted this proposed legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated April 25, 2003. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and a section-by-section analysis which accompanied it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I have introduced today to further honor the sacrifices made by the family members of those who were killed or injured in service to our country. As we celebrate the victory won on the battlefield in Iraq, we must remember that the loss of American lives-- even a relative few--was a sobering price to pay. The loss of life in service is most acutely felt by the spouses and children left behind. For them, we must make every effort--however inadequate that effort might be in comparison to the enormity of their loss--to recognize their needs. This bill attempts to do so by increasing educational assistance benefits for survivors, by providing additional dependency and indemnity compensation payments for bereaved families, by authorizing a remarried spouse to be buried in a national cemetery with his or her deceased veteran-spouse, and by providing health, training and compensation benefits to children of certain veterans who served in or near the Korean demilitarized zone, DMZ, in the late 1960s, and who were born with Agent Orange-induced spina bifida. The legislation I introduce today would increase the rate of monthly Survivors' and Dependents' Education Assistance, DEA, benefits from $680 to $985. DEA benefits are provided to the spouses and children of veterans who were killed, or profoundly wounded, in service. The increase I propose today would create parity between DEA benefits and veterans' educational assistance, Montgomery GI Bill, benefits. Such parity was recommended by a recent Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, program evaluation and is dictated by the common sense observation that college tuition is no less expensive for widows and orphans than it is for veterans. Under this legislation, DEA-eligible survivors, like Montgomery GI Bill beneficiaries, would receive an aggregate of $35,460 worth of education benefits--$985 monthly for a total of 36 months. Thus, both veterans and survivors would have the resources necessary to meet the average cost of tuition, fees, and room and board at four-year, public institutions of higher learning. As was stated by VA's Deputy Secretary, Dr. Leo Mackay, at a Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing on June 28, 2001, VA ``believe[s] it is only fair that these benefits should be at the same level as those provided to veterans.'' VA estimates that a monthly benefit at that level will entice 90% of eligible persons to use the benefit. This legislation would also put into effect a key policy recommendation made by a VA-contracted study examining the adequacy of survivors' Dependency and Indemnification Compensation, DIC, benefit. The 2001 study called for the DIC benefit--the basic rate of which is now set at $948 per month--to be increased by $250 per month during the 5-year period following the death of a veteran to further ease the transition of surviving spouses with dependent children. The contractor study based its recommendations on the reported income needs and expenses of DIC recipients; it found that spouses with children reported higher levels of unmet need than spouses without children-- even though spouses with dependent children already receive an additional $237 in monthly DIC benefits per child. In short, the contractor found that while widows with children are already afforded additional DIC benefits, they need more. In July 2001, VA estimated that there were approximately 14,500 surviving spouses with dependent children. Reading the profiles of some of the young men and women who lost their lives in Iraq, I know that several spouses will, sadly, be added to that number. This provision of my bill is a small way to further recognize the needs of families based on an objective assessment of what those needs are. Section four of this bill would codify a practice that VA routinely allows through a waiver process. Under current practice, when the remarried widow of a deceased veteran dies, her second husband must grant VA permission before VA will allow, under a waiver process, the widow to be buried in a national cemetery with her deceased veteran- husband. A woman, for example, who was married for 50 years to a World War II veteran and who remarries late in life after her first husband dies should not have to depend on a waiver process to ensure burial with her first husband. Remarried spouses whose second marriages end due to death or divorce have a statutory right to burial with their deceased veteran-spouse. The same statutory right should be afforded to remarried spouses who, though married at death, never lost their desire to be united with a prior spouse already at rest in a national cemetery. Finally, my legislation would provide benefits to spina bifida children of veterans who served in or near the Korean DMZ between 1967 and 1969. Benefits would be provided on the same basis, and under the same rationale, as they are to children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida. In 1996, Congress authorized benefits for Vietnam children born with spina bifida based on evidence reported by the Institute of Medicine of an association between exposure to Agent Orange and the appearance of the birth defect spina bifida in a veteran's offspring. The same contaminant found in Agent Orange-- dioxin--was also used to clear brush in and near the Korean DMZ during the late 1960s. Indeed, veterans who served near the Korean DMZ during that time are already presumed by VA to have been exposed to herbicides, unless military records demonstrate otherwise, and they are, accordingly, already awarded compensation on a presumptive basis if they fall ill from conditions presumed by law to be presumptively service-connected for Vietnam veterans. VA, however, exercises no such latitude in addressing the needs of the children of Korean DMZ veterans born with spina bifida. It should--and this bill would direct VA to do so. I first learned of this inequity from Mr. John Ruzalski, a resident of Hawley, PA. Mr. Ruzalski is a Korean DMZ veteran whose 27-year-old son suffers from spina bifida. I am grateful to Mr. Ruzalski for his service in Korea, and for bringing this matter to light, and am hopeful that the Congress can reward his vigilance on behalf of his son. Clearly, it makes no sense for VA to presume that Korean DMZ veterans should be treated like Vietnam veterans for purposes of compensating the veteran's service-related illnesses and yet treat their spina bifida children differently. In summary, the provisions of this legislation will make a difference in the lives of those who fallen servicemembers loved even more than country--their families. I ask my colleagues for their support. 