Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. No.

Mr. SPECTER. I neither agree nor disagree. I do not know. As I said more extensively in the body of my comments, I do not have any basis for knowing, because I do not know what the program does. I think it may be that the program could be structured as going after only al- Qaida conversations. And I would like to see some proof of that. Quite frankly, I would like to see some proof that they have reasonable grounds to think one party or the other is al-Qaida. That is in the body of Senator Feingold's whereas clauses. It may be that they have been able to take a limited amount of information, destroying the rest, and that it has produced very important results with a minimal incursion. I do not know the answers to those questions. But I certainly think you ought not castigate the President as a criminal until you do know the answers to those questions.

Mr. SPECTER. I do. And I want to thank you for being here in Senator Feingold's stead.

Mr. SPECTER. No, I do not think it is an admission because, like consent, it has to be informed. And I do not think he is informed. I do not think anybody is informed. I do not think Senator DeWine intends to make an admission. I think Senator DeWine, in good faith--very good faith--is searching for a way out. And I think he made a significant step forward when his actions resulted in seven members of the Senate Intelligence Committee being briefed. The reason I say ``I think'' is because I do not know what they were told. But I think that is a significant step. Senator DeWine's proposal of legislation to allow the program to go on for 45 days is no concession. It is going on anyway. His idea to bypass the FISA Court and allow the Administration instead to go to the Intelligence Subcommittee, I think, is not appropriate because the Intelligence Subcommittee does not have the function of a court. So I think he is doing the best he can. But right now we are flying blind on a great deal of this, and we have to accept very limited representations by the Gang of 8, and now the new Gang of 7. And no matter what, it does not amount to judicial review.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. You are a little tougher to debate than he, but I thank you for coming.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am not introducing the bill today, but I am putting it forward so that my colleagues may consider it and it may be considered by the witnesses who are going to be testifying before the Judiciary Committee on March 14. I am putting it in the public view to solicit comments and to solicit responses and ideas as to the effectiveness or propriety or desirability of such legislation. I do so tentatively because it is a very complicated subject, and there have been relatively few modifications of the antitrust laws in the United States. The basic antitrust law under which we operate is more than a century old. The Sherman Act, enacted in 1890, made it unlawful to enter into a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade and prohibited monopolization. Then, 24 years later, we enacted the Clayton Act, which prohibits unlawful tying, corporate mergers and acquisitions that reduce competition and interlocking directorates, which lead principally to substantial restraint on trade. Those are the two principal statutes that mold the antitrust laws in the United States. There have been some additions: in 1914, the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibiting unfair methods of competition affecting commerce; in 1936, the Robinson-Patman Act prohibiting sales that discriminate in the price or sale of goods to equally situated distributors where the effect of such sales is to reduce competition; in 1945, the McCarron- Ferguson Act applying antitrust laws to the insurance industry only ``to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law;'' and then the 1976 Hart-Scott-Rodino Act which amended the Clayton Act and required companies to give notice to the antitrust enforcement agencies prior to consummating a merger. But in this long history, the principal acts have been the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act. There has been from time to time other legislation touching the antitrust issues--the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act in 1980 permitting the owners of trademark soft drinks to grant exclusive territorial franchises to bottlers or distributors; the local government antitrust laws of 1984; the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994; the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2004 protecting organizations that develop industry standards from certain types of antitrust liability; and in 2004 the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement Reform Act. There have been some modifications of the antitrust laws allowing the National Football League, for example, to have revenue sharing. From time to time, proposals have been made to limit the exemption that baseball enjoys from the antitrust laws as a result of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is my concern that there ought to be some close analysis of the existing antitrust laws with what is happening in the marketplace. The outline of proposed legislation which I have denominated the ``Petroleum Industry Antitrust Act of 2006'' is an outline for analysis and for further thought. Again I will say that I am not introducing it as a bill today, but I will use it as a basis for discussion and questioning in the Judiciary Committee hearing that will be held on March 14. This bill would eliminate the judge-made doctrines that prevent OPEC members from being sued for violation of the antitrust laws by conspiring to fix the price of crude oil. Section 1 of the bill amends the Sherman Act prohibiting oil and gas companies from diverting, exporting, or refusing to sell existing supplies of crude oil, refined products, or natural gas, with the primary intent of raising prices or creating a shortage in the market where the existing supplies are located or intended to be shipped. Section 2 amends the Clayton act prohibiting the acquisition of an oil or gas company or, any assets of such a company, when the acquisition would lessen competition. Current law allows the antitrust agencies to challenge any acquisition that may ``substantially'' lessen competition. This change would significantly increase the level of scrutiny received by any large merger between competitors in the oil and gas industry. Section 3 requires the Government Accountability Office to evaluate whether divestitures required by the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') or the Department of Department (``DOJ'') with regard to oil and gas industry mergers have been effective in restoring competition. Once the study is completed, the FTC and the DOJ must consider whether any additional steps are necessary to restore competition, including further divestiture or the unraveling of some mergers. Section 4 requires that the FTC and the DOJ establish a joint federal-state task force to examine information sharing and other anticompetitive results of recent consolidation in the oil and gas industry. These provisions might well be extended in a final legislative proposal to go beyond oil and gas, but that is the thrust of what we are considering as we prepare for the Judiciary Committee hearing on March 14. Again, I wish to emphasize that this is an outline of proposed modifications to the antitrust laws. I approach it with an eye toward the spirit of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, both of which have existed for so long, but also with a sense that what is happening in the marketplace today requires some further analysis by the Judiciary Committee. We are finding that the prices of heating oil are extremely high, the price of natural gas is extremely high, the price of gasoline at the pump is extremely high, and the American consumers and consumers beyond America deserve some attention, they deserve to have this situation analyzed and considered. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I am going to be putting into the Record at conclusion of my statement--again I ask unanimous consent--a proposed modification of the U.S. antitrust laws.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, has from time to time examined the implications of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures among companies affecting various fields in the American economy. Just a few days ago, a major proposal reached public view in the telephone industry. There have been major acquisitions and mergers in many lines of commerce, and there is special concern at the present time about the impact of acquisitions and mergers of major oil companies on the price of gasoline, which has soared for American consumers. I have been concerned about the actions of OPEC over the years in limiting production and undertaking joint actions which really violate the spirit of competition and increase the cost of oil. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my comments, letters that I sent to the President as far back as the Clinton administration, and that I sent to President Bush, outlining the judge- made laws which have given OPEC immunity under our antitrust laws be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, very briefly, we are about to proceed to a vote on three judicial nominees. In my judgment, they are all well- qualified. There is no contest. One of the nominees, Thomas Edward Johnston, currently serves as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia. He has been nominated for the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and has an excellent academic and professional background. Timothy C. Batten has been nominated to be a judge for the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He has been an active practitioner with the Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint law firm for the past 22 years. Again, I believe this nomination is not controversial. Aida M. Delgado-Colon has been nominated to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. She has been a magistrate judge since 1993 and has served with the Department of Labor in Puerto Rico, the Office of the Federal Public Defender for Puerto Rico, and as an adjunct professor at Pontifical Catholic University. That is a very brief statement of these three nominees. I yield to my distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe we are scheduled to vote at 5:30. My watch says 5:30.