Charitable Giving Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the CARE Act and my concerns regarding the implementation of President Bush's faith- based initiative.

Like many of my colleagues, I am a person of faith. I support the good work that religious organizations undertake every day. I agree with President Bush and the sponsors of this legislation that there is an important role for the Federal Government to play in encouraging religious organizations to do more for the good of society.

In fact, I support many of the provisions of the CARE Act before us today. For example, I have been an original cosponsor of the Charitable IRA Rollover Act and a cosponsor of the Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act in the last two Congresses. I also

support the increased funding for the Social Services block grant.

However, when I read the specific details of how the President is implementing his faith-based initiative, I am concerned that the good intentions behind this proposal may be lead to troubling, unintended consequences.

It appears that what the President wants to achieve with this initiative is to fundamentally change the historic balance in the relationship between government and religion that our founding fathers struck over 200 years ago.

I believe and many of my colleagues agree: this Senate debate is historic. With our deliberations, we will test Constitutional principles regarding the place of religion in America in a way they have never been tested.

That is why many Senators joined me in insisting that the Senate take all deliberate time and attention to carefully review this bill and to add language to clarify and improve the bill.

Since the Senator from Pennsylvania has agreed not to add language that would raise concerns with respect to church and state, I have joined with Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island in agreeing not to offer our amendments at this time. However, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns regarding the President's implementation of his faith-based initiative which, if offered at a later time, I hope will be subject to a vigorous, important, and historic debate in the Senate.

We should begin this debate at the beginning. The opening words of our Bill of Rights state that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

For over two centuries, those 16 words have served us well and have protected religious freedom in America.

We must continue to respect the diversity of belief in America and remember that freedom from government interference was one of the few principles that early Americans, with a variety of religious backgrounds, could agree on.

In fact, many of the settlers who colonized America fled from religious persecution by government officials in their native countries and they still do.

James Madison recognized that this history of religious persecution was based upon Government involvement in establishing official churches. He believed that Government support of certain religions could threaten the liberty of every citizen to hold his or her own religious convictions.

Madison suggested that the Government support of religion differs only in a matter of degree, and he vehemently opposed the payment of taxes in support of any religion.

Before the American Revolution, the State of Virginia rescinded a tax in support of the Anglican Church, which was their so-called established church, and instead granted its citizens religious liberty. However, in 1784, Patrick Henry became concerned with the moral decline of Virginians and he proposed a bill to restore the tax to support ``teachers of the Christian religion.''

Madison responded to this proposal with his ``Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.'' This document--written 16 years before the Bill of Rights was adopted--reveals the earliest origins of the concepts behind the first amendment: Madison expressed his opposition to Government involvement in religion because he believed such involvement would interfere with citizens' right of free exercise. Madison also believed that the right of religious freedom was as important as freedom of the press, trial by jury, and the right to vote.

According to Madison, his Memorial was so widely accepted that Henry's proposal failed and Virginia instead enacted Thomas Jefferson's ``Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia.''

In this bill, Jefferson expressed his belief that religious liberty is necessary to ensure that individuals are not forced to support religious opinions with which they disagree, to practice faiths they find abhorrent, or to voice allegiance to one faith over another, and:

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the

propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is

sinful.

During their Presidencies, Jefferson and Madison had the opportunity to illustrate their understanding of the first amendment to the Constitution.

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to President Jefferson because it feared that the State of Connecticut would establish the Congregationalist Church as the official religion.

Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptist Association with a letter on January 1, 1802, in which he reaffirmed his belief that each individual has the right to hold whatever opinion he or she may choose and that the Government should not interfere in religion. This reply contained his now-famous view that the purpose of the first amendment was to build a--in Jefferson's words--``wall of separation between church and state.''

President Madison, in his 8 years in office, vetoed only seven bills--two of which he believed violated the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.

In 1811, Congress passed a bill entitled ``An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia.'' This bill would have enacted the rules of the church as a matter of law, thereby giving legal force to the provisions of the church's constitution.

Madison believed that even supporting churches in their charitable functions would give religious organizations too much power in public and civic affairs. He wrote that the bill would be ``precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civic duty.'' Think of those words in the context of the proposal before us.

Madison also vetoed a bill ``An act for the relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory.'' This bill would have given a Baptist Church specific Federal Government property for the church's use.

Madison believed that:

reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for

the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and

precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States

for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to

the article of the Constitution which declares that

``Congress shall make no law respecting a religious

establishment.''

Thanks to Jefferson and Madison, first amendment protections have made America the most tolerant society in the world--a tolerance many of our critics around the world neither understand nor accept. They live in nations where government and religious belief are so closely entwined that diversity of creed is officially discouraged, if not prohibited.

Each of us, when we return home, can drive through our cities and see a Protestant church down the street from a Catholic church, next to a Jewish synagogue which is not too far from a Muslim mosque, and perhaps across the street from a Sikh Gur-dwala. Some churches even share their facilities with congregations from other religious and ethnic groups. To me, this is proof positive that the wisdom of the first amendment is alive and well in America today.

Although some may argue that the faith-based initiative does not ``establish a religion,'' the Supreme Court has ``long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.''

Indeed, the Supreme Court has examined the history of the first amendment and has come to the same conclusion that I have reached:

For the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First

Amendment the `establishment' of a religion connoted

sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the

sovereign in religious activity.

That comes from the case of Walz v. Tax Commission in 1970.

This is one principle that President Bush seems to be willing to accept. I am heartened that the White House publication Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government is clear that faith-based organizations cannot use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. Such activities must be separate in time or location.

The President also agrees that faith-based organizations cannot discriminate against beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of a social service on the basis of religion.

However, one area where we clearly diverge is the issue of employment discrimination on the basis of religion.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits most public and private employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating in their employment practices on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.

However, religious employers have an exemption with respect to religious discrimination, which was expanded in 1972.

I will read the current exemption:

This subchapter shall not apply . . . to a religious

corporation, association, educational institution, or society

with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular

religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by

such corporation, association, educational institution, or

society of its activities.

In 1987, the Supreme Court upheld this title VII religious exemption in the case of Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos.

I support this right of religious organizations to use religious criteria in hiring people to carry out their religious work. I have no quarrel with the title VII religious exemption. It makes sense for people of common faith to work together to further their religion's mission.

At the same time, I recognize that discrimination ``on the basis of religion'' can often include discrimination based on other factors that are prohibited by civil rights laws, such as race, ethnicity, and sex.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., observed that the hour of worship is one of the most segregated hours in American society. Sadly this is still true today, but many people of similar racial or ethnic backgrounds do prefer to worship together, and there are churches throughout this Nation that target only certain races or ethnic groups.

So, unfortunately, allowing religious organizations to hire only members of their own religion, in many cases, can also mean hiring only members of a certain race or ethnic background.

For example, if employment is limited to the co-religionists of the recipients, how many African Americans will be hired by Orthodox Jewish groups? How many white people will the Nation of Islam employ as security guards in public housing? And what of the many Protestant groups that are overwhelmingly White or overwhelmingly Black or overwhelmingly Hispanic?

The courts also have read the title VII exemption very broadly to allow discrimination on the basis of religion to include the religion's ``tenets and teachings.'' This broad reading has resulted in situations where people of faith who do not necessarily follow the accepted lifestyle or private behavior of that religion have lost their jobs.

Here are some examples of how this law discriminates against people's everyday behavior in addition to their religious beliefs:

In the case of EEOC v. Presbyterian Ministries, Inc., a Christian retirement home fired a Muslim receptionist after she insisted on wearing a head covering as required by her faith.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints fired several employees because they failed to qualify for a ``temple recommend,'' that is, a certificate that they were Mormons who abided by the church's standards in such matters as regular church attendance, tithing, and abstinence from coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco.

This exemption, unfortunately, has had a particularly harsh impact on women and people of different sexual orientation. Here are some examples of how courts have interpreted this exemption to allow employment discrimination against women and gays under the current title VII exemption:

Numerous Christian schools fired female teachers for having extramarital sex or committing adultery; upheld by the court. A Catholic school fired a teacher who remarried without seeking an annulment of her first marriage in accord with Catholic doctrine; upheld by the court. A Catholic school fired a teacher for marrying a divorced man; upheld by the court. A Catholic university refused to hire a female professor because her views on abortion were not in accord with Catholic teaching; upheld by the court. A Baptist nursing home fired a student services specialist after she was ordained a minister in a gay and lesbian church that advocated views on homosexuality ``which were inconsistent with the [school's] perception of its purpose and mission''; upheld by the court. A church terminated the employment of an organist on the grounds that his homosexuality conflicted with the church's belief; upheld by the court.