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 comment on legislation I am introducing today to provide a cost-of-living, COLA, adjustment for certain veterans' benefits programs. This COLA adjustment would affect payments made to nearly 3 million Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, beneficiaries, and would be reflected in beneficiary checks that are received in January 2004, and thereafter. An annual cost-of-living adjustment in veterans benefits is an important tool which protects veterans' cash-transfer benefits against the corrosive effects of inflation. The principal programs affected by the adjustment would be compensation paid to disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation, DIC, payments made to the surviving spouses, minor children and other dependents of persons who died in service, or who died after service as a result of service- connected injuries or diseases. The President's budget anticipates inflation to be at a two percent level at the close of this year as measured by the consumer price index, CPI, published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. If inflation is held to the 2 percent level, that will be the level of COLA adjustment under this legislation since it ties the increase directly to the CPI increase as measured by the Department of Labor. Whatever the CPI increase eventually turns out to be, however, veterans' and survivors' benefits payments must be protected by being increased by a like amount. The Congress already concurred with that judgment with the recent passage of the budget resolution; that resolution sets aside the funds necessary to finance the COLA increase envisioned by this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support this vital legislation. I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I have introduced today to further honor the sacrifices made by the family members of those who were killed or injured in service to our country. As we celebrate the victory won on the battlefield in Iraq, we must remember that the loss of American lives-- even a relative few--was a sobering price to pay. The loss of life in service is most acutely felt by the spouses and children left behind. For them, we must make every effort--however inadequate that effort might be in comparison to the enormity of their loss--to recognize their needs. This bill attempts to do so by increasing educational assistance benefits for survivors, by providing additional dependency and indemnity compensation payments for bereaved families, by authorizing a remarried spouse to be buried in a national cemetery with his or her deceased veteran-spouse, and by providing health, training and compensation benefits to children of certain veterans who served in or near the Korean demilitarized zone, DMZ, in the late 1960s, and who were born with Agent Orange-induced spina bifida. The legislation I introduce today would increase the rate of monthly Survivors' and Dependents' Education Assistance, DEA, benefits from $680 to $985. DEA benefits are provided to the spouses and children of veterans who were killed, or profoundly wounded, in service. The increase I propose today would create parity between DEA benefits and veterans' educational assistance, Montgomery GI Bill, benefits. Such parity was recommended by a recent Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, program evaluation and is dictated by the common sense observation that college tuition is no less expensive for widows and orphans than it is for veterans. Under this legislation, DEA-eligible survivors, like Montgomery GI Bill beneficiaries, would receive an aggregate of $35,460 worth of education benefits--$985 monthly for a total of 36 months. Thus, both veterans and survivors would have the resources necessary to meet the average cost of tuition, fees, and room and board at four-year, public institutions of higher learning. As was stated by VA's Deputy Secretary, Dr. Leo Mackay, at a Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing on June 28, 2001, VA ``believe[s] it is only fair that these benefits should be at the same level as those provided to veterans.'' VA estimates that a monthly benefit at that level will entice 90% of eligible persons to use the benefit. This legislation would also put into effect a key policy recommendation made by a VA-contracted study examining the adequacy of survivors' Dependency and Indemnification Compensation, DIC, benefit. The 2001 study called for the DIC benefit--the basic rate of which is now set at $948 per month--to be increased by $250 per month during the 5-year period following the death of a veteran to further ease the transition of surviving spouses with dependent children. The contractor study based its recommendations on the reported income needs and expenses of DIC recipients; it found that spouses with children reported higher levels of unmet need than spouses without children-- even though spouses with dependent children already receive an additional $237 in monthly DIC benefits per child. In short, the contractor found that while widows with children are already afforded additional DIC benefits, they need more. In July 2001, VA estimated that there were approximately 14,500 surviving spouses with dependent children. Reading the profiles of some of the young men and women who lost their lives in Iraq, I know that several spouses will, sadly, be added to that number. This provision of my bill is a small way to further recognize the needs of families based on an objective assessment of what those needs are. Section four of this bill would codify a practice that VA routinely allows through a waiver process. Under current practice, when the remarried widow of a deceased veteran dies, her second husband must grant VA permission before VA will allow, under a waiver process, the widow to be buried in a national cemetery with her deceased veteran- husband. A woman, for example, who was married for 50 years to a World War II veteran and who remarries late in life after her first husband dies should not have to depend on a waiver process to ensure burial with her first husband. Remarried spouses whose second marriages end due to death or divorce have a statutory right to burial with their deceased veteran-spouse. The same statutory right should be afforded to remarried spouses who, though married at death, never lost their desire to be united with a prior spouse already at rest in a national cemetery. Finally, my legislation would provide benefits to spina bifida children of veterans who served in or near the Korean DMZ between 1967 and 1969. Benefits would be provided on the same basis, and under the same rationale, as they are to children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida. In 1996, Congress authorized benefits for Vietnam children born with spina bifida based on evidence reported by the Institute of Medicine of an association between exposure to Agent Orange and the appearance of the birth defect spina bifida in a veteran's offspring. The same contaminant found in Agent Orange-- dioxin--was also used to clear brush in and near the Korean DMZ during the late 1960s. Indeed, veterans who served near the Korean DMZ during that time are already presumed by VA to have been exposed to herbicides, unless military records demonstrate otherwise, and they are, accordingly, already awarded compensation on a presumptive basis if they fall ill from conditions presumed by law to be presumptively service-connected for Vietnam veterans. VA, however, exercises no such latitude in addressing the needs of the children of Korean DMZ veterans born with spina bifida. It should--and this bill would direct VA to do so. I first learned of this inequity from Mr. John Ruzalski, a resident of