Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. The essence of the matter is that this issue has been raised by a responsible Israeli official, and if Arafat in fact had prior knowledge of the bombing of the Trade Center, he may well be an accessory before the fact, or a coconspirator, and if that is so, he would be extraditable to the United States under provisions of our terrorist legislation passed in 1984 and 1986. It is simply unsatisfactory and intolerable to have that issue outstanding and be providing funding for the Palestinian Authority. The issue has also been raised on the bombing of the Tel Aviv cafe on March 21, 1997, as to whether Chairman Arafat and the PLO made a maximum effort to stop that kind of terrorism. Immediately after the bombing, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Arafat gave a green light to that bombing. When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee in our hearing this spring, she responded that Arafat had not given a green light, but neither had he given a red light. Under the provisions of the amendment introduced by Senator Shelby and myself, Arafat has an absolute obligation, along with the PLO, to make the maximum effort to fight terrorism. I have written to Secretary Albright on this subject, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. It is unsatisfactory, Mr. President, if Arafat did anything but put down a red light to stop the bombing of the Tel Aviv cafe which killed three Israelis and wounded dozens more, estimated to be approximately 40 other Israelis. There ought to be absolutely no doubt that if any funding is to come from the U.S. taxpayers to the Palestinian Authority, there be a certification by the President, based on evidence that Yasser Arafat was not a party to, did not know about, was not an accessory before the fact, or a coconspirator on the bombing of the Trade Center in 1993 and he, in fact, made the maximum effort which would require a red light on the bombing of the Tel Aviv restaurant. It is my understanding, Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable to both managers of the bill. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, April 29, 1997. Hon. Arlen Specter, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Specter: This is in response to your letter to the Attorney General dated April 1, 1997. Your letter encloses a news article from The Jerusalem Post in which it is reported that Yasser Arafat may have had prior knowledge of the bombing of the World Trade Center building on February 26, 1993. Aside from the news report enclosed with your letter, the Department of Justice is unaware of any information that Yasser Arafat either had prior knowledge of the bombing of the World Trade Center or was in any way involved in the conspiracy to bomb the building. We have queried the Israeli authorities about this information and they deny the accuracy of the statements attributed in the article to the Deputy Education Minister. I hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further assistance with regard to this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.

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. 1017, a proposed bill to establish a presumption of total disability for certain individuals for purposes of nonservice- connected disability pension. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 16, 1997. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter which accompanied it.

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. 1018, a proposed bill to amend provisions of law governing benefits for certain children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida, and for other purposes. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 18, 1997. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter which accompanied it.

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. 1017, a proposed bill to establish a presumption of total disability for certain individuals for purposes of nonservice- connected disability pension. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 16, 1997. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter which accompanied it.

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. 1018, a proposed bill to amend provisions of law governing benefits for certain children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida, and for other purposes. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 18, 1997. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter which accompanied it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose of engaging my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the distinguished ranking minority member, in a colloquy regarding support for evolving telemedicine technologies, research and development on an advanced double hull ship design and research and development of the helicopter vectored trust ducted propeller. Mr. President, we all recognize the need to continue efforts to develop telemedicine services for our Armed Forces. I note in particular, efforts by institutions in the Northeast to design a telemedicine trauma/emergency medical services system to provide necessary diagnostic and treatment interventions and improve medical outcomes. Advanced research and development for the Navy is vital to ensure force readiness and capability for our Navy well into the future. The Navy is currently facing a technical challenge in design and manufacture of very large and complex structural systems that have historically been made of traditional steel materials but are now incorporating the use of more advanced materials like non-magnetic steels. Currently, there is no comprehensive initiative in the Navy to develop the most promising application of these new materials--a nonmagnetic, stainless steel advanced double hull warship design. The marriage of the advanced double hull concept with nonmagnetic steels offers the potential to reduce acquisition costs and improve survivability. I support a development program for the stainless steel advanced double hull concept that combines numerical analysis techniques with large-scale representative testing. Mr. President, in another area of military research and development, I point out the survivability and cost-effectiveness benefits from use of vectored ducted propeller helicopter technology. Research and development of this design will ensure that our Armed Forces are prepared for the next century. I look forward to working with my two colleagues during conference to address these programs.