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to offer legislation which would amplify the PATRIOT Act, which we expect to be passed by the House of Representatives tomorrow, with these amendments to restore the provisions of the PATRIOT Act to the provisions of the Senate bill which was passed unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on which the Presiding Officer sits, as do I, and was then adopted by unanimous consent by the Senate. The PATRIOT Act has had a complex procedural history where the House passed a version which was substantially different from the Senate version. Then we hammered out a conference report which, in my view, was an acceptable compromise. It did not have all of the provisions which I would have preferred. It did not have the provisions of the Senate bill. But in a bicameral legislature, we learn to work with the art of the possible. That was accommodation. We worked closely with Chairman Sensenbrenner in the House and crafted a bill which was acceptable. There were certain key concessions made to the Senate which I believed were important, perhaps indispensable, the leading one being the sunset provision which was finally established at 4 years. That had been the provision in the Senate bill. And by sunset, for anyone who may be watching on C-SPAN2, that is the provision which terminates the bill, and then it has to come back to Congress for reevaluation to see if we want to give the expanded powers to law enforcement officials. The House bill had 10 years; the Senate bill had 4 years. The House wanted a compromise at 7 years, and the Senate held fast. And the compromise was reached so we finally put a provision in at 4 years. The PATRIOT Act was passed shortly after the terrible tragedies of 9/ 11, when the United States was victimized by a terrorist attack. It was an effort to give law enforcement officials more power to deal with terrorism. There is always a balance to be struck between civil liberties on the one hand and sufficient power for law enforcement on the other. There came into a coalition representatives of both extreme ends of the political spectrum, the so-called far left, the so-called far right, joining together with the insistence on more civil liberties. It seemed to me that the point was well taken. The legislation I am introducing today, I introduce on behalf of myself, Senators Leahy, Murkowski, Sununu, Feingold, Craig, Hagel, Durbin, Salazar, Feinstein, Obama, and Kerry. The cosponsors are the four Republicans who did not vote for cloture when the bill was before the Senate. They had decided not to vote to cut off debate, which might have given us the leverage at that time to pass the conference report, but insisted on some modifications. With the leadership of Senator Sununu, those modifications have been enacted in a companion bill which is going to the House of Representatives for House action tomorrow. It is my expectation that the legislation will be passed. There is an enrolling ceremony set by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader for Wednesday morning, so that is a pretty good sign that we are en route to having the PATRIOT Act enacted. I do not think that ought to be the ending point. That is why I am introducing this supplemental legislation today. What this legislation does is reinstate provisions of the original Senate-passed bill. For example, on the delayed notice search warrants, the House bill had called for 180 days. The Senate bill had called for 7 days' notice. The conference report compromised out at 30 days, which I thought was acceptable, while not as good as I would have liked it. So in this new bill, the delayed notice provision is set at 7 days. That means that when a search warrant is authorized, where the subject of the search warrant is not told--ordinarily if you have a search and seizure, law enforcement officials come in and in broad daylight make the search and seizure. The resident, the owner of the residence knows about it. But a delayed notice search warrant is structured so that the recipient does not know about it, where there is cause shown that the investigation would be impeded if the recipient were to be told at that time. This cuts the time to 7 days. There had been considerable controversy over the provisions of section 215 where the Senate bill had a three-part test, and a fourth provision was added to the conference report where the judge had the discretion to grant the order if there was adequate showing in the opinion of the court to pursue a terrorist investigation. But the new bill comes back to the three-part test of the original Senate bill so the records sought must, first, pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; second, are relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation; or, three, pertain to an individual in contact with the suspected agent of a foreign power. The third provision provides for a judicial review of national security letters. It would eliminate the conclusive presumption with respect to national security letters that the court would automatically uphold nondisclosure--that is, a gag order--upon the Government's good faith certification that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States or interfere with diplomatic relations. The bill introduced today would allow the judge to review all of the factors and would not be controlled by this conclusive presumption. The bill introduced today also makes a change on judicial review of section 215, which eliminates both the conclusive presumption which was added in on the legislation sponsored by Senator Sununu, and it eliminates the mandatory 1-year waiting period. The sunset on national security letters is an additional provision which adds a 4-year sunset to national security letters, which is the same sunset in the balance of the conference report. National security letters had not been subjected to the PATRIOT Act but were included in the Senate version this time. That provision is added. We are having an oversight hearing with the Director of the FBI later this month. It is my intention, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to include in that oversight hearing these provisions. We want to see exactly how important they are, what the FBI is doing with them. We want law enforcement to have the tools it needs. I know this is a subject near and dear to the heart of the Presiding Officer who was the U.S. attorney in Alabama for law enforcement and attorney general, and something of which this Senator has very substantial concern based in part on my tenure as district attorney of Philadelphia. So we want law enforcement to have the tools which are needed. At the same time we want to achieve an appropriate balance with civil liberties. The statement has been made that it is not anticipated that the House will act on such legislation this year. It is a long year. We will wait and see. We will see what the developments are. We will see how our fight against terrorism goes. We will see what the oversight provisions are. But this bill will be useful as a marker to promote further reconsideration of that original Senate bill that passed last year. It was a significant occasion, if not monumental, to have all 18 members of the Judiciary Committee agree on a bill which, as the Presiding Officer knows, as do I and people who are familiar with the Judiciary Committee, we have representatives at opposite ends of the political spectrum. That is what is attractive about the Judiciary Committee. Notwithstanding our divergence of views, we have had remarkable success in the past 14 months passing the bankruptcy bill, the class action bill, and the asbestos bill out of committee. We stumbled a little. We are one vote short on the budget point of order. That is going to be coming back. We are taking a look at some of the provisions I am personally talking to Senators about on an individual basis. There is a recognized need for asbestos reform. There is only disagreement as to what it ought to be. I am asking Senators to take a look at the bill and tell me what it is they would like to see done in order to have the bill receive the requisite support here to overcome the budget point of order--I think we have the votes already there--but to overcome cloture and to have a bill that can be enacted. Then our committee led the way in the confirmation of the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito. We are now in the midst of working on immigration. I think the renewal of the PATRIOT Act is a significant step forward--something the President has been anxious to have done and something which will give law enforcement the tools it needs with appropriate balance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this new bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to offer legislation which would amplify the PATRIOT Act, which we expect to be passed by the House of Representatives tomorrow, with these amendments to restore the provisions of the PATRIOT Act to the provisions of the Senate bill which was passed unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on which the Presiding Officer sits, as do I, and was then adopted by unanimous consent by the Senate. The PATRIOT Act has had a complex procedural history where the House passed a version which was substantially different from the Senate version. Then we hammered out a conference report which, in my view, was an acceptable compromise. It did not have all of the provisions which I would have preferred. It did not have the provisions of the Senate bill. But in a bicameral legislature, we