Hawley, PA. Mr. Ruzalski is a Korean DMZ veteran whose 27-year-old son suffers from spina bifida. I am grateful to Mr. Ruzalski for his service in Korea, and for bringing this matter to light, and am hopeful that the Congress can reward his vigilance on behalf of his son. Clearly, it makes no sense for VA to presume that Korean DMZ veterans should be treated like Vietnam veterans for purposes of compensating the veteran's service-related illnesses and yet treat their spina bifida children differently. In summary, the provisions of this legislation will make a difference in the lives of those who fallen servicemembers loved even more than country--their families. I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to provide a cost-of-living, COLA, adjustment for certain veterans' benefits programs. This COLA adjustment would affect payments made to nearly 3 million Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, beneficiaries, and would be reflected in beneficiary checks that are received in January 2004, and thereafter. An annual cost-of-living adjustment in veterans benefits is an important tool which protects veterans' cash-transfer benefits against the corrosive effects of inflation. The principal programs affected by the adjustment would be compensation paid to disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation, DIC, payments made to the surviving spouses, minor children and other dependents of persons who died in service, or who died after service as a result of service- connected injuries or diseases. The President's budget anticipates inflation to be at a two percent level at the close of this year as measured by the consumer price index, CPI, published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. If inflation is held to the 2 percent level, that will be the level of COLA adjustment under this legislation since it ties the increase directly to the CPI increase as measured by the Department of Labor. Whatever the CPI increase eventually turns out to be, however, veterans' and survivors' benefits payments must be protected by being increased by a like amount. The Congress already concurred with that judgment with the recent passage of the budget resolution; that resolution sets aside the funds necessary to finance the COLA increase envisioned by this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support this vital legislation. I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation that would restate, revise and update the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, SSCRA. The SSCRA, in summary, suspends some of the legal obligations incurred by military personnel prior to entry into the service so that they might give their full attention to military duty. As was stated by the Supreme Court in LeMaistre v. Leffers, 333 U.S. 1, 6, 1948, SSCRA is to be read ``with an eye friendly to those who dropped their affairs to answer their country's call.'' With operations in Iraq now wrapping up, it is an appropriate time for a review of this World War II-vintage legislation to see how it might be modified to better address the needs of 21st Century servicemen and women. I should mention at this point that I am aware that a bill to revise the SSCRA, H.R. 100, is currently pending in the House, and that my colleague from Georgia, Senator Zell Miller, has introduced companion legislation in the Senate as S. 792. My legislation is similar to H.R. 100 and S. 792, but it contains modifications and additions to those bills as suggested by reservists and their families, the Department of Defense, and by other groups. It is my intention to work with Senator Miller to craft legislation that incorporates the best features of the two bills. This legislation would rename SSCRA the ``Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act'' to reflect that the Armed Forces are made up now of more than just soldiers and sailors, and keep in place the core protections that have been features of SSCRA for decades: stays of civil proceedings during a person's period of military service; an interest rate cap of 6 percent on debts incurred before active duty; protection from eviction and termination of pre-service residential leases; and legal residency protection. But it would also add several new provisions to this core. Currently, the Higher Education Act of 1965 prohibits the SSCRA's 6 percent interest cap from applying to Federally-insured student loans. This bill would remove that prohibition. It would also require institutions of higher education to permit students who are called to active duty to return and complete classes at no additional cost. In addition, SSCRA now precludes evictions from premises occupied by servicemembers having a monthly rent $1200 or less. This $1200 ceiling was set in 1991; it has not been adjusted since. This legislation would raise the rent ceiling to $1950 or the amount of a servicemember's basic allowance for housing, whichever is higher. It would thereby take post-1991 inflation into account, and avoid the need for frequent amendments to the law since housing allowances are adjusted annually based on housing costs in the area where the servicemember is assigned. When the SSCRA was originally enacted in 1940, automobiles were not commonly leased. That, of course, has changed; many people now choose leasing as a way to finance their personal transportation needs. This legislation would protect servicemembers who have leased cars--just as it does those who had chosen the more traditional form of auto financing--in two ways. First, it would prohibit lessors, like purchase financers, from repossessing personal property for nonpayment or breach without court action. Second, it would allow servicemembers called to active duty to terminate automobile leases just as they can real property leases. This bill also takes steps to offer some protection to professionals and small business owners who are called to active duty. It would include the practice of law among the ``professional services'' for which professional liability insurance obligations could be suspended subject to mandatory reinstatement. It would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to designate other professional callings that would be subject to these protections. And it would protect the assets of small business owners during military service if the servicemember is personally liable for trade or business debts. Since 1940, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act has provided important protections to the men and women who wear the uniform. But 60-plus years later, it is time for Congress to take a critical look at this law and revise it to reflect changes in our society since it was originally enacted. With the assistance of the Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, and the Small Business Administration, the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, most notably Mr. David Goetz, the Committee's Associate Counsel, has undertaken the painstaking review that has yielded this rather extensive bill. It is my intention to seek further comment and then guide this important reform legislation to enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S.1133, the proposed ``Veterans Programs Improvement Act of 2003.'' The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has submitted this proposed legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated April 25, 2003. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and a section-by-section analysis which accompanied it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation that would restate, revise and update the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, SSCRA. The SSCRA, in summary, suspends some of the legal obligations incurred by military personnel prior to entry into the service so that they might give their full attention to military duty. As was stated by the Supreme Court in LeMaistre v. Leffers, 333 U.S. 1, 6, 1948, SSCRA is to be read ``with an eye friendly to those who dropped their affairs to answer their country's call.'' With operations in Iraq now wrapping up, it is an appropriate time for a review of this World War II-vintage legislation to see how it might be modified to better address the needs of 21st Century servicemen and women. I should mention at this point that I am aware that a bill to revise the SSCRA, H.R. 100, is currently pending in the House, and that my colleague from Georgia, Senator Zell Miller, has introduced companion legislation in the Senate as S. 792. My legislation is similar to H.R. 100 and S. 792, but it contains modifications and additions to those bills as suggested by reservists and their families, the Department of Defense, and by other groups. It is my intention to work with Senator Miller to craft legislation that incorporates the best features of the two bills. This legislation would rename SSCRA the ``Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act'' to reflect that the Armed Forces are made up now of more than just soldiers and sailors, and keep in place the core protections that have been features of SSCRA for decades: stays of civil proceedings during a person's period of military service; an interest rate cap of 6 percent on debts incurred before active duty; protection from eviction and termination of pre-service residential leases; and legal residency protection. But it would also add several new provisions to this core. Currently, the Higher Education Act of 1965 prohibits the SSCRA's 6 percent interest cap from applying to Federally-insured student loans. This bill would remove that prohibition. It would also require institutions of higher education to permit students who are called to active duty to return and complete classes at no additional cost. In addition, SSCRA now precludes evictions from premises occupied by servicemembers having a monthly rent $1200 or less. This $1200 ceiling was set in 1991; it has not been adjusted since. This legislation would raise the rent ceiling to $1950 or the amount of a servicemember's basic allowance for housing, whichever is higher. It would thereby take post-1991 inflation into account, and avoid the need for frequent amendments to the law since housing allowances are adjusted annually based on housing costs in the area where the servicemember is assigned. When the SSCRA was originally enacted in 1940, automobiles were not commonly leased. That, of course, has changed; many people now choose leasing as a way to finance their personal transportation needs. This legislation would protect servicemembers who have leased cars--just as it does those who had chosen the more traditional form of auto financing--in two ways. First, it would prohibit lessors, like purchase financers, from repossessing personal property for nonpayment or breach without court action. Second, it would allow servicemembers called to active duty to terminate automobile leases just as they can real property leases. This bill also takes steps to offer some protection to professionals and small business owners who are called to active duty. It would include the practice of law among the ``professional services'' for which professional liability insurance obligations could be suspended subject to mandatory reinstatement. It would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to designate other professional callings that would be subject to these protections. And it would protect the assets of small business owners during military service if the servicemember is personally liable for trade or business debts. Since 1940, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act has provided important protections to the men and women who wear the uniform. But 60-plus years later, it is time for Congress to take a critical look at this law and revise it to reflect changes in our society since it was originally enacted. With the assistance of the Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, and the Small Business Administration, the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, most notably Mr. David Goetz, the Committee's Associate Counsel, has undertaken the painstaking review that has yielded this rather extensive bill. It is my intention to seek further comment and then guide this important reform legislation to enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to direct the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to construct a national cemetery in southeastern Pennsylvania. In order to facilitate the construction of a cemetery, as mandated, this bill would also require VA to consult with Federal State, and local government entities, and with Pennsylvania's veterans' service organizations, to locate land for a new cemetery in the Philadelphia area--a process of stakeholder collaboration that worked well to identify a site for a cemetery in southwestern Pennsylvania that is currently under construction--and require VA to report, no later than six months after enactment, on the status of its efforts to construct the cemetery. It is clear to a number of observers--including, as I will discuss in a moment, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs--that Southeastern Pennsylvania needs a national cemetery. The Philadelphia area has one of the largest veterans' populations in the Nation, currently estimated at over 350,000. The fact that Pennsylvania has the second oldest veterans' population in the country makes the need for a new cemetery particularly acute. Yet the closest existing VA cemetery--the Philadelphia National Cemetery--has been closed to in-ground, casket burials since 1962 and, by 2005, will even lose the capacity to inurn or inter cremated remains, leaving area veterans with only one alternative: burial at Indiantown Gap National Cemetery, as a site as much as two hours removed, by car, from their loved ones' homes. This is not acceptable. The VA is currently reassessing its needs for cemetery construction nationwide, and I have every expectation that VA will conclude that the Philadelphia area is a site that should be at, or near, the top if its listing of priorities. I draw this expectation from a statement made by VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi who testified at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I chair, on February 26, 2003, that ``there is clearly a need'' for a national cemetery in the Philadelphia area. He stated further ``that a national cemetery is necessary in that area to meet the interment needs of the veterans of Pennsylvania.'' Why, then, the need for legislation? This legislation is needed to assure that the Secretary's personal commitment becomes VA policy. VA has compiled a list