I regret that these may be unintended discriminatory consequences today under the title VII exemption where religious organizations hire people using money raised by the church from its own congregation. But what of the case we are discussing? We are not talking about a situation where churches are spending their own money for their own religious purposes and following their own employment codes and practices under the title VII exemption. We are talking about opening up a new world where tax dollars are taken from the treasury and given to these same churches. What if the money is not raised by the congregation or coreligionists, but the money is being raised from the taxpaying public? What standard should we use?

Most scholars agree it is an open legal question as to whether a religious organization can take taxpayer money and use it to discriminate in hiring employees on the basis of religion. It would seem to me that the obvious answer to this question is no. Any other response would result in taxpayer-funded discrimination. I will return to this question and the reasons for my answer after examining asking how this issue fits into the broader picture of the President's faith- based initiative.

The faith-based initiative has been marketed as a proposal to ``level the playing field'' for religious organizations that seek government funds to pay for social service programs. However, it appears that the supporters of the initiative do not want to level the playing field; they want to create a special set of rules for religious organizations which would result in special treatment that other nongovernmental organizations do not currently enjoy.

President Bush has demonstrated, through his Executive orders and agency regulations, that his faith-based initiative goes far beyond religious icons, religious names, religious language in chartering documents or religious criteria for membership on governing boards. I do not object to any of those stated goals which I have heard from the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Connecticut as well as the President. I have seen the enforcement of rules and standards which I think have gone way too far.

I can think of my own hometown of Springfield where there is a long- simmering controversy still brought up regularly about whether a teacher could come in and teach a driver training course at the Catholic high school if that teacher were paid for out of public school funds and that Catholic high school and its classroom had a crucifix on the wall. It rubbed a lot of people of my Catholic religion the wrong way, that people would argue that the mere presence of that crucifix was somehow offensive or violated the law. That argument goes to the extreme. I do not hold those views. I support the position stated time and again by the Senators from Pennsylvania and Connecticut that we ought to draw a more reasonable line. The House of Representatives, with mottos on the walls ``In God We Trust,'' with our currency reflecting that, with chaplains in the House and Senate, we can state a reasonable standard that does not violate the basic freedom of religion or establishment clause of our Constitution. But I do object to the administration bypassing Congress to write one set of rules for secular organizations and another for religious organizations.

For example, all recipients of government grants currently are required to abide by a host of regulatory requirements, including filing IRS documentation and complying with all State and local laws. Supporters of the faith-based initiative would like to exempt religious organizations from complying with these important regulations, such as those dealing with health and safety. Explain that for a moment.

If in the State of Illinois or my city of Springfield someone wants to run a daycare center and we have decided, for the safety of the children in the

daycare center, there should be perhaps a sprinkler system, a fire alarm, or a fire escape, certain doors so that kids can get out in case of emergency, why, if this becomes a faith-based childcare center, should we reduce or limit that same application of health and safety standards? It doesn't make sense. One of the amendments which needs to be offered as part of this conversation on faith-based initiatives will address that.

Take a look at the Teen Challenge substance abuse program which President Bush has mentioned many times. In 1995, the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse threatened to close Teen Challenge after issuing a 49-page list of violations of State health and safety codes. The list included unlicensed counselors, food preparation that created a health hazard, a broken smoke detector system, and exposed wires and electrical outlets. Then-Governor Bush responded by exempting faith- based drug treatment programs from all of the State health and safety regulations that were followed by their secular counterparts.

I don't know how you could reach that conclusion. It is one thing to be imbued with a religion; it is another thing to ignore the obvious. If there is a terrible accident or fire or some disaster, children in faith-based institutions deserve the same level of legal protection as those in institutions run as businesses.

This special treatment was not limited to drug treatment programs. Faith-based childcare centers and residential children's homes could use an alternative accreditation program that would exempt them from State licensing. The special treatment for these alternatively accredited facilities was that there were no unannounced inspections of the facilities as required by State law. As a result, the rate of confirmed abuse and neglect at alternatively accredited facilities was 25 times higher than that of State-licensed facilities. Whom are we doing a favor for by exempting the faith-based charity from standards of unannounced inspections to make certain that they are living up to the letter of the law?

The complaint rate at alternatively accredited facilities was 75 percent compared to 5.4 percent at State-licensed facilities. Due to these staggering outcomes, this accreditation program sunset in 2001 and has never been renewed.

The White House has also given indications it may provide special treatment to religious organizations by exempting them from State and local laws addressing employment discrimination. I have a great deal of respect for the Salvation Army. They do wonderful work, not only in the United States but around the world. But they had a rather embarrassing incident in July of 2001 when an internal report was discovered that stated their group had received a ``firm commitment'' from the Bush White House to protect religious charities from State and local laws regarding sexual orientation discrimination and domestic partner benefits. I hope that is not the goal of the Bush White House in pushing this faith-based initiative.

Over the past 2 years, President Bush and his faith-based initiative have repeatedly eroded 200 years of carefully protected separation between church and state. In what the Washington Post called ``faith- based by fiat,'' President Bush signed Executive Order 13279, in December of 2002, to overturn principles of nondiscrimination in Federal contracts that have stood for over 60 years.

The House of Representatives is currently considering the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The legislation has been marked up in the House, and it would repeal 20 years of civil rights protections against religious discrimination. The House also has held hearings regarding the reauthorization of the Corporation for National and Community Service, known as AmeriCorps. In its proposed legislation, the House would repeal a decade of civil rights protections against religious discrimination in employment that were signed into law by President Bush's father.

Finally, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has proposed rules to allow religious organizations to use Federal funds to build centers where religious worship is held as long as parts of the building are also used for social services.

Supporters of the faith-based initiative want to know why we are raising these issues now, when Congress included charitable choice provisions in legislation we passed as far back as 1996. The difference is this: Then-President Clinton made it clear, as part of the technical corrections package to the welfare reform bill, that nothing included therein would change the fundamental protections against religious discrimination which were currently in the law. President Clinton did that as well in the reauthorization of Community Services Block Grant Programs in 1998 and the reauthorization of the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Act in 2000. Unfortunately, in this debate, that same assurance has not been given.

I want to go to a point which really gets to the heart of the issue. It is a difficult one. It is one for which I don't have an answer. When you talk about faith-based initiatives, you are talking about religion in America. The obvious and important question is: What is a religion? There are many that we readily will recognize as being established religions of all different denominations. But when it comes to the definition of religion, many people self-define their beliefs and activities as religion.

Jim Jones led people to a mass suicide in Guyana, and David Koresh and his Branch Davidians in Waco, TX, have become scarred in the American memory as tragic reminders of what happens when people are blindly led by fanatics who use the guise of religion for their own personal, violent agenda. I represent a State which is the home of the so-called World Church of the Creator, which has to be one of the most perverted extremist groups in America that I know of, which claims itself to be a religion. On its Web site, the so-called ``Reverend'' Matt Hale--who graduated from law school but was not allowed to be licensed under the rules and practices of the bar in Illinois--proudly welcomes visitors, saying:

We are a religious, nonprofit organization, with our world

headquarters in the State of Illinois. At the time of this

writing, we have 24 regional and local branches of the church

and members all over the world.

What are the tenets of his church and religion, of this World Church of the Creator? Here is what he says in his own words:

After 6,000 years of recorded history, our people finally

have a religion of, for, and by them. Creativity is that

religion. It is established for the survival, expansion, and

advancement of our white race exclusively. Indeed, we believe

that what is good for the white race is the highest virtue,

and what is bad for the white race is the ultimate sin.

I cannot think of any more hateful rhetoric spewed in the name of religion. That is exactly what is happening today. Recently someone challenged their dismissal of employment because they were members of this church. The court came back and said it is a religion and has to be treated as such for the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So here we come to a point where we are talking about giving Federal dollars to those who call themselves religions for the purpose of performing social services. What is the threshold question we should ask? Is this truly a religion or is this something else in the guise of a religion? What are we doing with taxpayer dollars? Would we want to spend $1 supporting the racist views of the World Church of the Creator because they tell the Federal Government they have a program to deal with drug abuse or to provide childcare services in central Illinois? I hope not. But once you have opened this door and start talking about Federal dollars given to religion for social services, you open up a can of worms, a set of questions and great challenges that we have not faced for many years, if ever.

I am worried as I look across the various religions of the world, not just those purporting to be Christian but some who are members of different religions that have taken what in fact are extreme views.

It was only a little more that a year ago that the people of Afghanistan were still suffering under the violent and oppressive regime of the Taliban, which suppressed and punished its people in the name of Islamic fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Thanks to the leadership of the United States and our military, we

have now liberated the Afghan people from the Taliban, which, like Al Qaeda, had distorted the peaceful religion of Islam for their own destructive purposes.