learn to work with the art of the possible. That was accommodation. We worked closely with Chairman Sensenbrenner in the House and crafted a bill which was acceptable. There were certain key concessions made to the Senate which I believed were important, perhaps indispensable, the leading one being the sunset provision which was finally established at 4 years. That had been the provision in the Senate bill. And by sunset, for anyone who may be watching on C-SPAN2, that is the provision which terminates the bill, and then it has to come back to Congress for reevaluation to see if we want to give the expanded powers to law enforcement officials. The House bill had 10 years; the Senate bill had 4 years. The House wanted a compromise at 7 years, and the Senate held fast. And the compromise was reached so we finally put a provision in at 4 years. The PATRIOT Act was passed shortly after the terrible tragedies of 9/ 11, when the United States was victimized by a terrorist attack. It was an effort to give law enforcement officials more power to deal with terrorism. There is always a balance to be struck between civil liberties on the one hand and sufficient power for law enforcement on the other. There came into a coalition representatives of both extreme ends of the political spectrum, the so-called far left, the so-called far right, joining together with the insistence on more civil liberties. It seemed to me that the point was well taken. The legislation I am introducing today, I introduce on behalf of myself, Senators Leahy, Murkowski, Sununu, Feingold, Craig, Hagel, Durbin, Salazar, Feinstein, Obama, and Kerry. The cosponsors are the four Republicans who did not vote for cloture when the bill was before the Senate. They had decided not to vote to cut off debate, which might have given us the leverage at that time to pass the conference report, but insisted on some modifications. With the leadership of Senator Sununu, those modifications have been enacted in a companion bill which is going to the House of Representatives for House action tomorrow. It is my expectation that the legislation will be passed. There is an enrolling ceremony set by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader for Wednesday morning, so that is a pretty good sign that we are en route to having the PATRIOT Act enacted. I do not think that ought to be the ending point. That is why I am introducing this supplemental legislation today. What this legislation does is reinstate provisions of the original Senate-passed bill. For example, on the delayed notice search warrants, the House bill had called for 180 days. The Senate bill had called for 7 days' notice. The conference report compromised out at 30 days, which I thought was acceptable, while not as good as I would have liked it. So in this new bill, the delayed notice provision is set at 7 days. That means that when a search warrant is authorized, where the subject of the search warrant is not told--ordinarily if you have a search and seizure, law enforcement officials come in and in broad daylight make the search and seizure. The resident, the owner of the residence knows about it. But a delayed notice search warrant is structured so that the recipient does not know about it, where there is cause shown that the investigation would be impeded if the recipient were to be told at that time. This cuts the time to 7 days. There had been considerable controversy over the provisions of section 215 where the Senate bill had a three-part test, and a fourth provision was added to the conference report where the judge had the discretion to grant the order if there was adequate showing in the opinion of the court to pursue a terrorist investigation. But the new bill comes back to the three-part test of the original Senate bill so the records sought must, first, pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; second, are relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation; or, three, pertain to an individual in contact with the suspected agent of a foreign power. The third provision provides for a judicial review of national security letters. It would eliminate the conclusive presumption with respect to national security letters that the court would automatically uphold nondisclosure--that is, a gag order--upon the Government's good faith certification that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States or interfere with diplomatic relations. The bill introduced today would allow the judge to review all of the factors and would not be controlled by this conclusive presumption. The bill introduced today also makes a change on judicial review of section 215, which eliminates both the conclusive presumption which was added in on the legislation sponsored by Senator Sununu, and it eliminates the mandatory 1-year waiting period. The sunset on national security letters is an additional provision which adds a 4-year sunset to national security letters, which is the same sunset in the balance of the conference report. National security letters had not been subjected to the PATRIOT Act but were included in the Senate version this time. That provision is added. We are having an oversight hearing with the Director of the FBI later this month. It is my intention, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to include in that oversight hearing these provisions. We want to see exactly how important they are, what the FBI is doing with them. We want law enforcement to have the tools it needs. I know this is a subject near and dear to the heart of the Presiding Officer who was the U.S. attorney in Alabama for law enforcement and attorney general, and something of which this Senator has very substantial concern based in part on my tenure as district attorney of Philadelphia. So we want law enforcement to have the tools which are needed. At the same time we want to achieve an appropriate balance with civil liberties. The statement has been made that it is not anticipated that the House will act on such legislation this year. It is a long year. We will wait and see. We will see what the developments are. We will see how our fight against terrorism goes. We will see what the oversight provisions are. But this bill will be useful as a marker to promote further reconsideration of that original Senate bill that passed last year. It was a significant occasion, if not monumental, to have all 18 members of the Judiciary Committee agree on a bill which, as the Presiding Officer knows, as do I and people who are familiar with the Judiciary Committee, we have representatives at opposite ends of the political spectrum. That is what is attractive about the Judiciary Committee. Notwithstanding our divergence of views, we have had remarkable success in the past 14 months passing the bankruptcy bill, the class action bill, and the asbestos bill out of committee. We stumbled a little. We are one vote short on the budget point of order. That is going to be coming back. We are taking a look at some of the provisions I am personally talking to Senators about on an individual basis. There is a recognized need for asbestos reform. There is only disagreement as to what it ought to be. I am asking Senators to take a look at the bill and tell me what it is they would like to see done in order to have the bill receive the requisite support here to overcome the budget point of order--I think we have the votes already there--but to overcome cloture and to have a bill that can be enacted. Then our committee led the way in the confirmation of the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito. We are now in the midst of working on immigration. I think the renewal of the PATRIOT Act is a significant step forward--something the President has been anxious to have done and something which will give law enforcement the tools it needs with appropriate balance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this new bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague from Missouri that physicians should not be forced to change what are common and appropriate prescribing patterns in an effort to stop the manufacturing and trafficking of methamphetamine. The Senator from Missouri is correct. The Combat Methamphetamine Act provisions in the PATRIOT Act are intended to address over-the-counter sales, not pseudoephedrine products provided under a valid prescription. It is my expectation that these new restrictions apply only to pseudoephedrine products provided to consumers without a prescription.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Community Cancer Care Preservation Act, which will ensure Medicare beneficiaries' access to community-based cancer treatment and provide Medicare reimbursement assistance for oncologists providing vital cancer care services. Cancer takes a great toll on our friends, families, and our Nation. In the United States, cancer causes one out of every four deaths and was responsible for 570,000 deaths last year. In 2005, over 2 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed, the most prevalent of which were breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal. While these statistics are daunting, the rate of cancer deaths in the United States has decreased since 1993. This decrease is the result of earlier detection and diagnosis, more effective and targeted cancer therapies, and greater accessibility to quality care provided by oncologists. These vital services have allowed millions of individuals to lead healthy and productive lives after successfully battling cancer. In 2004, 42.7 million individuals were enrolled in Medicare; of those beneficiaries over 29 percent have had cancer during their lives, 12.5 million beneficiaries. With such a large percentage of our seniors facing this horrible disease, the need for access to community cancer care is critical. Community cancer clinics treat 84 percent of Americans with cancer. Community cancer centers are free-standing outpatient facilities that provide comprehensive cancer care in the physician's office setting located in patients' communities. These clinics are especially critical in rural areas where access to larger cancer clinics is not available. They provide patients with earlier diagnosis, more effective cancer therapies, and innovative supportive care that reduces fatigue, nausea/ vomiting, and pain. The accessibility of treatment in the hands of skilled community oncologists has decreased the cancer mortality rate. On December 8, 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act was signed into law by President Bush. This legislation contained numerous provisions that were beneficial to America's seniors and medical facilities; however, it also provided a reduction to Medicare's reimbursement for oncology treatment. The provisions sought to bring a balance to the reimbursement for the cost of cancer drugs and services. Previous to the implementation of the law, CMS reimbursed the cost of cancer treatment drugs at a very high level. This level provided sufficient funding to supplement the costs of care, storage of the prescription drugs, and the costs of cancer care services, which were not being provided adequate funding. The law enacted reimbursement reductions for the cost of prescription drugs while increasing the funding provided for cancer care services; however, that increase did not sufficiently offset oncologists' losses from the reduction in cancer drug reimbursement. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Medicare reimbursements to oncologists would be reduced by $4.2 billion from 2004-2013. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that reductions will reach $15.7 billion over that time. This increased reduction will have a debilitating effect on oncologists' ability to provide cancer treatment to Medicare beneficiaries, especially those in the community setting. For 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that the beneficiary reimbursement for services provided by community cancer care will be cut by 6.6 percent, a $200 to $300 million reduction. However, this reimbursement reduction may be larger than estimated. CMS did not factor in the delay in drug manufacturer price increases for cancer therapies and the bad debt of beneficiaries who may not pay their Medicare 20 percent co-insurance payment. When accounting for these reductions, the overall cut to cancer care will likely exceed $300 million. The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act mandated a transitional increase of 32 percent in service fees in 2004, falling to 3 percent in 2005, and 0 percent in 2006. This was done to provide time for CMS to pay for essential unpaid medical services, such as pharmacy facilities and treatment planning. In 2005, CMS created a cancer care demonstration project as a quality enhancement initiative to examine the effects of oncology drugs on patients. This demonstration project also provided $300 million in critical funding because CMS had not increased the reimbursement for essential unpaid medical services. On June 29, 2005, I sent a letter with 38 other Senators to President Bush requesting an extension to the demonstration project through 2006. CMS, however, announced a new oncology demonstration project for 2006 that examines the quality of cancer care in relation to treatment guidelines, but at $180-$210 million less than the previous funding level. Accordingly, I am introducing legislation to provide community oncologists with the tools to withstand the CMS reforms brought forth under the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. The bill's $1.7 billion price tag, over the next 5 years, is a relatively small cost in the face of the vast reductions in CMS's reimbursement to oncologists. Let me briefly summarize the provisions of this legislation. 1. Sales Price Updates: Currently, CMS updates the prices for cancer treatment drugs quarterly. This delay in price updating forces community cancer clinics to often pay increased prices for prescription drugs for up to six months without increased reimbursement. This legislation requires the sales price for oncology drug reimbursement be updated as changes occur in the price to provide a more accurate reimbursement to oncologists for the cost of drugs. This will provide a reimbursement to oncologists that is fair and reflective of market costs. 2. Removal of the Prompt Pay Discount: The prompt pay discount is a discount from the wholesaler to the physician for prompt payment on prescription drugs. This is a benefit for physicians that operate an efficient and organized practice and allows them to gain extra revenue as an incentive for conducting business in that manner. The current average sales price for prescription drugs from CMS takes into account the prompt pay discount provided by wholesalers. The inclusion of these funds, which are not guaranteed unless the practice operates in a very efficient way, decreases the amount of reimbursement from CMS. My legislation would remove the discount from the CMS average sales price requiring CMS to reimburse oncologists at the price they pay for drugs without the inclusion of discounts. 3. Quality Care Demonstration Project Extension: The quality care demonstration project provided information to CMS that was gathered by oncologists about the effects of oncology drugs on patients. This project was altered and funds were reduced provided to conduct the informational interviews to oncologists. The bill would extend the 2005 quality cancer care demonstration project through 2006. The project collects information from cancer patients on the effects of cancer treatment including fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and the treatment of these symptoms. 4. Increase in Payments for Oncological Drug Storage: The CMS reimbursement for oncology prescription drugs does not provide adequate funding for storage and care needs. The prescription drugs for cancer care often require special provisions including refrigeration and handling as some drugs that are highly toxic. These special provisions result in an increased cost, which is why my legislation provides a two percent increase in payments to account for the storage and care of oncology drugs. 5. Reports Regarding Cancer Care: The legislation would also require a report from the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a plan to increase the number of cancer patients in clinical trails and a Congressional Budget Office Report on the effects of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 on cancer care. These reports will assist Congress and the Administration in its future decisions impacting cancer care. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee, I have sought to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Since becoming Chairman of the LHHS Subcommittee, the funding for NIH has increased from $11.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $29.4 billion in 2006, an increase of 147 percent, while funding for the NCI increased from $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $4.9 billion in 2006, an increase of 113 percent. On February 16, 2005, I was diagnosed with stage IVB Hodgkin's lymphoma and had my first chemotherapy treatment two days later. I had a total of 12 treatments, my last on July 22, 2005, and tests following that final treatment concluded that I am cancer free. As a recipient of cancer treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer, I have an acute understanding of the problems that confront patients as well as physicians that administer their care. This legislation provides Medicare reimbursement assistance for community oncologists and ensures Medicare beneficiaries' access to community-based cancer treatment. I encourage my colleagues to work with Senators Coleman, Isakson and me to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Community Cancer Care Preservation Act, which will ensure Medicare beneficiaries' access to community-based cancer treatment and provide Medicare reimbursement assistance for oncologists providing vital cancer care services. Cancer takes a great toll on our friends, families, and our Nation. In the United States, cancer causes one out of every four deaths and was responsible for 570,000 deaths last year. In 2005, over 2 million new cases of cancer were diagnosed, the most prevalent of which were breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal. While these statistics are daunting, the rate of cancer deaths in the United States has decreased since 1993. This decrease is the result of earlier detection and diagnosis, more effective and targeted cancer therapies, and greater accessibility to quality care provided by oncologists. These vital services have allowed millions of individuals to lead healthy and productive lives after successfully battling cancer. In 2004, 42.7 million individuals were enrolled in Medicare; of those beneficiaries over 29 percent have had cancer during their lives, 12.5 million beneficiaries. With such a large percentage of our seniors facing this horrible disease, the need for access to community cancer care is critical. Community cancer clinics treat 84 percent of Americans with cancer. Community cancer centers are free-standing outpatient facilities that provide comprehensive cancer care in the physician's office setting located in patients' communities. These clinics are especially critical in rural areas where access to larger cancer clinics is not available. They provide patients with earlier diagnosis, more effective cancer therapies, and innovative supportive care that reduces fatigue, nausea/ vomiting, and pain. The accessibility of treatment in the hands of skilled community oncologists has decreased the cancer mortality rate. On December 8, 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act was signed into law by President Bush. This legislation contained numerous provisions that were beneficial to America's seniors and medical facilities; however, it also provided a reduction to Medicare's reimbursement for oncology treatment. The provisions sought to bring a balance to the reimbursement for the cost of cancer drugs and services. Previous to the implementation of the law, CMS reimbursed the cost of cancer treatment drugs at a very high level. This level provided sufficient funding to supplement the costs of care, storage of the prescription drugs, and the costs of cancer care services, which were not being provided adequate funding. The law enacted reimbursement reductions for the cost of prescription drugs while increasing the funding provided for cancer care services; however, that increase did not sufficiently offset oncologists' losses from the reduction in cancer drug reimbursement. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Medicare reimbursements to oncologists would be reduced by $4.2 billion from 2004-2013. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that reductions will reach $15.7 billion over that time. This increased reduction will have a debilitating effect on oncologists' ability to provide cancer treatment to Medicare beneficiaries, especially those in the community setting. For 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that the beneficiary reimbursement for services provided by community cancer care will be cut by 6.6 percent, a $200 to $300 million reduction. However, this reimbursement reduction may be larger than estimated. CMS did not factor in the delay in drug manufacturer price increases for cancer therapies and the bad debt of beneficiaries who may not pay their Medicare 20 percent co-insurance payment. When accounting for these reductions, the overall cut to cancer care will likely exceed $300 million. The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act mandated a transitional increase of 32 percent in service fees in 2004, falling to 3 percent in 2005, and 0 percent in 2006. This was done to provide time for CMS to pay for essential unpaid medical services, such as pharmacy facilities and treatment planning. In 2005, CMS created a cancer care demonstration project as a quality enhancement initiative to examine the effects of oncology drugs on patients. This demonstration project also provided $300 million in critical funding because CMS had not increased the reimbursement for essential unpaid medical services. On June 29, 2005, I sent a letter with 38 other Senators to President Bush requesting an extension to the demonstration project through 2006. CMS, however, announced a new oncology demonstration project for 2006 that examines the quality of cancer care in relation to treatment guidelines, but at $180-$210 million less than the previous funding level. Accordingly, I am introducing legislation to provide community oncologists with the tools to withstand the CMS reforms brought forth under the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. The bill's $1.7 billion price tag, over the next 5 years, is a relatively small cost in the face of the vast reductions in CMS's reimbursement to oncologists. Let me briefly summarize the provisions of this legislation. 1. Sales Price Updates: Currently, CMS updates the prices for cancer treatment drugs quarterly. This delay in price updating forces community cancer clinics to often pay increased prices for prescription drugs for up to six months without increased reimbursement. This legislation requires the sales price for oncology drug reimbursement be updated as changes occur in the price to provide a more accurate reimbursement to oncologists for the cost of drugs. This will provide a reimbursement to oncologists that is fair and reflective of market costs. 2. Removal of the Prompt Pay Discount: The prompt pay discount is a discount from the wholesaler to the physician for prompt payment on prescription drugs. This is a benefit for physicians that operate an efficient and organized practice and allows them to gain extra revenue as an incentive for conducting business in that manner. The current average sales price for prescription drugs from CMS takes into account the prompt pay discount provided by wholesalers. The inclusion of these funds, which are not guaranteed unless the practice operates in a very efficient way, decreases the amount of reimbursement from CMS. My legislation would remove the discount from the CMS average sales price requiring CMS to reimburse oncologists at the price they pay for drugs without the inclusion of discounts. 3. Quality Care Demonstration Project Extension: The quality care demonstration project provided information to CMS that was gathered by oncologists about the effects of oncology drugs on patients. This project was altered and funds were reduced provided to conduct the informational interviews to oncologists. The bill would extend the 2005 quality cancer care demonstration project through 2006. The project collects information from cancer patients on the effects of cancer treatment including fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and the treatment of these symptoms. 4. Increase in Payments for Oncological Drug Storage: The CMS reimbursement for oncology prescription drugs does not provide adequate funding for storage and care needs. The prescription drugs for cancer care often require special provisions including refrigeration and handling as some drugs that are highly toxic. These special provisions result in an increased cost, which is why my legislation provides a two percent increase in payments to account for the storage and care of oncology drugs. 5. Reports Regarding Cancer Care: The legislation would also require a report from the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a plan to increase the number of cancer patients in clinical trails and a Congressional Budget Office Report on the effects of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 on cancer care. These reports will assist Congress and the Administration in its future decisions impacting cancer care. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee, I have sought to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Since becoming Chairman of the LHHS Subcommittee, the funding for NIH has increased from $11.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $29.4 billion in 2006, an increase of 147 percent, while funding for the NCI increased from $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $4.9 billion in 2006, an increase of 113 percent. On February 16, 2005, I was diagnosed with stage IVB Hodgkin's lymphoma and had my first chemotherapy treatment two days later. I had a total of 12 treatments, my last on July 22, 2005, and tests following that final treatment concluded that I am cancer free. As a recipient of cancer treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer, I have an acute understanding of the problems that confront patients as well as physicians that administer their care. This legislation provides Medicare reimbursement assistance for community oncologists and ensures Medicare beneficiaries' access to community-based cancer treatment. I encourage my colleagues to work with Senators Coleman, Isakson and me to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join in paying tribute to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy. Our friendship precedes the service of both of us in the Senate. I first met Senator Leahy at the National District Attorneys Convention in Philadelphia in 1970. Senator Leahy was the district attorney of Burlington, VT, and I was the district attorney of Philadelphia. That friendship was renewed when I was elected to the Senate in 1980. Senator Leahy had already been here for 6 years. We have worked together for 25 years plus on Judiciary and Appropriations and on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education. It has been a very close working relationship, and never as close as it has been for the past 14 months as we have worked together on the Judiciary Committee with some very significant accomplishments for the Senate and for the American people. Last year, when I had a problem or two, besides working with Senator Leahy on the administration of the Judiciary Committee I had a period where I was bald. On our frequent visits together, the only way we could be distinguished was by the color of our ties. I usually wore red and he customarily wore green, so people knew who was who. Earlier today I received this picture of Senator Leahy with his new grandson. The grandson is a few weeks old, but I am pleased to report to C-SPAN viewers, if there are any, that the grandson has more hair than Senator Leahy. Pat Leahy is a great Senator and he is a great friend. It is a great achievement to cast 12,000 votes. I have been here for a good many of them, and he has even been right some of the time. I am delighted to join in praising my good friend Senator Pat Leahy.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Off-Reservation Gaming: Land into Trust and the Two-Part Determination.