of areas where national cemeteries will be built over the next 20 years using a methodology which I, and the entire southeastern Pennsylvania delegation in Congress, believe is seriously flawed. The first flaw of VA's methodology is its assumption that a locality has a ``need'' for a cemetery if a veterans' population of more than 170,000 resides more than 75 miles from an open State or national cemetery. This assumption gives no consideration to the fact that heavily-congested areas, like southeastern Pennsylvania, may have thousands, or even ten of thousands, of veterans residing just under 75 miles from the nearest cemetery. The second flaw of VA's methodology is its assumption that veterans are adequately provided a burial option if a national cemetery is close proximity offers the option of inurning or interring cremated remains. For many reasons, cremation is not an option. Indeed, while cremation is growing in popularity, it is not yet the preferred burial method among most Americans. The entire southeastern Pennsylvania delegation to Congress has expressed these objections to Secretary Principi by a letter dated July 26, 2002, which I ask be printed in the Record. It is these objectionable VA policy impediments which cause me to introduce this bill despite Secretary Principi's statements of agreement on the need for a Philadelphia area cemetery. I hope--and I expect--that the mandate of this legislation will not need to be triggered, though I do anticipate that the consultation procedures specified in my bill will, in any case, be useful in identifying a proper site for a Philadelphia area cemetery. One final note on the issue of proper siting of a cemetery. During the 107th Congress, I introduced a bill, S. 618, that would have designate lands within the boundaries of Valley Forge National Park as a national cemetery. In a development that was surprising to me, some argued that Valley Forge lands would be an inappropriate resting place for veterans. I believed then--and I believe now--that the sensitive designation of Valley Forge lands in areas, for example, north of the Schuylkill River that were not encampments for Washington's Army, would be entirely appropriate. In any case, the legislation I have introduced today would allow for--but not compel--the location of a national cemetery in Valley Forge. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to direct the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to construct a national cemetery in southeastern Pennsylvania. In order to facilitate the construction of a cemetery, as mandated, this bill would also require VA to consult with Federal State, and local government entities, and with Pennsylvania's veterans' service organizations, to locate land for a new cemetery in the Philadelphia area--a process of stakeholder collaboration that worked well to identify a site for a cemetery in southwestern Pennsylvania that is currently under construction--and require VA to report, no later than six months after enactment, on the status of its efforts to construct the cemetery. It is clear to a number of observers--including, as I will discuss in a moment, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs--that Southeastern Pennsylvania needs a national cemetery. The Philadelphia area has one of the largest veterans' populations in the Nation, currently estimated at over 350,000. The fact that Pennsylvania has the second oldest veterans' population in the country makes the need for a new cemetery particularly acute. Yet the closest existing VA cemetery--the Philadelphia National Cemetery--has been closed to in-ground, casket burials since 1962 and, by 2005, will even lose the capacity to inurn or inter cremated remains, leaving area veterans with only one alternative: burial at Indiantown Gap National Cemetery, as a site as much as two hours removed, by car, from their loved ones' homes. This is not acceptable. The VA is currently reassessing its needs for cemetery construction nationwide, and I have every expectation that VA will conclude that the Philadelphia area is a site that should be at, or near, the top if its listing of priorities. I draw this expectation from a statement made by VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi who testified at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which I chair, on February 26, 2003, that ``there is clearly a need'' for a national cemetery in the Philadelphia area. He stated further ``that a national cemetery is necessary in that area to meet the interment needs of the veterans of Pennsylvania.'' Why, then, the need for legislation? This legislation is needed to assure that the Secretary's personal commitment becomes VA policy. VA has compiled a list of areas where national cemeteries will be built over the next 20 years using a methodology which I, and the entire southeastern Pennsylvania delegation in Congress, believe is seriously flawed. The first flaw of VA's methodology is its assumption that a locality has a ``need'' for a cemetery if a veterans' population of more than 170,000 resides more than 75 miles from an open State or national cemetery. This assumption gives no consideration to the fact that heavily-congested areas, like southeastern Pennsylvania, may have thousands, or even ten of thousands, of veterans residing just under 75 miles from the nearest cemetery. The second flaw of VA's methodology is its assumption that veterans are adequately provided a burial option if a national cemetery is close proximity offers the option of inurning or interring cremated remains. For many reasons, cremation is not an option. Indeed, while cremation is growing in popularity, it is not yet the preferred burial method among most Americans. The entire southeastern Pennsylvania delegation to Congress has expressed these objections to Secretary Principi by a letter dated July 26, 2002, which I ask be printed in the Record. It is these objectionable VA policy impediments which cause me to introduce this bill despite Secretary Principi's statements of agreement on the need for a Philadelphia area cemetery. I hope--and I expect--that the mandate of this legislation will not need to be triggered, though I do anticipate that the consultation procedures specified in my bill will, in any case, be useful in identifying a proper site for a Philadelphia area cemetery. One final note on the issue of proper siting of a cemetery. During the 107th Congress, I introduced a bill, S. 618, that would have designate lands within the boundaries of Valley Forge National Park as a national cemetery. In a development that was surprising to me, some argued that Valley Forge lands would be an inappropriate resting place for veterans. I believed then--and I believe now--that the sensitive designation of Valley Forge lands in areas, for example, north of the Schuylkill River that were not encampments for Washington's Army, would be entirely appropriate. In any case, the legislation I have introduced today would allow for--but not compel--the location of a national cemetery in Valley Forge. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to ensure that veterans across the Nation have access to burial in national and State cemeteries. This legislation will put in place a comprehensive strategy for addressing what has, and will continue to be, a national priority: providing lasting memorials to our veterans. Four principles guide this legislation: First, areas with large veterans' populations merit a national cemetery. Second, State cemetery grant funding should encourage the development of State cemeteries to serve areas with smaller veterans' populations. Third, State or national cemeteries should be located within reasonable distances of where veterans lived before death and, presumably, where their families still live. And finally, we need creative ways to finance the maintenance, repair and operational needs of national cemeteries. This bill sets out clear criteria, based on objective measures of need, that will serve as a guide for future national cemetery construction. It encourages States to participate in the State cemetery grant program by permitting State cemeteries to receive plot allowance money to defray burial expenses for all--not just poor, disabled and wartime--veterans. Lastly, the legislation authorizes VA's National Cemetery Administration, NCA, to enter into lease agreements with public or non-profit organizations who wish to use unused or underutilized land and facilities, and permits proceeds from lease agreements to remain with NCA to augment its operational and cemetery maintenance needs. Burial in a national cemetery--a perpetual tribute to a veteran's service to the country--is one of the most important benefits we, as a Nation, can provide to veterans and their families. It must be available to veterans, and their families, within reasonable distances to their homes. This legislation would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery at sites more than 50 miles away from an open national or State veterans cemetery where 170,000 or more veterans reside. The adoption of this criterion would assure adequate national access to national cemeteries and would require the opening of approximately five new national cemeteries. Because it is not practical to build national cemeteries to meet the burial needs of every veteran--particularly veterans in more sparsely populated areas--it is important that VA cooperate with the States through administration of its State cemetery grant program, to meet needs in areas where there are smaller veterans' populations. These grants provide up to 100 percent of the costs associated with building, making large repairs at, and expanding State veterans cemeteries. In addition, States are also provided a $300 plot allowance, payable by VA to assist in offsetting maintenance costs, for each poor, disabled, or wartime veteran who is interred in a State cemetery. If, as this legislation would specify, the plot allowance were to be payable for burial of all veterans--not just poor, disabled and wartime veterans-- States would be provided with additional maintenance income and further incentive to establish additional State veterans' cemeteries. Clearly, encouraging the construction of additional State cemeteries is a good way to complement VA's National cemetery capacity within the context of a nationwide, comprehensive strategy to meet veterans' burial needs. Finally, my legislation proposes a creative way for NCA to fund additional maintenance projects at national cemeteries. It would authorize the Secretary to lease undeveloped, unused or underutilized acreage and buildings on NCA lands, and to retain the proceeds from the leases. VA has indicated that portions of many national cemeteries are not suitable for burials due to, for example, rocky or hilly terrain. Such sites, however, might have commercial uses. In addition, there are historic lodges and other buildings on VA lands that, if available for use, could generate revenue. Allowing NCA to utilize these resources to generate revenue would provide VA with an opportunity to put a small dent in the $245 million worth of repairs it needs to undertake to bring the national cemeteries up to appropriate memorial standards. This sort of leasing authority is already extended to VA's hospital system, and it has been successfully utilized on VA's medical campuses. An extension of this authority to VA cemetery facilities is wholly reasonable. I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill. I reiterate, meeting the burial needs of veterans is a national priority. It is a powerful reflection of the value we place on military service. And it is an unmistakable message we send to all Americans that service to our country will forever be remembered. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of my colleagues, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which calls upon the Finance Committee and the Joint Economic Committee to undertake a study on tax simplification, with the view to presenting a report to the Senate on a flat tax. The complexities of the Internal Revenue Code are well known. Even Albert Einstein said he could not understand the Internal Revenue Code. We spend billions of hours, billions of dollars on the complexities of filling out the tax returns. This flat tax would enable us to file a return within a few minutes on a postcard. This amendment does not commit the Senate to a flat tax, but it only calls upon relevant committees to conduct a study. There has never been a study of a flat tax. This amendment, cosponsored by Senator Grassley and Senator Bennett--and I think agreed to; we will soon hear from Senator Baucus--will be a significant step forward.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to ensure that veterans across the Nation have access to burial in national and State cemeteries. This legislation will put in place a comprehensive strategy for addressing what has, and will continue to be, a national priority: providing lasting memorials to our veterans. Four principles guide this legislation: First, areas with large veterans' populations merit a national cemetery. Second, State cemetery grant funding should encourage the development of State cemeteries to serve areas with smaller veterans' populations. Third, State or national cemeteries should be located within reasonable distances of where veterans lived before death and, presumably, where their families still live. And finally, we need creative ways to finance the maintenance, repair and operational needs of national cemeteries. This bill sets out clear criteria, based on objective measures of need, that will serve as a guide for future national cemetery construction. It encourages States to participate in the State cemetery grant program by permitting State cemeteries to receive plot allowance money to defray burial expenses for all--not just poor, disabled and wartime--veterans. Lastly, the legislation authorizes VA's National Cemetery Administration, NCA, to enter into lease agreements with public or non-profit organizations who wish to use unused or underutilized land and facilities, and permits proceeds from lease agreements to remain with NCA to augment its operational and cemetery maintenance needs. Burial in a national cemetery--a perpetual tribute to a veteran's service to the country--is one of the most important benefits we, as a Nation, can provide to veterans and their families. It must be available to veterans, and their families, within reasonable distances to their homes. This legislation would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery at sites more than 