The leaders of the Taliban were trained in ``madrassas,'' which are characterized as religious schools. But those familiar with these institutions often call many of them ``jihad factories'' because of the extreme nature of their ``religious'' indoctrination and the militancy they train.

At madrassas, the Taliban preached that freedom afforded to women is the main reason for social degradation, and that the best place for women was inside the four walls of their homes--cut off from education and cut off from opportunity.

They also preached that television is the ``spark of hell'' responsible for moral degradation, and watching it or listening to music was un-Islamic and sinful. And when they came to power, the Taliban put all of these distorted lessons to practice against their own people.

The Taliban is perhaps the most recent example of extremism in the name of religion that we have witnessed.

But since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, we have seen numerous radical Islamic fundamentalists utilize their religious ideology as the driving force behind the most active Middle Eastern terrorist groups and state sponsors.

For example, Hizballah of Lebanon calls itself the ``Party of God'' although there is nothing godly about its terrorist activities.

Hizballah was founded in 1982 as a faith-based organization by Lebanese Shiite clerics who were inspired by the Islamic ideology of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. Its original goal was to establish an Islamic republic in Lebanon. But many of the Shiite Muslims who rule Hizballah studied in Iran's theological seminaries while receiving terrorist training there as well.

The trainings paid off as this terrorist group became responsible for the detention of most, if not all, American and other Western hostages held in Lebanon during the 1980s and early 1990s. Eighteen Americans were held hostage during that period, three of whom were killed.

Hizballah is also suspected in the April 1983 suicide truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the U.S. Marine barracks in October 1983 that killed 220 Marine, 18 Navy and 3 Army personnel.

And Hizballah is also suspected to have been behind the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985, and the killing of a Navy diver, Robert Stethem, who was on board.

Hamas, Al-Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, and Islamic Movement are some of the other better-known extremists that argue their organizations are based on Islamic religious beliefs.

There are radical Jewish groups as well, such as Kach and Kahane Chai. These two Jewish movements seek to expel all Arabs from Israel and expand Israel's boundaries to include the occupied territories and parts of Jordan. Founded by extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane, these groups also argue for strict implementation of Jewish law in Israel.

I do not mean to suggest here that the President's faith-based initiative will necessarily lead to such religious extremism.

At the same time, I want to make it clear that this is not an easy question. To dismiss it simply as a question about whether or not we are tolerant of religion is one thing, but the question of whether we are going to subsidize religious belief that reaches the extreme is really something else.

The important message we must send is that religious organizations that take taxpayers' money should not be able to use those funds to discriminate in hiring employees on the basis of religion. The American people have been asked their opinion on this issue. The response is interesting.

According to the Washington Post, in a 2001 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center:

When people were asked whether ``religious groups that use

Government funds [should] be allowed to hire only those who

share their religious beliefs,'' 78 percent said ``no'' and

18 percent said ``yes''--a degree of objection that so

surprised researchers that they repeated the question three

different ways. . . .

They received the same answer time and time again. On the other hand, the Bush administration believes that Government-funded discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion is acceptable.

According to a U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memorandum on June 25, 2001:

We conclude, for the reasons set forth more fully below,

that a faith-based organization receiving direct Federal aid

may make employment decisions on the basis of religion

without running afoul of the Establishment Clause.

In the only case that directly addressed whether the Title VII exemption applies to a position funded by government funds, the Southern District Court of Mississippi ruled that it did not.

In the 1989 case Dodge v. Salvation Army, Jamie Dodge was employed by the Salvation Army in its Domestic Violence Shelter as the Victims Assistance Coordinator.

After the Director of the shelter saw Ms. Dodge using the Salvation Army's copy machine, Ms. Dodge admitted that she had made copies of manuals and information on Wiccan rituals.

Soon after making these admissions, Ms. Dodge was terminated.

She filed a complaint that because the shelter where she worked received substantial federal and state funds, the Title VII exemption could not be applied to her.

The District Court ruled that ``even though the religious exemption does permit the Salvation Army to terminate an employee based on religious grounds, the fact that the plaintiff's position as Victims' Assistance Coordinator was funded substantially, if not entirely, by federal, state, and local government, gives rise to constitutional considerations which effectively prohibit the application of the exemption to the facts in this case.''

Furthermore, the Court held that ``Based on the facts in the present case, the effect of the government substantially, if not exclusively, funding a position such as the Victims' Assistance Coordinator and then allowing the Salvation Army to choose the person to fill or maintain the position based on religious preference clearly has the effect of advancing religion and is unconstitutional.

Despite this ruling, the issue is considered an open legal question because the case was not considered beyond the District Court and there are several other cases which at least partially address this question.

However, this is not just a legal question or a hypothetical line we are drawing in the sand.

One of the cases I would like to point out is a case that really talks about discrimination firsthand. It is the case of Alan Yorker and his experience with United Methodist Children's Home in Decatur, GA. The children's home, which receives almost half of its money from Government sources, provides residential group foster care for 70 young people, many of whom are in State custody.

Mr. Yorker responded to an advertisement in the Atlanta Journal- Constitution for a position at the home. As a psychotherapist with over 20 years experience counseling young people and their families and over a decade of experience teaching in Emory University professional schools, the home determined that his credentials placed him among the top candidates for the position. He was rushed in for an interview, where he was required to disclose in an application form his religious affiliation, his church and minister. Mr. Yorker, a Jew, supplied the names of his synagogue and rabbi. During the interview, an administrator noted that Mr. Yorker was Jewish and told him that this children's home doesn't hire people who are Jewish. He was shown the door.

Let me tell you that this didn't happen decades ago; this is of recent vintage. The same administrator told another employee that it is the home's practice to throw the resumes of applicants with Jewish- sounding names in the trash. The Yorker name got past her.

Ironically, Yorker has not always been the family name. Alan Yorker's Jewish paternal grandfather, Harry Monjesky, spent many years as a conductor on the New York Central Railroad. When the railroad began to face tough times, Jewish and African-American workers were singled out for layoffs first, regardless of their seniority.

Mr. Monjesky was fired and left without a livelihood. Several years later, when Alan's father reached adulthood, he changed his name to Yorker. He wanted to make sure that his children would be judged by their merit and not by their surname or private religious beliefs.

That is how Alan Yorker's resume landed at the top of the pile instead of the home's trash bin. And nearly a century after his grandfather was turned away by the Railroad because of his religion, Alan Yorker faced the same discrimination when applying for a government-funded position.

I will conclude by saying that these are examples of what is being done in the name of religion. For it to be done by a religious organization to achieve a religious goal, with funds raised by co- religionists, is certainly allowed in title VII of the Civil Rights Act. To say, however, that we are going to open the Federal Treasury and provide millions of dollars to religions for social services, and then approve of their discriminatory activity in the name of religion, is branching out in a direction that our Founding Fathers could never have considered, let alone condoned.

In light of this complex constitutional issue, I think it is fair to ask why we even need a faith-based initiative. President Bush believes it is necessary because ``people should be allowed to access money without having to lose their mission or change their mission.'' However, current law already permits groups that are affiliated with religious entities to provide social services with Government funding.

Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Jewish Federations, and many other religious organizations have received--and continue to receive--taxpayer funds from the Government to provide much-needed services that our Government is often unable and unavailable to provide.

These organizations access Federal funds without changing their missions. For example, Catholic Charities has a publication entitled ``10 Ways Catholic Charities are Catholic.'' At the same time, Catholic Charities in Chicago, which I am proud to represent, also issues the following statement on its Web site:

Catholic Charities employs more than 3,000 dedicated,

compassionate and professional men and women, regardless of

race, religion, or ethnic background.

Many Catholic Charities across the Nation have similar equal opportunity statements.

As thousands of Americans visit our Nation's Capital, many will stop at the Jefferson Memorial and read the following inscription, in the words of Thomas Jefferson:

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any

religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on

account of his opinions in matters of religion.

These words, from Jefferson's ``Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia,'' are as relevant now as they were in 1785. Although we don't debate the faith-based initiative proposal in its entirety today, I look forward to the opportunity to continue to protect our historic balance in the relationship between church and state.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help bring about a more reliable system of medical justice for all Americans.

Earlier this month, we had a robust debate on a critical issue-- medical liability reform. Though a majority of the Members of this body wanted to begin working to pass the bill, we didn't have the 60 Senators necessary to begin the real work on the legislation.

I co-sponsored that bill, the Patients First Act, and I still support it. Passing the Patients First Act would be an important short-term step to controlling the excesses in our legal system that have sent medical liability insurance premiums through the roof. Skyrocketing premiums are forcing doctors to move their practices to States with better legal environments and lower insurance premiums. This is endangering the availability of critical healthcare services in many areas of Wyoming and other states.