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from Alaska in a brief colloquy, not just in his capacity as floor manager of the fiscal year 1998 Defense appropriations bill, but also as a leading proponent of the legislation that created employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's]. Mr. President, the Defense Contract Audit Agency [DCAA] is threatening the viability of ESOP defense contractors by applying different determinations of ESOP costs than the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor. It is my understanding that Congress intended that ESOP cost issues be governed by the tax and pension laws and regulations administered by those offices, not DCAA. If this matter is not resolved when the defense appropriations conference committee meets, would the distinguished chairman be willing to try to assist in resolving it at that point?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from West Virginia and Illinois in offering an amendment which would authorize continued funding for the successful program of medical research conducted jointly by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. This important and cost-effective program began in 1987 and has been funded at approximately $20 million per year every year since then. This research partnership is built on the concept of joint DOD-VA policy making, scientific review, and research performance. Research efforts are targeted at areas of mutual DOD-VA concern such as mutations in microorganisms that become known pathogens and are encountered by soldiers in foreign environments, trauma and wound healing, and stress-related chronic illnesses including PTSD and the possible effect of stress on undiagnosed symptoms experienced by Persian Gulf War veterans. The Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs are joined by their common responsibilities to the men and women who are first service members, but subsequently become veterans. In the DOD-VA Cooperative Research program each Department brings unique strengths to the table to advance their joint missions and commitments. Perhaps that is why DOD's Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar, Director, Environmental and Life Sciences, has been quoted as saying ``Our investigators are very enthusiastic about participating in these joint initiatives.'' Mr. President, both the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs will benefit from the approval of this amendment. Even more importantly, the men and women who now wear the uniforms of our Armed Forces and who will one day become veterans will reap the benefits of the medical research authorized by this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation which would require the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to provide mammograms to women veterans in accordance with nationally accepted standards. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among women and the No. 1 killer of women ages 40 to 49. I am, and will continue to be, personally committed to ensuring that the women of this country receive mammography screening in accordance with the highest possible standards. Enactment of this legislation will ensure that our Nation's women veterans receiving care at Veterans Health Administration [VHA] treatment facilities will have access to mammography screening in accordance with accepted national policy. At issue is the question of how often women should receive screening mammography examinations and the age at which those examinations should begin. On March 23, 1997, the American Cancer Society [ACS] recommended that women begin annual mammography screening at age 40. On March 27, 1997, after much deliberation, the National Cancer Advisory Board recommended that all women between 40 and 49 years receive regular mammogram screening every 1 to 2 years. The National Cancer Institute accepted the same recommendation, both recommendations being very close to the new ACS standard of annual screening beginning at age 40. In addition, the American College of Radiology Board of Chancellors approved revised guidelines in January 1997, affirming its support for yearly screening for women after the age of 40. The issue of mammography screening for women between the ages of 40 to 49 has been an issue of particular interest to me and one that has occupied quite a bit of my time during the first half of 1997. In my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, I have already held four hearings this year addressing the importance of mammography screening for women ages 40 to 49; one here in Washington, DC on February 5, in Philadelphia, PA on February 20, in Pittsburgh, PA on February 24, and in Hershey, PA on March 3, 1997. I have heard testimony, from physicians and women alike, advocating mammography screening beginning at age 40. Currently, 40 States have enacted legislation, and 4 States have legislation pending, which would require either insurance reimbursement for, or mandatory provision of, routine mammogram screening of women ages 40 to 49. Obviously, our Nation sees the value of screening women early for breast cancer, and the impact that early detection can have on decreasing the mortality of this No. 1 killer of women between 40 and 49. It is estimated that last year 184,300 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, and this year nearly 44,000 women will die from the disease. Research indicates that regular mammograms for women in their 40's can cut breast cancer mortality by 17 percent. When Dr. Vogel of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Magee Women's Hospital testified at the February 24 hearing in Pittsburgh, PA, he stated that there are nearly 1 million women in Pennsylvania between the ages of 40 and 49, and that nearly 2,000 will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. As many as 1,000 of these women will die. He stated that if women aged 40 to 49 were screened annually, this death toll could be reduced by 250. I am disappointed that VHA has refused to adopt this higher, now national, standard of mammography screening for our Nation's women veterans despite these research findings and national recognition that early mammography screening can save thousands of women's lives each year. In a report issued in April, 1997, VA's Inspector General Office of Health Care Inspections [OHI] offered their objective and critical assessment of the status of mammography services being provided to our Nation's women veterans receiving treatment at VA treatment facilities. Some of OHI's findings are particularly alarming. For example, only 36 percent of women veterans treated in 1995 were even offered a mammogram and only 79 percent of the VHA facilities systematically recorded reviews of outcome data, including disposition of positive mammograms and correlation of surgical biopsy results with radiologic interpretations. Only 72 percent of VHA facilities assessed effectiveness using quality improvement or quality assurance monitors, and none of the VHA facilities assessed customer satisfaction, quality of final diagnostic product, or any other quality of care indicators for contracted providers of mammography services. The OHI recommended that VHA offer mammograms in accordance with ACS guidelines--yearly mammography screening, beginning at age 40. VHA, maintaining that mammography screening for women between the ages of 50 to 69 is sufficient, rejected this recommendation. For this reason, I am compelled to introduce this legislation which will require the Department of Veterans Affairs to, at a minimum, offer mammograms in accordance with the most prudent guidelines, those of the American Cancer Society, which call for yearly mammogram screening starting at age 40. The women who receive treatment at any of our Nation's VA medical centers deserve mammography screening consistent with the accepted national standard--the highest standard, which is currently the recommendation of the American Cancer Society. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation which would require the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to provide mammograms to women veterans in accordance with nationally accepted standards. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among women and the No. 1 killer of women ages 40 to 49. I am, and will continue to be, personally committed to ensuring that the women of this country receive mammography screening in accordance with the highest possible standards. Enactment of this legislation will ensure that our Nation's women veterans receiving care at Veterans Health Administration [VHA] treatment facilities will have access to mammography screening in accordance with accepted national policy. At issue is the question of how often women should receive screening mammography examinations and the age at which those examinations should begin. On March 23, 1997, the American Cancer Society [ACS] recommended that women begin annual mammography screening at age 40. On March 27, 1997, after much deliberation, the National Cancer Advisory Board recommended that all women between 40 and 49 years receive regular mammogram screening every 1 to 2 years. The National Cancer Institute accepted the same recommendation, both recommendations being very close to the new ACS standard of annual screening beginning at age 40. In addition, the American College of Radiology Board of Chancellors approved revised guidelines in January 1997, affirming its support for yearly screening for women after the age of 40. The issue of mammography screening for women between the ages of 40 to 49 has been an issue of particular interest to me and one that has occupied quite a bit of my time during the first half of 1997. In my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, I have already held four hearings this year addressing the importance of mammography screening for women ages 40 to 49; one here in Washington, DC on February 5, in Philadelphia, PA on February 20, in Pittsburgh, PA on February 24, and in Hershey, PA on March 3, 1997. I have heard testimony, from physicians and women alike, advocating mammography screening beginning at age 40. Currently, 40 States have enacted legislation, and 4 States have legislation pending, which would require either insurance reimbursement for, or mandatory provision of, routine mammogram screening of women ages 40 to 49. Obviously, our Nation sees the value of screening women early for breast cancer, and the impact that early detection can have on decreasing the mortality of this No. 1 killer of women between 40 and 49. It is estimated that last year 184,300 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, and this year nearly 44,000 women will die from the disease. Research indicates that regular mammograms for women in their 40's can cut breast cancer mortality by 17 percent. When Dr. Vogel of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Magee Women's Hospital testified at the February 24 hearing in Pittsburgh, PA, he stated that there are nearly 1 million women in Pennsylvania between the ages of 40 and 49, and that nearly 2,000 will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. As many as 1,000 of these women will die. He stated that if women aged 40 to 49 were screened annually, this death toll could be reduced by 250. I am disappointed that VHA has refused to adopt this higher, now national, standard of mammography screening for our Nation's women veterans despite these research findings and national recognition that early mammography screening can save thousands of women's lives each year. In a report issued in April, 1997, VA's Inspector General Office of Health Care Inspections [OHI] offered their objective and critical assessment of the status of mammography services being provided to our Nation's women veterans receiving treatment at VA treatment facilities. Some of OHI's findings are particularly alarming. For example, only 36 percent of women veterans treated in 1995 were even offered a mammogram and only 79 percent of the VHA facilities systematically recorded reviews of outcome data, including disposition of positive mammograms and correlation of surgical biopsy results with radiologic interpretations. Only 72 percent of VHA facilities assessed effectiveness using quality improvement or quality assurance monitors, and none of the VHA facilities assessed customer satisfaction, quality of final diagnostic product, or any other quality of care indicators for contracted providers of mammography services. The OHI recommended that VHA offer mammograms in accordance with ACS guidelines--yearly mammography screening, beginning at age 40. VHA, maintaining that mammography screening for women between the ages of 50 to 69 is sufficient, rejected this recommendation. For this reason, I am compelled to introduce this legislation which will require the Department of Veterans Affairs to, at a minimum, offer mammograms in accordance with the most prudent guidelines, those of the American Cancer Society, which call for yearly mammogram screening starting at age 40. The women who receive treatment at any of our Nation's VA medical centers deserve mammography screening consistent with the accepted national standard--the highest standard, which is currently the recommendation of the American Cancer Society. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee for asking the quorum call be rescinded and I thank the Chair for waiting. I knew today we would be discussing the Department of Defense authorization bill. As soon as I completed work on our hearings for tomorrow, the Government Operations Committee, I notified the floor that I would be coming over and I thank the Chair for waiting and I thank the distinguished chairman for waiting.

Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss an amendment which has been circulated with both the majority and minority, which refers to establishing procedures for a report not later than 90 days after the enactment of the defense authorization bill, for the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing the following: No. 1, an assessment of the current policies and practices of the Department of Defense with respect to the protection of members of the Armed Forces against terrorist attack abroad, including any modifications of such policies or practices that are proposed or implemented as a result of the assessment; and, second, an assessment of the procedures of the military departments intended to determine accountability, if any, in the command structure in instances in which a terrorist attack results in the loss of life at an installation or facility of the Armed Forces abroad. This report is being sought because of what happened on June 25, 1996, when a bomb detonated not more than 80 feet from the Air Force housing complex known as Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 members of the Air Force and injuring hundreds more, as many as 400 more. This incident came under very intensive scrutiny by the Intelligence Committee, which I chaired last year. I have very serious reservations as to the adequacy of the Department of Defense response to the kind of threat which was posed by having those living quarters within 80 feet of a fence. The Department of Defense had a report on June 13, 1996 from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State, highlighting security concerns in the region in which Dhahran was located. Previously, in January 1996, the Office of Special Investigations of the Air Force issued a vulnerability assessment for the complex, and that assessment highlighted the vulnerability of perimeter security at the complex, given the proximity of the complex to a boundary fence and the lack of the protective coating mylar on its windows. And then, just 8 days before the terrorist attack, the Department of Defense received an intelligence report detailing a high level of risk to the complex. That report went to the highest levels of the Department of Defense and had the picture of Khobar Towers on it. Immediately after the incident occurred, the Secretary of Defense, William J. Perry, said that it was very unusual to have a bomb of the magnitude of 3,000 to 5,000 pounds used in the Mideast. I took issue with that statement on a factual basis that on October 23, 1983, according to the results of the Long Commission, a bomb weighing 12,000 pounds had killed 283 marines in Beirut, in the Mideast. That is the same region where, regrettably, terrorist attacks have become all too commonplace. So it struck me as strange that the Secretary of Defense would say that a bomb weighing 3,000 to 5,000 pounds was unusual in the Mideast, when there had been a bomb of 12,000 pounds, as I say, in 1983, detonated, giving tremendous warning for just this kind of attack; and that, in fact, a reading of the Long Commission report, for anybody who had read it, would have demonstrated the kind of threat which was posed by a high-powered bomb detonated near a fence in that area. I personally saw that fence in August 1996 when I visited Khobar Towers in Dhahran as part of my effort and the Intelligence Committee's efforts to try to find out exactly what had happened there. We had testimony from General Peay, who was the four-star commander in the area, who testified before a Senate committee in early July. Asked about the closeness of the perimeter fence to those living quarters, ``Was it too close?'' he said words to the effect of, ``I don't know. I just don't know.'' Certainly after the fact it is hard to understand how a ranking general would not know that that fence was too close to the living quarters and, realistically, before the fact, it seems hard to understand how the commanding general would not know about the extraordinary and unwarranted danger which was faced by the airmen who were living in those quarters. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, had visited Dhahran in the spring of 1996 and was within sight of Khobar Towers, although, as I understand it, he did not actually visit Khobar. But a question to be raised and a question to be answered, which has not yet been answered by the Department of Defense, is why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when in the area, within sight of Khobar Towers, knowing what the security risks were, did not take a look at that facility and make an assessment as to the vulnerability, since he was on the spot. That is especially true in light of the fact that there had been an attack in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia, in November 1995, killing a number of Americans, and that four Saudis had been executed by the Saudi Government in late May 1996, which would give rise to a concern as to what the militants in Saudi Arabia would do next. That was especially troublesome to the United States from a number of points of view, one of which was that the FBI, charged with investigating those matters overseas, had not been given access to those terrorists before they were executed. So, here you have the general on the spot, a brigadier general, with the fence 80 feet from the towers, you have the four-star general in command of the overall area even after the fact, not knowing whether there was an unacceptable risk, and you have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the vicinity, within sight of Khobar Towers, and no corrective action taken notwithstanding all of these warnings which had been given in a number of contexts about the danger which was present there. Following the attack on Khobar Towers, a commission was formed with General Downing, a retired four-star general, in command. When he testified before the Intelligence Committee on September 19, 1996, among other questions I asked him about a series of criteria established by the Secretary of Defense, Secretary William J. Perry, about what the responsibility was of the Secretary of Defense. General Downing testified that even under Secretary Perry's two standards they were not met. The first two standards articulated by Secretary Perry were ``establishing the policies and guidance for our commanders, including the policy and guidance for force protection.'' I asked General Downing: . . . Was there an adequate policy and guidance on force protection? General Downing's response: No, there was not, Senator. Then I asked about Secretary Perry's second criterion, organizing and structuring the Department of Defense in such a way that force protection is optimal. Then the question was: So did they meet the second criterion which stated ``organizing and structuring the Department of Defense in such a way that force protection is optimal?'' General Downing: The answer is no. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that at the conclusion of my remarks this extract from the hearings before the Intelligence Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in sequence, the committee then learned that there had been a report on the force protection issue, ``Force Protection in Southwest Asia, An Air Force Perspective,'' dated September 17. Our committee learned about this as a result of a report in the press, the Washington Post specifically, on October 10, 1996. So by letter dated October 17, 1996, Senator Robert Kerrey, vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I, in my capacity as chairman, wrote to Secretary of the Air Force, Sheila Widnall, asking for a copy of that report. I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated October 17, 1996, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the next sequence of events was a letter which I sent to Secretary Perry, with a copy to Air Force Secretary Widnall, dated November 5, 1996, which reads as follows: This letter constitutes a formal complaint on the obstruction by you, others and the Department of Defense on the inquiry by the Intelligence Committee to determine whether there was an intelligence failure relating to the terrorist attack in Dhahran on June 25, 1996 on the following: 1. Prohibiting key witnesses from being interviewed by this Committee (Brigadier General Terryl Schwalier, Colonel Gary Boyle, Lt. Colonel James Traister). Notwithstanding our efforts to interview these key personnel, the Department of Defense precluded the Intelligence Committee from conducting those interviews. Second, in my letter to Secretary Perry, I pointed out the concerns we had on prohibiting General Downing from testifying before the Intelligence Committee except on the terms set forth by the Secretary of Defense with that questioning only being in closed session. With our interest in having an open session, with General Downing having told the Intelligence Committee that he was employed by the Department of Defense and had to comply with instructions not to testify in open session, the impact of that was obvious. When General Downing testified in closed session that Secretary Perry had not even followed the Secretary's own criteria for force protection, it was not much of an impact contrasted to what it would have been had it been in open session. The third item: Refusing to give this committee access to an Air Force report which, as reported in the Washington Post on October 10. Then, finally, on November 6, after this letter was faxed on November 5, we received a response from General Trapp dated November 6, 1996, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Then there is my reply dated December 5 stating that that reply was insufficient, and referring to other letters. I ask unanimous consent that my letter of December 5 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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. 986, the proposed Veterans' Housing Loan Improvements Act of 1997. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 4, 1997. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed section-by-section analysis of the draft legislation which accompanied it.

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. 987, the proposed Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment and Benefits Program Improvement Act of 1997. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated May 9, 1997. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter which accompanied it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the chief judge, U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, S. 988, the proposed Court of Veterans Appeals Amendments of 1997. The chief judge submitted this proposed legislation to me, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, by letter dated June 16, 1997. 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--proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs by the chief judge, Court of Veterans Appeals. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed summary and explanation of the draft legislation which accompanied it. There being no obligation, the material was ordered to be printed in

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. 986, the proposed Veterans' Housing Loan Improvements Act of 1997. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 4, 1997. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed section-by-section analysis of the draft legislation which accompanied it.

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. 987, the proposed Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment and Benefits Program Improvement Act of 1997. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated May 9, 1997. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter which accompanied it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the chief judge, U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, S. 988, the proposed Court of Veterans Appeals Amendments of 1997. The chief judge submitted this proposed legislation to me, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, by letter dated June 16, 1997. 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--proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs by the chief judge, Court of Veterans Appeals. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed summary and explanation of the draft legislation which accompanied it. There being no obligation, the material was ordered to be printed in