50 miles away from an open national or State veterans cemetery where 170,000 or more veterans reside. The adoption of this criterion would assure adequate national access to national cemeteries and would require the opening of approximately five new national cemeteries. Because it is not practical to build national cemeteries to meet the burial needs of every veteran--particularly veterans in more sparsely populated areas--it is important that VA cooperate with the States through administration of its State cemetery grant program, to meet needs in areas where there are smaller veterans' populations. These grants provide up to 100 percent of the costs associated with building, making large repairs at, and expanding State veterans cemeteries. In addition, States are also provided a $300 plot allowance, payable by VA to assist in offsetting maintenance costs, for each poor, disabled, or wartime veteran who is interred in a State cemetery. If, as this legislation would specify, the plot allowance were to be payable for burial of all veterans--not just poor, disabled and wartime veterans-- States would be provided with additional maintenance income and further incentive to establish additional State veterans' cemeteries. Clearly, encouraging the construction of additional State cemeteries is a good way to complement VA's National cemetery capacity within the context of a nationwide, comprehensive strategy to meet veterans' burial needs. Finally, my legislation proposes a creative way for NCA to fund additional maintenance projects at national cemeteries. It would authorize the Secretary to lease undeveloped, unused or underutilized acreage and buildings on NCA lands, and to retain the proceeds from the leases. VA has indicated that portions of many national cemeteries are not suitable for burials due to, for example, rocky or hilly terrain. Such sites, however, might have commercial uses. In addition, there are historic lodges and other buildings on VA lands that, if available for use, could generate revenue. Allowing NCA to utilize these resources to generate revenue would provide VA with an opportunity to put a small dent in the $245 million worth of repairs it needs to undertake to bring the national cemeteries up to appropriate memorial standards. This sort of leasing authority is already extended to VA's hospital system, and it has been successfully utilized on VA's medical campuses. An extension of this authority to VA cemetery facilities is wholly reasonable. I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill. I reiterate, meeting the burial needs of veterans is a national priority. It is a powerful reflection of the value we place on military service. And it is an unmistakable message we send to all Americans that service to our country will forever be remembered. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I have not spoken on this bill. From my experience, I know that few, if any minds, are changed by speeches. But I think it is important to note that we are not fatigued. We have almost 100 Senators on the floor. We have been here since 9:15, but we are robust and we are able to take on the country's business and we are not fatigued. We will give ample consideration to any amendments which anyone seeks to offer. But it ought to be a point of focus that it is possible--barely, but possible--that somebody might be watching these proceedings on C-SPAN. And you might think those who are voting against these amendments are hard-hearted. But the fact is that unless we pass a bill, a clean bill, a virtually clean bill, what is agreed to by the House, this bill is not going to be ready when the President has to make a very important international trip. The President will be carrying a legislative package of $15 billion. That is a hefty sum of money and can go a long way on this hideous disease. With that kind of a package, the President will be in a position to leverage and get funds from other countries. I certainly agree with the Senator from California who talked about prevention. I certainly agree it would be good to cover more children. It would be good to have lower prices. It would be good to have an explicit coverage to the Caribbean, although as the Senator from Indiana pointed out, there is flexibility to do that. When we vote against these amendments, it is not because we do not think they are good or that we are in a hurry or we are fatigued. We are focused. But the principal objective is to get it passed and get it signed. People ought to know, if they have not seen the beltway scene, that relations between the Senate and the House are not too good. If we put a lot of amendments on this bill, nothing will happen. We ought to get on with it. Fifteen billion is significant. It will really go to the heart of the matter. And then it can be revisited at a later time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I voted to sustain the point of order against the Kyl amendment because there needs to be more analysis as to its ultimate effects. The amendment is very complicated. I tried to determine the effects of the legislation in the absence of hearings, and could only begin to scratch the surface due to the many conflicting representations from various parties. We have not had the necessary foundation established as to the effects of this amendment. There are many facts that should be developed before we embark on this course of action. Either the Finance Committee or the Judiciary Committee should hear from the parties involved, including the States, and develop a factual record as to what occurred during the course of the litigation. Senators should have access to the record on these issues through the hearing process. After the facts have been developed, then a determination should be made on the issue. It is not a timely decision absent the development of such a record. I am prepared to participate in hearings, find the facts and make an informed judgment on whether sound public policy would be served by a mechanism, through the tax code or otherwise, to limit compensation for anyone in the marketplace. Amendment No. 575

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I note for the record, in a brief colloquy with the Senator from Montana, his thrust at simplification I think is a hallmark of what we are looking for. That is one of the principal objectives, perhaps the principal objective, although it goes alongside trying to increase productivity and growth. When I talked to the Senator from Montana briefly in showing him the amendment, I added a modification which would call for simplification including the flat tax, but in the resolve clause, to call for that simplification. I appreciate the comment by the Senator from Montana. I hope he will join me in this amendment. It advances the ball not anywhere near the goal line, but I think everyone will agree there has never been a serious study of this proposal, and I hope there will be some impetus given by this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. I am offering this amendment on behalf of Senator Grassley, Senator Bennett, Senator Thomas, Senator Sununu, and myself. This amendment calls for consideration by the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Economic Committee of tax simplification including a flat tax. The essence is set forth in