Throughout our debate, I heard many of my colleagues say that they wanted to work on this issue, but that they simply could not support the bill as it stood. We heard that the bill approaches the issue from too narrow of a perspective. We heard that the bill's caps on non- economic damages are unfair to patients, despite the fact that the bill places no limits whatsoever on a patient's right to recover all quantifiable economic damages.

While I disagree with my colleagues who oppose the Patients First Act, I

respect their opposition. I also trust that they sincerely want to help solve our Nation's medical liability and litigation crisis.

During the debate this month, I noticed something interesting. While we argued the ``pros and cons'' of the bill, no one stood up to defend our current system of medical litigation. Now, we heard a lot about the caps, and the insurance industry, and we heard Senators say that ``Yes, there is a problem, but the bill before us won't solve it.''

One thing we didn't hear was a rousing defense of our medical litigation system. Even some of the lawyers in this body agreed that frivolous lawsuits are a problem and that our medical litigation system needs reform.

Why didn't we hear anyone defend the merits of our current medical litigation system? It's because our system doesn't work. It simply doesn't work for patients or for healthcare providers.

Compensation to patients injured by healthcare errors is neither prompt nor fair. The randomness and delay associated with medical litigation does not contribute to timely, reasonable compensation for most injured patients. Some injured patients get huge jury awards, while many others get nothing at all.

Let's look at the facts. In 1991, a group of researchers published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study, known as the Harvard Medical Practice Study, was the basis for the Institute of Medicine's estimate that nearly 100,000 people die every year from healthcare errors.

As part of their study, the researchers reviewed the medical records of a random sample of more than 31,000 patients in New York State. They matched those records with statewide data on medical malpractice claims. The researchers found that nearly 30 percent of injuries caused by medical negligence resulted in temporary disability, permanent disability or death. However, less than 2 percent of those who were injured by medical negligence filed a claim. These figures suggest that most people who suffer negligent injuries don't receive any compensation.

When a patient does decide to litigate, only a few recover anything. Only one of every ten medical malpractice cases actually goes to trial, and of those cases, plaintiffs win less than one of every five. In addition, patients who file suit and are ultimately successful must wait a long time for their compensation--the average length of a medical malpractice action filed in state court is about 30 months.

While the vast majority of malpractice cases that go to trial are settled before the court hands down a verdict, the settlements even then don't guarantee that patients are compensated fairly, particularly after legal fees are subtracted. Research shows that for every dollar paid in malpractice insurance premiums, about 40 cents in compensation is actually paid to the plaintiff--the rest goes for legal fees, court costs, and other administrative expenditures.

To sum up: most patients injured by negligence don't file claims or receive compensation. Few of those that do file claims and go to court recover anything, and those who are successful wait a long time for their compensation. And those who settle out of court end up receiving only 40 cents for every dollar that healthcare providers pay in liability insurance premiums.

It's hard to say that our medical litigation system does right by patients in light of those facts. Unfortunately, our system doesn't work for healthcare providers either.

Earlier, I spoke about those Harvard researchers who found that fewer than 2 percent of those who were injured by medical negligence even filed a claim. As they reviewed the medical records for their study, the researchers also found another interesting fact--most of the providers against whom claims were eventually filed were not negligent at all.

That's right--most providers who were sued had not committed a negligent act.

In matching the records they reviewed to data on malpractice claims, the Harvard researchers found 47 actual malpractice claims. In only 8 of the 47 claims did they find evidence that medical malpractice had caused an injury. Even more amazingly, the physician reviewers found no evidence of any medical injury, negligent or not, in 26 of the 47 claims. However, 40 percent of these cases where they found no evidence of negligence nonetheless resulted in a payment by the provider. Basically, the researchers found no positive relationship between medical negligence and compensation.

That study was based on 1984 data. The same group of researchers conducted another study in Colorado and Utah in 1992, and they found the same thing. As in the 1984 study, they found that only 3 percent of patients who suffered an injury as a result of negligence actually sued. And again, physician reviewers could not find negligence in most of the cases in which lawsuits were filed.

Now, I assume that the patients who sued had either an adverse medical outcome, or at least an outcome that was less satisfactory than the patient expected. But our medical litigation system is not supposed to compensate patients for adverse outcomes or dissatisfaction--it's supposed to compensate patients who are victims of negligent behavior. It's supposed to be a deterrent to substandard medical care.

It's not fair to doctors and hospitals that they must pay to defend against meritless lawsuits. Nor is it fair that they must face a choice between settling for a small sum, even if they aren't at fault, so that they avoid getting sucked into a whirlpool of our medical litigation system.

It's not hard to understand why physicians and hospitals and their insurers want to stay out of court. When they lose, the decisions are increasingly resulting in mega-awards based on subjective ``non- economic'' damages. The number of awards exceeding $1 million grew by 50 percent between the periods of 1994-1996 and 1999-2000. Today, more than half of all jury awards exceed $1 million.

As a result, when a patient suffers a bad outcome and sues, providers have an incentive to settle the case out of court, even if the provider isn't at fault. But is this how our medical litigation system is supposed to work--as a tool for shaking down our healthcare providers?

Let's face it--our medical litigation system is broken. It doesn't work for patients or providers. Even worse, it replaces the trust in the provider-patient relationship with distrust.

Then, when courts and juries render verdicts with huge awards that bear no relation to the conduct of the defendants, this destabilizes the insurance markets and sends premiums skyrocketing. This forces many physicians to curtail, move or drop their practices, leaving patients without access to necessary medical care. This is a particular problem in states like Wyoming, where we traditionally struggle with recruiting doctors and other healthcare providers.

Perhaps we could live with this flawed system if litigation served to improve quality or safety, but it doesn't. Litigation discourages the exchange of critical information that could be used to improve the quality and safety of patient care. The constant threat of litigation also drives the inefficient, costly and even dangerous practice of ``defensive medicine.''

Yes, indeed, defensive medicine is dangerous. A recent study found that one of every 1200 children who receive a CAT scan may die later in life from radiation-induced cancer. Knowing this puts a physician faced with anxious parents in a difficult situation. Does the doctor use his or her professional judgment and tell the parents of a sick child not to worry, or does the doctor order the CAT scan and subject the child to radiation that is probably unnecessary, just to provide some protection against a possible lawsuit?

We have a medical litigation system in which many patients who are hurt by negligent actions receive no compensation for their loss. Those who do receive compensation end up with about 40 cents of every premium dollar after legal fees and other costs are subtracted. And the likelihood and the outcomes of lawsuits and settlements bear little relation to whether or not a healthcare provider was at fault.

We like to say that justice is blind. With respect to our medical litigation system, I would say that justice is absent and nowhere to be found.

During our debate on the Patients First Act, I said that the current medical liability crisis and the shortcomings of our medical litigation system make it clear that it is time for a major change. I also said that regardless of how we voted, we all should work toward replacing the current medical tort liability scheme with a more reliable and predictable system of medical justice.

Today, I am introducing a bill that would help achieve that goal.

Most of us are familiar with the report on medical errors from the Institute of Medicine, also known as the IOM. Many of us may be less familiar with another report that the IOM published earlier this year. That report is called ``Fostering Rapid Advances in Healthcare: Learning from System Demonstrations.''

Our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, challenged the IOM to identify bold ideas that would challenge conventional thinking about some of the most vexing problems facing our healthcare system. In response, an IOM committee developed this report, which identified a set of demonstration projects that committee members felt would break new ground and yield a very high return-on-investment in terms of dollars and health.

Medical liability was one of the areas upon which the IOM committee focused. The IOM suggested that the federal government should support demonstration projects in the states. These demonstrations should be based on ``replacing tort liability with a system of patient-centered and safety-focused non-judicial compensation.''

The bill I am introducing today is in the spirit of this IOM report. This bill, the Reliable Medical Justice Act, would authorize funding for States to create demonstration programs to test alternatives to current medical tort litigation.

The funding to States under this bill would cover planning grants for developing proposals based on the models or other innovative ideas. Funding to States would also include the initial costs of getting the alternatives up and running.

The Reliable Medical Justice Act would require participating states and the Federal Government to collaborate in continuous evaluations of the results of the alternatives as compared to traditional tort litigation. This way, all States and the federal government can learn from new approaches.

By funding demonstration projects, I believe Congress could enable States to experiment with and learn from ideas that could provide long- term solutions to the current medical liability and litigation crisis.

In introducing this bill, I wanted to provide some alternative ideas that would contribute to the debate. As a result, the bill describes three models to which states could look in designing their alternatives.

For instance, a State could provide healthcare providers and organizations with immunity from lawsuits if they make a timely offer to compensate an injured patient for his or her actual net economic loss, plus a payment for pain and suffering if experts deem such a payment to be appropriate. This could give a healthcare provider who makes an honest mistake the chance to make amends financially with a patient, without the provider fearing that their honesty would land them in a lawsuit.