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, as we begin the debate and discussion on the USA PATRIOT Act, I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture to cut off debate tomorrow when the vote is scheduled at 2:30, and then proceed to pass the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act was passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President shortly after September 11, 2001, to provide additional tools for law enforcement, and it was reviewed extensively by the Committee on the Judiciary, which I chair, last year; and the Judiciary Committee came out with a unanimous report, with all 18 members on the committee concurring in the final product. We considered this a unique, if not remarkable event, considering that our Judiciary Committee has people at all positions on the political spectrum. So to have unanimous agreement was, we thought, quite an accomplishment. When the matter came to the floor of the Senate, it was passed by unanimous consent, which again was unique, if not remarkable, in that on a matter as complex and controversial as the PATRIOT Act all of the Senators were in agreement that it should be enacted. We then went to conference with the House of Representatives and, as expected, the House had different views than what the Senate had in mind. But we worked through in a collegial way with Chairman Sensenbrenner and others on the House side and came to a conference report which we submitted to the Senate. We fell short of having enough votes to impose cloture when objections were reached to a number of provisions which had been included in the conference report. There have since been some changes made in the legislation which is pending before the Senate. I compliment my colleagues, Senator Sununu, Senator Craig, Senator Murkowski, who is presiding today, and Senator Hagel, for a number of additions which led those four Republican Senators who had not voted for cloture to find the PATRIOT Act acceptable, taking the conference report and making these additions. It is our expectation that there will be a number of Democrats, I think most of whom oppose cloture, so we have an expectation of receiving 60 votes tomorrow to be able to move the bill ahead. The changes which were made as a result of these modifications provide for explicit judicial review of a section 215 nondisclosure order, a provision to remove from the conference report the requirement that a person inform the FBI of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal assistance with respect to a national security letter, and an additional provision to clarify current law that libraries that have been functioning in their traditional roles, including providing Internet access, are not subject to section 2709 national security letters. These changes were, in my opinion, not major but helpful in the sense they have satisfied a number of Senators, I think, and are very constructive and enable us to move forward, which I expect will enable us to obtain cloture. With the revised bill which is now before the Senate for a cloture vote tomorrow, it is my hope my colleagues will cut off debate, invoke cloture, and let us move ahead to the passage of the PATRIOT Act. It is not a bill to my precise satisfaction, but in the Congress of the united States, we reach accommodations and we reach compromises. My preference would have been to have the Senate bill enacted, but there were significant concessions made on both sides, especially by the House of Representatives, in agreeing to a 4-year sunset provision. What I intend to do tomorrow is to propose additional legislation in this field which would take the current bill with the improvements made by Senator Sununu and his group and add a number of additional safeguards on civil liberties which will improve the bill even further, in my opinion, and to consider that on additional legislation in the Senate. In so doing, I fully realize we will have to go through the legislative process. We will have hearings in the Judiciary Committee. We will make this the subject of oversight on what the law enforcement officials, specifically the FBI, will be doing, and we will ultimately, hopefully, report out of the Judiciary Committee a bill with the provisions which I am now about to enumerate which will, if successful in conference and to be signed by the President into law, return the bill to its form which passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously last year and passed the Senate unanimously. The provisions in the bill which I will introduce tomorrow--I wanted to give my colleagues notice of what I intend to do--would be a provision, first, on the notice on search warrants to require that the target receive notification of the execution of a delayed notice search warrant within 7 days as the Senate-passed PATRIOT Act provided. The conference report provides for notice within 30 days, which was a significant compromise when the House of Representatives moved from 180 days to 30 days and the Senate moved from 7 days to 30 days, but it continues to be my view that the 7-day requirement is the best requirement. The bill will further provide that section 215 will have the Senate- passed three-part test which will require a statement of facts accompanying an application to show that the records sought, first, pertained to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, second, relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation, or three, pertain to an individual in contact with a suspected agent of a foreign power. I will put in the Record a memo detailing the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill and the conference report. This provision goes to the heart of strenuous objections raised by people who filibustered the bill who objected to a fourth provision which gave the judge discretion to allow for a court order if there were a terrorism investigation involved generally which did not have one of this three-part test. My view is that the three-part test is decisively preferable, although I do think in the spirit of compromise on our bicameral legislation, having the discretion of the judge to authorize the order if he found it warranted in light of the terrorism investigation was acceptable. This is preferable, and this will be included in the new bill to be introduced. A third change will provide for judicial review of national security letters to eliminate the conclusive presumption in the conference report on the national security letter provision. The bill removes the ability of the Government to prevent judicial review of the nondisclosure requirement if it certifies in good faith that ``disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States or interfere with diplomatic relations.'' This provision in the conference report was identical with what passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously and was adopted unanimously by the Senate. Those who have objected to this conclusive presumption say it was overlooked and that on further consideration they objected to it. Upon additional analysis, it is my view this conclusive presumption is better out of the report, which gives the court the discretion to allow for the judicial review of these national security letters. A fourth provision involves judicial review of the section 215 order nondisclosure requirement and it eliminates the mandatory 1-year waiting period for judicial review of nondisclosure requirement on 215 orders. The additions by Senator Sununu and his colleagues provide for a 1-year waiting period. My own view is it is preferable there not be a waiting period at all, that the court have the discretion to enter the orders immediately if it finds cause to do so. The fifth provision of the legislation which I intend to introduce tomorrow adds a 4-year sunset to the national security letter with authorities created in the conference report so that the bill provides that on December 31, 2009, the law governing national security letters will be returned to what it was in February of the year 2006. Here again we have a situation where the PATRIOT Act did not deal with national security letters, but this, again, is a tightening up of the bill to provide additional safeguards for civil liberties. So what we have here, in essence, is the Senate bill which passed the committee unanimously and the Senate unanimously was then modified by a conference report which, to repeat--I don't like to do it, but it is worth a summary--I found acceptable; not as good as the Senate bill but acceptable. Then we have these three provisions added by Senator Sununu and his group--again giving them credit--which has made it acceptable to those four Republican Senators and I believe enough Democrats to get the 60 votes, perhaps additional votes, to be able to submit the bill to the House of Representatives for its consideration and, hopefully, ultimate passage to be signed by the President, which is an acceptable bill; again, not as good as the Senate bill but acceptable. I want my colleagues who oppose the bill in the form submitted for cloture tomorrow to know that if the issue is not concluded, I will be introducing legislation which will bring back the original Senate bill with some additional improvements, and between now and tomorrow, we will be soliciting cosponsors to see if others will choose to support this bill which, as I say, returns the essentials of the Senate bill with some improvements. The commitment is made in my capacity as chairman that we will proceed to have oversight hearings, that the Director of the FBI is due in on March 29. He will be questioned about these specific provisions, asked for justification for the more restrictive provisions which are in the conference report, plus the provisions by Senator Sununu and his colleagues, and there will be continuing oversight in the interim. We will have hearings on the legislation which I intend to introduce tomorrow, looking toward the prospect of ultimately passing it, if it is passed by the Senate and if it is submitted to the House in conference and that turns out to be the bicameral will of the two bodies. I do believe that where we are now with the conference report and the additions, we have an acceptable bill--not as good as it could be--and we will attempt to perfect it even more as I have outlined. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation which I intend to introduce tomorrow be printed in the Record so my colleagues can see it, together with the memorandum which I described in the course of my discussion.