the brief resolution clause: It is the sense of the Senate that the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Economic Committee should undertake a comprehensive analysis of simplification including flat tax proposals, including appropriate hearings and consider legislation providing for a flat tax. Madam President, this is a subject that I have addressed virtually every year since introducing a flat tax proposal in the spring of 1995. The flat tax proposal was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Armey in the fall of 1994. After extensive consideration and analyses of these proposals by two distinguished professors from Stanford, Professors Hall and Rabushka, it seemed to me that it was long overdue that a serious effort be made to simplify the U.S. Tax Code. At the present time, we have a Tax Code which has grown to 6.9 million words. That is the count in the year 2000. When the Tax Code was counted in the year 1955, there were 744,000 words. There are 325 forms to be filled out, and the American taxpayers spend more than 5.8 billion hours each year preparing them. And it is estimated by the Tax Foundation that $194 billion is spent each year in complying with the tax laws. I have seen other estimates that place the issue of compliance as high as some $800 billion. But there is no doubt that the Federal Tax Code and the forms are burdensome, onerous, and unduly complicated. The vast majority of Americans require professional help to fill out a tax return. Some people say even a Philadelphia lawyer cannot figure it out. I am inclined to agree with that. Senator Grassley, may the record show, concurred with my last statement. He has never been a devotee of a Philadelphia lawyer. The Congressional Record is replete with comments to that effect with reference to one of his colleagues who was elected in the same year, 1980. Back to the subject at hand, Albert Einstein said: The hardest thing in the world is to understand the income tax. That is quite a statement for Albert Einstein to make. I think it shows what the complications are. We are considering now a tax proposal that will probably end up in this body as $350 billion because the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, has said that is his word on what is going to come back out of the conference. The House of Representatives is talking about $550 billion. The President's original proposal was $726 billion. I support the full proposal offered by the President. When we consider that we have a $10 trillion economy, and we are talking about $726 billion or $550 billion or $350 billion over a 10- year period, and looking at a gross economy of $10 trillion a year now, and over 10 years it will amount to $140 trillion, it is questionable as to what the impact would be of any tax cut. But I think the President's proposal is worth a try. I am prepared to vote for that figure--the highest figure we can have for this body on a conference report. What should be done is to take, finally, some bold, innovative action and at least consider tax simplification and a flat tax. It has never been considered or analyzed, and there are some very thorough comprehensive distinguished studies. The leading study, by Professors Hall and Rabushka, analyzed the revenue picture and concluded that, at 19 percent, the flat tax would be revenue neutral. That would be eliminating all deductions. In the flat tax legislation that I have introduced, I have retained two deductions. I introduced the flat tax again this year in advance of April 15, on April 11. We were not in session on April 15. During the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses I introduced the flat tax legislative proposal to coincide with income tax day. The proposal I have introduced retains the deduction for home interest and charitable contributions. So I have taken the two items that are the most popular and that cost money. That requires the flat tax to be raised from 19 percent to 20 percent. It may be that the Finance Committee or the Joint Economic Committee, in their wisdom, would want to have other deductions, or perhaps no deductions, leaving it at the flattest rate of 19 percent. This, Madam President, is a tax return form under the flat tax. It is genuinely the size of a postcard and could be filled out in some 15 minutes. Similarly, for the corporate tax, the calculation has been made that it would be revenue neutral at 20 percent. Today, there is an enormous amount of time with the lawyers, the accountants, the tax specialists, figuring out loopholes, figuring out tax avoidance, where it is legal, contrasted with tax evasion, where it is illegal. If, once and for all, we directed our attention to what is economically productive--that is, what makes sense from an economic point of view, without regard to the tax consequences--there would be a burst of energy and productivity, and it would do wonders for our economy. That is the way to stimulate the American economy, instead of tinkering at the edges, which is what many of the tax modifications have been. The flat tax would expense all so-called capital investments by deducting them immediately in the first year. If that were to be done, there would be a tremendous stimulus for entrepreneurs to invest in new capital instead of having to depreciate it over a long period of years on complicated depreciation schedules. The flat tax eliminates the estate tax, capital gains tax, and the double taxation of dividends. For families of modest means and their conflicting schedules, they would pay less under a flat tax. The various schedules that have been proposed are complicated and sometimes conflicting. That is why I would like to see the hearings on a comprehensive analysis, to really find out what it would mean at all levels. Today, when the loopholes are applied, the sky is the limit. The wealthiest people, who earn the most money, can avoid paying taxes altogether, and that would be eliminated. There is a tremendous amount of money lost through fraud. That, too, would be reduced substantially, if not virtually eliminated with a flat tax proposal. So, in essence, my point is when we have had so much controversy and argument in the Congress of the United States about the $726 billion over 10 years, and $550 billion over 10 years, and $350 billion over 10 years, the way to really give the economy a shot in the arm is to eliminate all of this nonproductive time filling out tax returns and the numerous forms attendant thereto and allow American ingenuity to focus on what makes economic sense, productivity sense, and not what you can do by contortions and gyrations to reduce your tax bill. It would be a godsend if on April 15 we sat down and filled out a postcard. We will all go through it. The flat tax is something which is certainly worthy of consideration and study. My best judgment is that the flat tax would be very worthwhile, but I would want to reserve my best judgment today on a study that I have made. I would like to see the Finance Committee and the Joint Economic Committee undertake the kinds of hearings and analyses which would give appropriate consideration. Today the Internal Revenue Code constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. A flat tax would be an enormous step forward. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.