Another idea would be for a state to set up classes of avoidable injuries and a schedule of compensation for them, and then establish an administrative board to resolve claims related to those injuries. A scientifically rigorous process of identifying preventable injuries and setting appropriate compensation would be preferable to the randomness of the current system.

Still another option would be for a state to establish a special healthcare court for adjudicating medical malpractice cases. For this idea to work, the State would need to ensure that the presiding judges have expertise in and an understanding of healthcare, and allow them to make binding rulings on issues like causation compensation, and standards of care.

We already have specialized courts for complicated issues like taxes and highly charged issues like substance abuse and domestic violence. With all the flaws in our current medical litigation system, perhaps we should consider special courts for the complex and emotional issue of medical malpractice.

I believe one thing in our medical liability debate is absolutely clear--people are demanding change. Ten States have passed some liability reform in the past year, and another 17 have debated it. States are heeding this call for change, and Congress should support those efforts.

My own State, Wyoming, had a lively legislative debate on medical liability reform this year, but we have a constitutional amendment that prohibits limits on the amounts that can be recovered through lawsuits. The Wyoming Senate considered a bill to amend our State's constitution to create a commission on healthcare errors. That commission would have had the power to review claims, decide if healthcare negligence had occurred, and determine the compensation for the death or injury according to a schedule or formula provided by law. However, the bill died in a tie vote on the Wyoming Senate floor.

According to one of the sponsors of the bill, Senator Charlie Scott, one of the biggest obstacles to passage was the uncertainty surrounding this new idea. No one had any basis for knowing what a proper schedule or formula for compensation would be. No one knew how much the system might cost, or how much injured patients would recover compared to what they recover now.

Senator Scott wrote me to say that federal support for finding answers to these questions might help the bill's sponsors sufficiently respond to the legitimate concerns of their fellow Wyoming legislators. We should be helping state legislators like Senator Scott develop thoughtful and innovative ideas such as the one he has proposed. That's one of the reasons I am offering this bill.

Clearly, the American people and their elected representatives have identified the need to reform our current medical litigation system. The United States Senate did not vote to proceed to the Patients First Act this month, but no member of this body denied that there is a medical liability crisis, or that Congress needs to act sooner rather than later.

While we continue that debate, we ought to lend a hand to States that are working to change their current medical litigation systems and to develop creative alternatives that could work much better for patients and providers. The States have been policy pioneers in many areas-- workers' compensation, welfare reform, and electricity de-regulation, to name three. Medical litigation should be the next item on the agenda of the laboratories of democracy that are our 50 States.

No one questions the need to restore reliability to our medical justice system. But how do we begin the process? One way is to foster innovation by encouraging States to develop more rational and predictable methods for resolving healthcare injury claims. And that is what the Reliable Medical Justice Act aims to do.

In the long run, we would all be better off with a more reliable system of medical justice than we have today. I know that my fellow Senators recognize this, so I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with me on this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the U.S. economy is still the greatest economy in the world and our credit markets have helped to make that happen. During the past decade, our credit markets have taken advantage of technology and innovation in order to provide more consumers with more timely credit approvals and with more financing options. Nowhere is there a better example of this than our housing market.

Today, the time it takes to review a mortgage application and approve it has been cut drastically by our financial institutions. Consumers find that they have a wide array of financing options they can choose from to secure the purchase of a home--from fixed-rated loans to variable-rate loans, or even adjustable rate loans. While the wide variety of choices has helped more families to purchase homes in the past decade, even more families could buy homes if they understood how the credit market works.

Although there are many pluses to the expansion of the availability of credit there is also a downside. Individuals may get in over their heads when too much credit is made available to them. In addition, identity theft is a bigger problem than it has been before. Consumers need to educate themselves about the potential problems they might face and how to avoid them. Increasing consumer financial literacy is not just about providing information, however, it is about giving families the proper informational tools so that they can put their financial affairs in order.

Today, my friend and colleague, Senator Stabenow and I are introducing the ``Financial Literacy Community Outreach Act'' to help to bring together all of the federal government's financial literacy programs under one roof.

The Department of Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Labor are just a few of the many federal agencies that have established excellent financial literacy programs and initiatives. These programs cover a wide variety of topics ranging from how to save, spend, and invest to programs that provide guidance on how to prepare for retirement, select a pension plan, or purchase a home. Still others help individuals avoid the threat of identity theft.

Unfortunately, consumers attempting to find financial literacy information from the federal government may find that information scattered throughout the government. Our bill would provide a one-stop- shop where consumers could find the appropriate financial literacy programs for their needs. A single web site and a toll-free number will go a long way toward bringing this vital information to the individuals and families who need it.

In addition, the bill establishes the Financial Literacy Commission, a body comprised of the heads of the federal agencies with financial literacy programs. The Commission will ensure that the federal government has a cohesive and coordinated federal policy on financial literacy as it provides Congress with vital information on what can be improved in our government's financial literacy outreach efforts. In addition to the web site and the toll-free number, the Commission will highlight successful public/private partnerships already existing around the country.

One such partnership is thriving in my home state of Wyoming. The Wyoming Partners in HomeBuyer Education, led by the Wyoming Community Development Authority, includes local banks, real estate agents, the University of Wyoming, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Fannie Mae, in the effort to provide distance learning to potential home-buyers through the use of compressed video technology. This training program is perfect for a state like Wyoming in that home-buyers in rural communities have access to all of the essential elements of the home buying experience just like their urban community counterparts.

To date, more than 3,000 individuals have completed the training program and it has led to making the home-buying process easier and more understandable for rural and urban families alike.

I strongly believe that this bill will help millions of families find the appropriate financial literacy materials they need to make better credit and investment decisions.

It is my pleasure to be cosponsoring this bill with Senator Stabenow because of our shared concern about making financial literacy available to more families across the country. In addition, I would like to recognize Senator Sarbanes' tremendous effort to focus our attention on financial literacy, both when he was Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs last year and as Ranking Member of the Committee this year. He has been an extraordinary advocate for this important issue. Chairman Shelby of the Committee has also recognized the importance of this issue, as just this week, it was the subject of a hearing by the Committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee and in the full Senate to ensure that we expand and build upon the government's present financial literacy efforts to help individuals and families increase their knowledge of and access to our credit and investment markets.

Mr. President, every morning, from the time we wake up to the time we turn out the lights and go to sleep, we all spend a good portion of our day in cyberspace. Probably without thinking, each time we head out to the internet, we broadcast some very specific information about our lives as we use our computers for email. Each time we use our cell phones we rely on a sense of privacy about the information we convey, which may not be present. And, when we use hand held devices to send quick messages back and forth to friends, coworkers and family we assume no one else is listening or receiving our information, which often includes social security numbers, family names and even credit card and pin numbers.

Cyberspace is a high tech criminal's dream and it has helped contribute to the fastest growing crime in America--identity theft.

Simply put, identity theft is the ability to impersonate someone else and steal their credit, their money and even their identity for their own use.

Although the use of high-tech devices has certainly contributed to the proliferation of identity theft, many individuals have been victimized by simple criminals who have carefully picked through trash cans and mailboxes to find old receipts and social security numbers. Regardless of the medium through which the information is collected, identity theft is the result of criminals who have learned how to manipulate a growing network of information--some public, some private--and then use that data to their own advantage.

The problem with identity theft is that it is not confined to one state. It affects Americans from every walk of life from coast to coast. Some Americans may discover that someone else has been using their social security number to obtain fraudulent employment, while others learn that people have been using fraudulent identification cards to obtain lines of credit and then leaving innocent victims to deal with the bills they left behind.

People from small States like Wyoming are not immune to this new crime wave. Although there are only 493,000 people in Wyoming, we have the same rate of identity theft per capita as is present anywhere else in the United States. That is why we have to approach this issue from every angle, taking a systemic approach that includes prevention, enforcement and assistance to victims of identity theft.

Today, we will take the first step with victim's assistance for this crime. I believe we have to provide some real options for our constituents who are trying to recover from the trauma that identity theft has caused in their lives. That is why my colleague from Washington and I are introducing legislation that will make it easier for victims to get the information they need to begin reversing the damage and lasting effects of this crime. Our bill, the Identity Theft Victim's Assistance Act of 2003, is very similar to a bill we offered last year that passed the Senate unanimously in November. I expect and hope for the same result this year since this is a growing problem and the need for action on this issue grows more urgent with each passing day.

Our bill includes key provisions that would allow victims to work with businesses to obtain information related to cases of identity theft and then contact credit reporting agencies to block false information on credit reports. In drafting this legislation we worked with all of the stakeholders to ensure a balance between the needs of consumers and the needs of small businesses, banks and other credit agencies.