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, February 27, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a briefing on the Dubai Ports World purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to report on a trip I made to Europe and the Mideast during the holiday recess, December 22 to December 31, 2005. The trip included stops in Brussels, Belgium; Tallinn, Estonia; Amman, Jordan; Baghdad, Iraq; Tel Aviv, Israel and Frankfurt, Germany. This trip enabled me to learn about the important transformations countries in Eastern and Western Europe are making as we enter the 20th century and away from the Cold War era. Additionally, my travels through the Mideast provided me tremendous insight into the evolving political structure of the region as well as the United States' progress on the war on terror. Prior to my departure many interesting and significant events occurred which helped shape the focus of my travels including: the eventual extension of the PATRIOT Act, the successful elections in Iraq, the New York Times disclosure of domestic eavesdropping and the tight fiscal budget constraints placed on the Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations process. The broader implications of these events were issues which I frequently encountered in my travels. The first full day of my trip, December 23, 2005, began in Brussels, Belgium where I met with a number of members of two of the three U.S. Missions in Belgium: the U.S. Mission to the European Union, and officials from the U.S. Embassy in Belgium. The briefing was provided by: Will Imbrie, DCM; Ted Andrews, POL; Mike McKinley, Deputy Head of the U.S. Mission to the E.U.; Lee Litzenberger, Political Minister Counselor--U.S. Mission to the E.U.; and Dale Bendler, Special Adviser to the Ambassador. The discussions focused on a number of issues including the war on terror, war crimes, NATO and perceptions of President Bush by Belgians. Ambassador Korologus's staff briefed me on his efforts to build a strong transatlantic relationship between the United States, the European Union, Belgium and NATO. I found it interesting that Belgium is the 14th largest trade partner of the United States and that the country is making a substantial contribution to the war on terror financially. I support Ambassador Korologus's efforts and look forward to working with him and his staff in the future. Mike McKinley informed me that Belgians are unhappy with the war in Iraq and that they see a difference with the war waged in Afghanistan. It is perceived that the United Nations support of the war in Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq, is the reason the country has sent troops to Afghanistan as well as the horrendous acts of terrorism on 9/ 11. Mr. McKinley also informed me that the European countries, through the EU, will make significant contributions to the rebuilding of Afghanistan--5 billion euros over a 5-year period. Mr. Imbrie stated that the perception of President Bush in Belgium has improved not as a result of his most recent speeches, but because of the clear success of elections in Iraq. Mr. McKinley also briefed me on the strong relationship the European Union has with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with 19 members of the E.U. also a part of the 25 nations in NATO. Mr. Imbrie discussed the transformation which is being attempted with NATO, forcing its member countries to acknowledge that a threat within the NATO states is less likely than the threat of terrorism which exists from outside. The transformation also asks countries to be postured in such a way that deployment of support is quick and efficient. Mr. McKinley stated his strong belief that NATO is producing positive results and is essential as a vehicle available to deploy resources throughout the region and the world. A particular issue discussed relevant to my work on the Judiciary Committee is that of a law recently changed in Belgium which enabled the prosecution of war crimes committed anywhere in the world, at any time. The law has been reformed now to state that the person bringing the charge must be the offended individual and reside in Belgium. He cited two recent examples of the law's successful implementation. Of particular interest to me were Mr. Bendler's descriptions of the exchange of information between Belgian officials and the U.S. He cited a recent case where a Belgian citizen suspected of being a potential terrorist was tracked and later lost, only to be found again in Iraq. The individual's intention was to be a suicide bomber and to harm U.S. forces. With the help of the information provided by Belgians, U.S. forces were able to prevent any loss of life to U.S. troops. I believe this type of cooperation between nations is an important step forward in the war on terror. On December 24, 2005, I headed to Tallinn, Estonia, my first trip to the Baltic country. I was met by Jeff Goldstein, the Deputy Chief of the Mission, and was briefed on the country's history and its future. Estonia is a small country of approximately 1.4 million people, with nearly 400,000 individuals living in Tallinn. Tallinn is a beautiful city with much to offer both culturally and economically. Mr. Goldstein addressed a number of significant issues including the country's declining birthrate, its high tech economy, its AIDS epidemic, and the ability of its residents to receive free schooling in European Union countries. The issue of a declining birthrate in Estonia is one of tremendous importance. With a country of only 1.4 million people, the decline is being felt and the country is forced with the prospect of having to close some of its schools. To address this problem the Estonian government is seeking an aggressive strategy to reverse this decline. Specifically, the government is offering parents 15 months of paid maternity leave--a rate not to exceed three times the national average salary. Additionally, the employer is required to hold the mother's position open for up to three years. This aggressive strategy is expected to result in nearly 300 more births from last year's total. While in Estonia, I was fortunate to examine the country's rich cultural heritage. On December 25, 2005, I was provided a guided walking tour of Tallinn by a local guide, Stanislav Lomunov. This nearly 2-hour tour included a stop in the Alexander Nevsky Russian Orthodox Church. Following the tour, I met with Rabbi E. Shmuel Kot, the Chief Rabbi of Estonia, and participated in the Jewish communities lighting of the first Chanukah candle. This ceremony was followed by a tour of the local Jewish Community Center and site of a new temple already under construction. I later spent the evening with the Rabbi and his family, including four beautiful children, for a candle lighting ceremony at his home accompanied with potato latkes made by his wife. One of the most interesting aspects of Estonia is its economy. Mr. Goldstein explained to me that the economy is very focused on the high- tech sector and is one of the original producers of software allowing consumers to make phone calls over the internet, Kazza and internet gambling. The country has a tremendous tourism industry with nearly 3,000 hotel rooms to be built by 2007. Additionally, the country serves as an exit port for much of Russia's oil. What I found most interesting is the country's implementation of a 22 percent flat tax since 1996. I departed from Estonia for Jordan on December 26, 2005, arriving nearly 1 hour late due to snow in Estonia. I was met at the airport by U.S. Ambassador David Hale and immediately proceeded to a meeting with King Abdullah at his private residence. Ambassador Hale described Jordan's reaction to the recent bombings of hotels in the country, stating the Nation had never been more unified and that the terrorist attacks caused the country to review its security measures and civil liberties. The increased security was visible with armed guards and roadblocks at hotels throughout the city. During my meeting with King Abdullah, the focus of our discussions was on the future of Iraq and terrorism. The King expressed to me the need for the Iraqi government to be moderate and not extremist. He believes a moderate government will provide the Iraqi people something to build upon and help provide a stable country. Regarding Iran's progress towards acquiring nuclear capabilities, the King expressed the view that the international community as a whole needs develop a plan to address the issue. I brought up the recent Judiciary Hearing I held to examine Saudi Arabia's promotion of radical Islam. The King said that the difference comes down to ideology and the he is trying to stamp out fear. The Saudi government is not addressing the issue of ideology, and an interpretation of the Koran, that promotes the use violence. It was encouraging to learn, though, that the Saudi government is beginning to base its educational model on that of Jordan's. He stated another way to promote reform is to hold the Saudis to task and require transparency in their actions. Immediately following my meeting with the King, I proceeded to the office of Jordan's Prime Minister Maruf al-BAKHIT, who served in Jordanian Army for 35 years and is former Jordanian National Security Advisor. We began our discussion with the topic of Iraq. The Prime Minister believes that it would be disastrous for Iraq if the U.S. were to pull out. He is hopeful that soon the Iraqi forces will be able to defend themselves. The elections went well in his opinion and hopefully this is a positive sign that the process is moving forward. We discussed Jordan's judicial system. He explained to me that the country's judicial system has moved away from military courts to a civil court system with one mixed civil/military court. The system is not a jury system but a inquisitorial system where the judge may call any consultant he/she desires. Judges go through a 2-year training program before they are selected to preside over a court. Currently, the country is continuing a plan to upgrade the courts and expedite its cases. The Prime Minister believes that good progress has been made in the last 2-3 years of this plan which includes new technology. The following morning, Tuesday, December 27, I flew into Iraq. After a 2-hour flight on a C-130 and a 10 minute flight on a helicopter, including 35 pounds of body armor and a helmet, I arrived in Baghdad. I immediately proceeded to a meeting with MG Tim Donovan, chief of staff, Multinational Force-Iraq. General Donovan explained that U.S. forces in Iraq had significantly hindered al-Qaida and other insurgents ability to operate in Iraq. Additionally, he described the hope that in 2006 the United States will serve a more supporting role than it currently does. I asked him what the U.S.'s role will be as the Iraqi security force continues to increase. General Donovan explained to me that the