The reintroduction of this bill is timely given the recent hearings in the Senate Banking and Commerce Committees and recent action by both the House and Administration.

Earlier this month, the House Financial Services Subcommittee reported a bill called the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Also known as the FACT Act, the bill includes a provision nearly identical to Section 4 of our bill. Section 4 of our bill requires consumer credit reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of identity theft, provided the victim did not knowingly obtain goods, services or money as a result of the blocked transaction.

Our provision, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act, was also addressed in a recent hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. On July 10, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission testified that ``blocking would mitigate the harm to consumers' credit record that can result from identity theft'' and recommended that this practice be codified.

I am also encouraged by similar recommendations from the Treasury Department that would require credit reporting agencies to cease reporting allegedly fraudulent account information on consumer reports when the consumer submits a police report or similar document, unless there is a reason to believe the report is false.

Providing consumers with the tools necessary to recover from identity theft is the first step in providing real relief to the hundreds of thousands of individuals whose lives have already been turned upside down by identity theft. I urge my colleagues to work with me as we move forward on this important issue and make progress on the reauthorization of critical legislation like the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We must take action this year before the crime of identity theft hurts the hundreds of thousands of working people and families who are expected to become victims this year.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his kind words and his cooperation. I thank the ranking member of the committee for his cooperation.

There are some things in this legislation that he is not particularly enamored with, but he was most cooperative and helpful in moving the legislation forward. We are now at a point where we are within 24 hours of passing the legislation. Most of all, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, who has been a faithful partner--to use a play on words--a faithful partner in putting this initiative together.

We have worked together closely with the President, who has been truly the motivating force to try to provide some ammunition to the armies of compassion out there on the front lines every day, fighting for hope and opportunity for the millions of Americans who have yet to realize their dreams in dealing with the problems that confront them.

The President has, through his faith-based initiative, been very clear in the role of charitable organizations, particularly people of faith within those organizations, to heal many of the ills that confront society. We are a society that, while very prosperous by any measure, even at a time of economic downturn that we are experiencing right now, we are still the wealthiest country in the history of the world. With that great wealth comes responsibility. So many people have taken up that responsibility, trying to meet and serve those who in a society of great wealth have experienced a multitude of problems in trying to achieve, both from the economic perspective but again, as I said before, pursuing their dreams.

This piece of legislation, while it is not everything the President requested--it is not all of his faith-based initiative--certainly gets at one of the most important components which is the one funding organizations which do charitable purposes or have charitable purposes.

No. 2, there is a provision called the Compassionate Capital Fund which is grants to small organizations with less than six employees or less than $\1/2\ million in funding, to go out and be able to, for the first time, compete for Federal funds.

A lot of these small organizations, most of which are faith based in nature, have not been successful in applying for government grants principally because they don't have the resources or the expertise to do so. When you are running a food pantry with one or two people, most of whom are part-time employees and many volunteers, you don't have the expertise to apply for Federal grant dollars or any other kind of grant dollars. You try to do what you can to make ends meet. This provides the kind of technical assistance necessary for a lot of smaller, mostly inner-city organizations that right now do not take advantage of the money available through the Federal Government, again, whether they are faith based or not.

Most of these organizations are faith based in nature so there is a faith component to this. As I will show later, many of the provisions in the act will have a disproportionate benefit to

charitable organizations which are faith based.

It doesn't accomplish a couple of the things the President set out to do. The issue Senator Durbin spoke of earlier having to do with equal treatment, even though it is not in this legislation, let me address it very briefly and then maybe in more detail later on.

The whole concept of equal treatment is to allow those who have some element of faith within their organization--and there is a whole range across the charitable organization horizon. There is a whole range of faith, how much faith is integrated into those organizations--some are, to use the term, ``saturated'' or completely faith based in nature and expressively faith based in their programs, to the whole range of the other side which are those that are exclusively secular and even to some degree hostile to faith. In between there are gradations.

What the President has tried to do is instead of, as we do right now, as we did prior to the 1996 welfare reform, which allowed for charitable choice, in other words, for some government programs to go, these dollars to go to faith organizations, we sort of eliminated all these people of faith and all these organizations that have faith as a component of their mission or their vision or their program and left it to a very rather narrow category.

We, in 1996, on the Senate floor, with President Clinton signing it, said we would stop that discrimination against people of faith who wanted to act based on their faith to help their fellow man, as long as they didn't do certain things such as use it for faith worship or proselytizing, things that are not delivery of service.

We expanded greatly the range of faith organizations and nonfaith organizations. We expanded greatly those who can participate in government funds. When you do that, you run into some problems, some questions.

We have seen tremendous success and very few cases where problems have arisen, but in the areas where they have, there have been questions as to what government statutes apply, what provisions or regulations apply to faith organizations as opposed to nonfaith organizations.

One of the principal questions has to do with people's religious liberties and their ability to practice their faith bumping up against other rights. The one that the House of Representatives dealt with and the Senator from Illinois referred to had to do with the issue of employment and whether religious organizations which are provided with government funds can say that someone cannot work for that organization or they can refuse to hire someone who works for that organization who doesn't share that organization's values with respect to tenets and teaching of the faith which is expressed through their program.

One of the things I believe is essential to a lot of faith organizations, one of the reasons that faith organizations should be and need to be included in providing social services, is that a lot of these faith-based organizations don't just treat the symptom. They don't just treat the hunger, if it is someone who comes in for food assistance, or they don't just treat the dependency on drugs or alcohol, if someone comes in for addiction treatment. It doesn't just treat the problem of a lack of a GED or education, if someone comes in for education and training. What they do, because of their mission, they treat the mind. They treat the spirit and they treat the emotional well-being of this person. They treat the whole person. That is one of the keys to success in trying to truly turn people's lives around in a way that brings them back into productive life in America.

The key to these faith organizations is having people who have this mission they share out there teaching and bringing people in based on a certain core value structure. My argument is, we should not discriminate against people who have programs that are value laden-- those values may be based on Scripture, the Old or New Testament or some other book--as opposed to saying we are going to discriminate against you because the values you have are based upon a religious belief, as opposed to an organization that is secular and its values are not based on a religious belief. I don't understand the reason for the discrimination. I don't believe it should exist.

I have had this discussion in brief, and we can talk more about it. I am sure we will. But having said all that, none of that is in this bill. We decided not to have this issue before us today because the need of getting resources out to the charitable organizations meeting human service and educational and other needs is, frankly, too urgent.

While we will debate this--and I am sure others will want to debate this issue--the true debate will wait for another day. That will be when the welfare reauthorization comes up. That is where this whole conversation of charitable choice and allowing faith-based providers to participate in government grants came about, back in 1996. And it is where we should continue that debate. I pledge to you that whether we get that bill or have that amendment in committee, or whether we bring it to the floor, this will be a topic of discussion and one I encourage all Members to think about and participate in.

But the charitable crisis is real, and that is why I agreed--and my colleagues in the House have been more than cooperative in putting together, hopefully, a compromise we can quickly get to the President's desk. We understand the crisis is real. Adjusted for inflation, charitable giving 2 years ago, in 2001, was 2.3 percent lower than in 2000. You have to remember at the end of 2001, unfortunately, we had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, where there was a tremendous outpouring of giving. Even with that outpouring of giving, because of the sluggish economy, charitable giving fell again last year. Corporate giving fell again between 2000 and 2001 by 14.5 percent.

Again, we don't have the final numbers for 2002, but it was supposed to be off again last year. We saw the American Red Cross--I'll give a couple of examples. Their contributions declined anywhere from 20 to 60 percent; Salvation Army, off 5 to 10 percent; United Way, off 4 to 5 percent. We can go on and on. Colleges and universities saw a decline in the amount of charitable giving to their organizations, too.

So what we are doing is trying to respond in a comprehensive way. When I say that, I mean if you look at this bill, it is carefully crafted to provide incentives for all different types of givers-- corporate, foundations, and individuals who don't itemize on their tax forms. By the way, if those with IRA rollovers want to give money to charitable organizations, they can do so without having to pay taxes under this legislation. So whether it is the small giver to, hopefully, the retiree, or someone who has a large IRA, or corporations who may want to give more money--all the way down the line to food donations, which is another area where the Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, has a provision in this legislation that I think is very important, we have a provision that will encourage literally billions of dollars of additional food donations over the next several years by providing a tax incentive for corporations; but for the first time, partnerships, individual proprietors, and S corporations will be able to take the fair market value of their donation as a deduction--it is up to twice the cost of the basis of that food item--as a deduction for giving to charitable purposes.

We have about a billion pounds of food donated right now to people in America to help feed the hungry in America. It feeds about 26 million people. There are 96 billion pounds of food wasted in America. That is just an enormous amount. It is almost incomprehensible that we are talking about that amount. When you consider the fact that roughly 1 billion pounds of food donated helps feed 26 million, can you imagine, if we just increase it by a very small percentage, the amount of donated food there could be and how many people we could feed in America?

Senator Lugar's legislation is included. We believe it will make a dramatic impact on hunger in America. There are a lot of other provisions.

I see my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Bayh. I will be on the floor for a while. I want to give him the opportunity to share with us some of the things he has been active with. He has a provision in the legislation he has shepherded through the process. I will have him talk about that. He has also been a champion and strong supporter of this legislation and the entire package from day one. I thank him for his support,

and I appreciate him coming to the floor to talk about this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Indiana. I yield to him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his overly kind words with respect to my participation in this legislation. The Senator from Indiana has been truly one of the people out front and has been very supportive. I cannot count the number of press conferences I have asked the Senator from Indiana to be at trying to keep this ball rolling, and at times with a very busy schedule. He has always found time to associate himself with this cause and to continue to make sure it was on track in a bipartisan way.

That is how we get things done around here. I am very happy to have him as one of the prime cosponsors of this legislation. I again appreciate very much his kind words, but even more so appreciate his tremendous effort on making this legislation a reality.

I see the Senator from Rhode Island. If he is on a time schedule, I will be happy to yield the floor to provide him an opportunity to speak.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind remarks with respect to the compromise that Senator Lieberman and I have engaged in to move this legislation forward. I appreciate his support of this legislation, as I do that of all of my colleagues.

As he stated, and he is correct, I do take issue with his perspective on the issue of charitable choice and the funding--allowing of government funds to be used by organizations that have some element of faith within their structure, whether it has been the guiding principles of the organization or with the programs that they administer.

I do not believe it violates the ``separation of church and state.'' I do believe organizations of faith should not

be discriminated against. We should not be in the business of just funding a set of organizations that have no faith component in them at the expense of those that do--for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is there is a lot of evidence out there, most of which is anecdotal I understand, but a growing body of evidence that organizations of faith are much more effective in dealing with problems, particularly the more systemic problems that we have.

But I object to the underlying premise of this argument that somehow or another we are violating the Founding Fathers' understanding of the separation of church and state.

I talk at a lot of schools. I ask kids: What words are in the Constitution, ``the free exercise of religion'' or ``separation of church and state''? Usually about 75 to 80 percent of the kids say, ``separation of church and state'' is in the Constitution, which of course it is not.

The Senator from Rhode Island talked about the genesis of that in referring to one of the Founding Fathers, referring to the establishment clause as erecting a wall of separation between church and state. But what were they talking about? They were talking about certainly the country from which they came, which was England, which had an established church. The Government funded the church, as many European countries did historically, for long periods of time. Certainly prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church was intertwined very much so with the state. After the Reformation, each reform church had its own country and was funded in many cases.

People came to this country for religious freedom. They did not want an established religion. But even at the time in America there were certain colonies that had affinities for different religions. Maryland, for example--neighboring Maryland was considered more of a Catholic colony. Pennsylvania was home to the Quakers--on down the line.

There was a concern that that could come over here to this country, so they put in this clause that we should not have an established religion.

The difference is between the constitutional provisions that allow for the free exercise of religion and the prohibition against the establishment of religion. But this is really about freedom of religion; in other words, to practice whatever religious tenets you want and for the government not to get in your way in doing so.

What some are really arguing is freedom from religion, which I can tell you is completely antithetical to what our Founding Fathers believed.

We will have this debate. I am looking forward to it because I think it is important for the Senate, arguably the greatest deliberative body in the world, to talk about these important issues.

The role of faith in our society is central. It is central to the success of America. One of the reasons we are a successful country is because we are a faith-filled country. One of the reasons we are a faith-filled country is because we have a tremendous marketplace of ideas, whether it is the street-corner preacher or the old church down the street that has been there for centuries.

We have a marketplace of ideas of faith and that is what makes us: People out preaching the Word, talking about the values that faith imparts and the messages that faith imparts and its relevance to people's lives.

Here is a statistic I just marvel over. There are more people who go to church in America over a weekend, church and synagogue and temple, than to all the sporting events throughout the entire year in America. On one weekend, more people go to their places of worship than to all the sporting events that are held in America over the course of a year. That is remarkable. It is a great thing about America. It is what makes us unique. It is because we have not established religion. But it is not because we are saying people need to be free from religion. I think that is one of the concerns I have with the tack that the Senator from Rhode Island was taking.

Let me mention a couple of issues. Again, this is the beginning of a debate that is not about this bill. I repeat, we have taken everything having to do with the concept of equal treatment out of this legislation. We will save that debate for another day. But there are some things in this legislation I would like to address very briefly.

I see the Senator from New Jersey. I will not keep him long.

One of the items I am most excited about in this legislation is a provision called individual development accounts. Senator Lieberman and I and Senator Feinstein and many others, who have been advocates of this legislation for quite some time, are very excited about it being part of this initiative. Individual development accounts are a matched savings account for low-income and low- to moderate-income individuals who will have an opportunity to put up to $500 a year into a savings account and have that matched, dollar for dollar, up to $500. So it will be $1,000 total.

It is an exciting opportunity for these individuals to be able to put money aside. For what? So they can put it aside for three reasons: to buy a home, to get education, higher education, or, in some cases, technical training, vocational training, as well as start a small business, start a business. So it is a way for people to save for events in their lives that can transform their future economically: better education; a home, a place where they can save, invest, and build equity.

As everybody knows in this Chamber, the place where most people have the bulk of their savings is in their home, in the equity they have in their home. So the opportunity for home ownership, and having that money for a downpayment, is so important. And IDAs create that opportunity.

And finally, for starting that small business, being that entrepreneur--that spirit really drives America and really is the ladder of success so many people in America have access to--we want to create a nest egg for people to be able to buy that first piece of equipment. If you want to start a landscaping service, you can buy that lawn mower, you can buy the other tools you need to do that job, or a variety of other interests people get engaged in as their first business.

So we, Senator Lieberman and I, are very excited about this opportunity. We think it builds not just the opportunity for access to the home or to the education or to that small business, but it builds the virtue of deferred gratification. That is a virtue we sometimes do not practice very much in America, but it is a virtue of delaying the expenditure of that dollar, to put it aside, to save it for something that is more important than what you immediately have before you. And when I am talking about gratification, I am not talking about luxuries. I am talking about maybe simple things, maybe very minor things in the lives of people who are low to moderate income. But deferring that to something that may be transformational in their lives is really something we should create incentives to do because, again, it helps people move up that ladder of success in America.

I see a couple of my colleagues are in the Chamber. I am happy to yield the floor for their input.

Reserving the right to object, I may have a Senator on the way down to the Chamber who is trying to fit in here. How long is the Senator from New Jersey going to speak?

I have no objection.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce a very simple piece of legislation that would revoke President Bush's Executive Order 13233 and put back in force President Reagan's Executive Order 12667-- restoring the American people's access to Presidential papers. This bill is the companion to H.R. 1493, which is sponsored by Representative Doug Ose and has enjoyed bipartisan support in the House.

Twenty-five years ago, this body passed the Presidential Records Act and declared that a President's papers were the property of the people of the United States of America and were to be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. The Act provided that Presidential papers would be made available twelve years after a President left office, allowing the former or incumbent President the right to claim executive privilege for particularly sensitive documents. In order to fulfill that mandate, President Reagan in 1989 signed Executive Order 12667, which gave the former or incumbent President thirty days to claim executive privilege.

However, in 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, nullifying President Reagan's order and imposing new regulations for obtaining Presidential documents. President Bush's new order greatly restricts access to Presidential papers by forcing all requests for documents, no matter how innocuous, to be approved by both the former President and current White House. In this way the order goes against the letter and the spirit of the Presidential Records Act by requiring the NARA to make a presumption of non-disclosure, thus allowing the White House to prevent the release of records simply by inaction.

The President's order also limits what types of papers are available by expanding the scope of executive privilege into new areas--namely communications between the President and his advisors and legal advice given to the President. Also, former Presidents can now designate third parties to exercise executive privilege on their behalf, meaning that Presidential papers could remain concealed many years after a President's death. These expansions raise some serious constitutional questions and cause unnecessary controversy that could end up congesting our already overburdened courts. My legislation simply seeks to restore a legitimate, streamlined means of carrying out this body's wishes--making Presidential records available for examination by the public and by Congress.

The administration shouldn't fear passage of this bill. Any documents that contain sensitive national security information would remain inaccessible, as would any documents pertaining to law enforcement or the deliberative process of the executive branch. Executive privilege for both former and current Presidents would still apply to any papers the White House designates. With these safeguards in place, there is no reason to further hinder access to documents that are in some cases more than twenty years old.