U.S. should serve a reduced role as Iraqi security forces increase and that they are currently working on more U.S. reductions. The general assesses the future of Iraq's democracy as developing and expressed his view that Iraqis need to move beyond cultural divides. He emphasized that the country needs to develop a middle class to make democracy succeed. I inquired about the status of Iraq's oil industry. He explained that the industry is old and so is its infrastructure. Currently, they are able to export 3 million barrels a day. But in order for them to expand upon their capacity there will need to be an investment in technology and infrastructure. Following my meeting with General Donovan, I proceeded to have lunch with Brenda Zollinger, a Horsham, PA native. She described to me her work in the Army over the last 8 years. What I took away most from our conversation is her belief that the military is doing a good job taking care of our troops. After lunch I met with officials involved in the Department of Justice's Regime Crime Liaison's Office, RCLO; Mr. Kevin Dooley, CAPT Stephen Burris, USN, and Mr. Eric Blinderman. The RCLO was created by a National Security Presidential Directive in 2004, and serves to assist the Iraqi High Tribunal and to provide security and support for the Tribunal. In the briefing I learned that the judicial system is an inquisitorial system based on a five-judge panel which needs a simple majority to adjudicate. Additionally, the court has no burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I expressed the view that Saddam has committed so many atrocities that the trial should be very simple if the evidence was put forward in an organized and methodical way. This can not be done with Saddam controlling the microphone to make speeches. I think it is a shame that the trial could not have been held sooner. Mr. Dooley and Captain Burris accompanied me to the courthouse and provided me a tour of both Saddam's cell and the courtroom. I also viewed the security control room where all actions of the courthouse are monitored. Following the tour, I proceeded to meet with members of Saddam's trial including: the Presiding Judge Rizgar, the Chief Prosecutor Jafaar and the Chief Investigating Judge Ra-id. I asked Presiding Judge Rizgar how Saddam could be controlled. He gave me the answer that a doctor deals with the patient, not the individual illness. He elaborated by stating that it is the job of every judge to respect all parties in a case. Additionally, he voiced his opinion that Iraq is on the doorstep of a new life and a careful image of its judicial system must be projected. With respect, I stated my concern to the Presiding Judge that Saddam is a vicious, evil man and that is not coming out in the trial. The Judge explained that he is following Iraqi law and judicial procedures. He explained to me that the court would decide Saddam's fate and that more testimony needed to be heard. The chief prosecutor explained to me his work on the case, stating the prosecution of Saddam will be long and detailed. He believes that documents and evidence provided to the court and the judges should be given to the public for all to see. I proceeded from the courthouse back to the U.S. Headquarters for a meeting with LTG Martin Dempsey, Commander, Multinational Security Training Corps--Iraq. Much of what we discussed was of a classified matter, however I can share information about the goals of the Multinational Security Training Corps. First, they are working to build and sustain the Ministries of Interior and Defense's institutional capabilities. Additionally, they are working to generate capable forces and develop those forces in a professional manner. Finally, they are working on the transition and transformation of multinational units to Iraqi security forces. Lieutenant General Dempsey stressed to me the need for Iraqis to demonstrate strong leadership because it is that leadership that will be the key enabler to develop the security ministries. Currently, there are 223,000 Iraqis in their security services, 75,000 of which serve as police officers in Iraq. The U.S. is currently assisting Iraq in producing 3,500 qualified police officers a month. As of March 14, 2005, 3 out of the 45 Iraqi battalions were leading the efforts to secure their nation. Presently, there are 45 of the 100 Iraqi battalions leading the efforts to secure their nation. This is a tremendous increase in only a 9-month period. Lieutenant General Dempsey echoed the remarks of Major General Donovan in stating the Iraqis must achieve government unity by setting aside their cultural differences and uniting as a country. Before leaving Iraq, I met with the following U.S. Embassy Officials; David Litt, Major General Harris, James Yellin, RADMR Scott Van Buskirk, Tom Delare, John Smith, Michael Oreste, Don Allegro, Don Brady, Minnie Wright, Captain Stephen Burris, Kevin Dooley, Liz Colton and Eric Blinderman to discuss Iraq's future and how the Embassy was helping to create a more stable society. It was stated that the odds are good for achieving a collective party in the Iraq elections. I was informed that there are many criminal cases waiting for investigation and prosecution in the judicial system. However, the detention facilities are not adequate and the police do not have enough room for the criminals. On the economic front, the U.S. is working to set the stage for the International Monetary Fund agreement and is working to create a system which prevents corruption. The consensus view seems to be that success of an Iraqi nation depends on the strength of the Iraqis themselves. The flight out of Iraq was identical to the flight in with the significant exception that the C-130 taking me back to Amman was once stationed at Willow Grove Air Base and was named the Spirit of Philadelphia. I arrived in Tel Aviv, Israel on December 28, 2005. My first meeting was with Peter Vrollman, Gene Cretz, William Weinstein, Peter Hussee, Jim Beaver, and William Clark of the U.S. Embassy. The discussion began with an analysis of the state of play in Israeli politics. It is expected that Sharon, whose health does not seem to be a major concern, will win the March elections and work in some form of coalition government with the Labor party. With respect to Hamas, it is thought there is a possibility that it could win nearly 3 percent or even outright in the Palestinian elections creating complicated policy questions for Israel. Hamas is described as a sophisticated, strategic and organized while Fattah is in some disarray nor do they have the resources necessary to get votes on certain demographics. One of the reasons that Hamas is doing so well in these elections is their municipality leaders are well respected members of the community and have done good work for those communities. If Hamas does win and Israel is forced to deal with them there are actions that can hinder Hamas economically such as revenue collected by Israel at the customs boarder which is provided to the Palestinian Authority. It appears that the economy is improving in Israel and this may be a result of the decline in terrorist events. I met with Ehud Barak later that afternoon; I was honored to see a copy of my book, ``Passion for Truth'' on his bookshelf. Barak told me that Ariel Sharon has changed the political map of Israel in a positive way for Israelis and his decisions are slowly moving Israel in the right direction. Barak described the political landscape in Israel like musical chairs, you can defeat people but everyone is still around, they do not go away. Barak asked me about the situation in the United States, particularly about NSA's wiretapping. I explained to him that the Judiciary Committee plans to hold hearings on the issue. He also asked me about the visit to Iraq the day before and my outlook for the country. I explained to him that there are a number of highly qualified men and women working there and that I am hopeful 2006 will be a year the Iraqi's take on more responsibility . Continuing our discussion on Iraq, Barak conveyed to me his opinion that the United States should stay the course in Iraq, and not to would cause devastating consequences not only for Iraq, but also for the Middle East and the World. He did state the view that the President must continue to project a positive image because a compromised image can create problems itself. Additionally, the U.S. must focus on training Iraq security services and reducing the visibility of its own units. Immediately following my meeting with Barak I proceeded to meet with Shimon Peres. Accompanying Peres was his friend Rishon Lezion Mayor Meir Nitzan, who was there to describe the ever changing dynamic of Israeli politics. I asked Peres about the new party Kadima and he explained to me that the new party would be the largest party and would control the government. He went on to describe Israel's changing political dynamic by the demise of the right wing, an extremist wing. Additionally, he described the Labor party's belief that the economy is writing policy. But to him, a modern economy needs to be open to social change and not be driven by economic factors. We went on to discuss the Palestinian Authority and he said if Hamas were to win it would be a wasted victory because Hamas is a religious based group and therefore there is no room to compromise. Peres also believes President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was the right thing to do and that the President was the victim of an intelligence mistake. This marks the third leader to support President Bush's decision to seek a regime change in Iraq. He added that Saddam accepted the U.N. resolutions following the first Gulf War but chose to ignore them. Before the meeting ended I asked Peres if he was really smiling the in picture where he is shaking hands with Yasser Arafat. He recalled the moment and stated that without Arafat there would have been no agreement but with Arafat the agreement would never be fulfilled. After an overnight rest stop in Frankfurt, Germany, we returned to the United States.