By not passing this bill, the Congress would greatly limit its own ability to investigate previous administrations, not to mention limit the ability of historians and other interested parties to research the past. Knowledge of the past enriches and informs our understanding of the present, and by limiting our access to these documents we do both ourselves and future generations a great disservice. Numerous historians, journalists, archivists and other scholars have voiced their disapproval of Executive Order 13233 because they understand how important access to Presidential papers can be to accurately describing and learning from past events. We here in the Congress cannot afford to surrender our ability to investigate previous Presidential administrations because doing so would remove a vitally important means of ensuring Presidential accountability.

I believe it is time for these documents to become part of the public record. I believe in open, honest, and accountable government, and I do not believe in keeping secrets from the American people. The Presidential Records Act was one of this country's most vital post- Watergate reforms and it remains vitally important today. In these times when trust in government is slipping more and more every day, we need to send a statement to the American people that we here in Washington don't need to hide from public scrutiny--that instead we welcome and encourage public scrutiny. This bill will send just such a message.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing today emergency legislation with Senators Landrieu, Lincoln, Kerry, Clinton, Murray, Lautenberg, and Mikulski that would extend a critical Federal-State program that assists low-income Medicare beneficiaries in paying their health premiums costs through the Medicaid program. This specific program, for low-income senior and disabled citizens, was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and is slated for expiration at the end of fiscal year 2003. The program was extended and is slated for expiration at the end of fiscal year 2003. The program was extended by the two continuing resolutions and the final appropriations bill through September 30, 2003. This legislation would simply further extend it for another year--through the end of 2004.

This program, known as the Qualifying Individual Program, or QI-1, within Medicaid is a block grant payment to states to pay the Medicare Part B premium of $58.70 per month in 2003 for individuals with monthly incomes between $887 and $997 for individuals and between $1,194 and $1,344 for couples. This covers Medicare beneficiaries with income between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.

This amounts to a benefit of over $700 annually that many older and disabled Americans depend upon to pay for a portion of their health care costs, such as prescription drugs and supplemental coverage. Well over 120,000 people nationwide currently rely on the QI-1 and will be hard pressed to afford Medicare coverage without this assistance. In short, to prevent the erosion of existing low-income protections, Congress must extend the QI-1 program this year.

This is a bipartisan issue as well. President Bush had included QI-1 reauthorization in his fiscal year 2003 budget. Moreover, an extension has been included in S. 1, the ``Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003,'' but the conference is certainly not going to be completed, passed by both the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President in time before the need for States to send out notices to beneficiaries alerting them to their forthcoming loss of cost sharing protections at the end of September.

As Ron Pollack, Executive Director at Families, USA notes in his letter of support for this legislation, ``Without an extension, over 120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries will have to be sent notices that the program is expiring. The result will be confusion, fear, and uncertainty among this population. This disruption can all be avoided by the quick and early passage of your extension bill.''

At the Federal level, the Congress and Administration are often criticized for failure to understand what are or are not the implications to real people. One hundred and twenty thousand low-income beneficiaries face the prospect of their cost sharing increasing by over $700 per year at the end of September. They cannot be assured that an extension will be passed or done so in a timely fashion. How are they supposed to plan and budget?

When we return in September, we will have just a few legislative days to pass an extension in the Senate, the House, and be signed by the President to stop the process of States having to send out disenrollment letters. We all know this can be very difficult to get through the Congress, as it requires unanimous consent, and may not occur in a timely fashion. If not, States will be forced to send out disenrollment letters to the 120,000 low-income seniors and the disabled that rely on the cost-sharing protections provided by the QI-1 program and begin to shut down their programs.

Again, this is emergency legislation that simply provisions a one- year extension of QI-1 program to prevent the cut-off of cost-sharing protections for 120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries. We should be engaging in improving health coverage for low-income elderly and disabled citizens rather than leaving these vulnerable Americans facing fear, uncertainty, disruption, and increasing costs.

I urge immediate passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last evening, I introduced two bills with Senator Domenici and yet another one today to address a technical, but very important problem that the State of New Mexico and a number of other States, including that of the Majority Leader, have faced with respect to the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. When CHIP was established by President Clinton and the Congress in 1997, an inequity was built into the program whereby certain states that had been more progressive and had expanded coverage to children through Medicaid prior to the enactment of the bill were penalized.

In the last Congress and again this year, I introduced the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003'' to address this problem for a number of States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and Tennessee. Our states have been unable to fully access Federal CHIP funds because the previous expansion of Medicaid to children was not recognized or ``grandfathered,'' while certain other States such as New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania were explicitly ``grandfathered'' in and their State expansions to children were allowed to be covered with CHIP dollars.

The National Governors' Association has long recognized this inequity and has, in fact, a policy that read, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage to the majority of uninsured children in their states.''

S. 621, the ``Children's Health Equity Act,'' did precisely that and the critical language from our legislation was included in S. 312 by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee, which addressed both expired and expiring CHIP funds and the problem addressed by S. 621. We appreciated their recognition of that issue and supported the passage of that legislation after an extensive set of negotiations and compromises on the language.

For New Mexico, an important issue is that our State expanded coverage up to 185 percent of poverty prior to the enactment of CHIP. Because of this, the children in our State between 100 percent and 185 percent of poverty are ineligible for CHIP. Thus, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of the last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its Federal CHIP allocations. This, despite the fact our State ranks 2nd in the Nation in the percentage of children who are uninsured.

It is a travesty that money set-aside for New Mexico to address our children's coverage problem is not available to be spent and is thereby redistributed to other States who have far lower uninsured rates and whose children between 100 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for Federal CHIP dollars. The children in those States are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than the children of New Mexico.

The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 114,000 uninsured children. Put another way, almost 21 percent of all the children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact New Mexico has expanded coverage all the way to 235 percent of poverty. Again, this is the 2nd highest rate of uninsured children in the country.

This is a result of the fact that an estimated 80 percent of the uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. These children are often eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP but currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for the enhanced federal CHIP dollars, all of the remaining children below 185 percent of poverty in New Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need.

For New Mexico, the Senate language that was in S. 621 and included in S. 312 would have allowed New Mexico to spend up to 20 percent of its Federal CHIP allotments on children enrolled between 150 and 185 percent of poverty. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives chose to modify the Senate language in such a manner through the introduction and passage of H.r. 2854 that New Mexico may no longer be eligible.

The House of Representatives, which did not include language addressing New Mexico's problem in the first place, chose to edit the Senate language that ``grandfathered'' States that had previous expanded coverage ``up to'' 185 percent of poverty and above and replaced it with language that the State had to have expanded coverage to ``at least'' 185 percent of poverty.

This sounds rather technical, but this slight difference may ironically allow all the other states our bill intended to help, who expanded coverage beyond 185 percent of poverty, such as Vermont and Washington, to be ``grandfathered'' but not New Mexico. It is my contention, after reviewing the materials from our State that our State expanded coverage to 185 percent of poverty and operates a full Medicaid benefit at 185 percent of poverty and therefore should qualify as a State to be ``grandfathered.'' Unfortunately, the language change has left the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, uncertain of our State's eligibility, as some believe the State has only some up to 185 percent of poverty, or just short of that level, and therefore does not meet the test of ``at least'' 185 percent of poverty.

For six long years, the States of Washington, New Mexico, Vermont, and others have sought to fix the inequity in CHIP. Senator Slade Gorton of Washington had the original legislation to fix this problem and I picked up, modified, and reintroduced that legislation in the last two sessions of Congress. After six long years, to now find that New Mexico may be the only State excluded by the House change and 0.0001 percentage points, is both outrageous and unacceptable.

I contend that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, can still make a determination that New Mexico meets this revised standard under H.R. 2854 and urge them to do so as soon possible.

However, in the meantime, since New Mexico's status is now in question. I introduced two bills last night and another one today with Senator Domenici that all clarify that New Mexico qualifies. The first includes New Mexico as a ``qualified state'' explicitly. This would leave no question at all. The second bill clarifies that a State found to be a partial percentage point below 185 percent of poverty would round up to the nearest number, that being 185 percent of poverty, and be eligible. That would also undoubtedly ensure New Mexico's eligibility. In order to release our hold, I have asked that the bill I introduced changing the percentage that a qualified state must be changed from 185 to

184 percent of poverty be approved by the State in conjunction with H.R. 2854. Unfortunately, our bill will then have to be taken up and passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President.

I have received a letter from Chairman Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell of the House Energy and Commerce Committee ensuring the intent of H.R. 2854 is to include New Mexico and provides their commitment that they will ensure any technical problem our State has with the language will be fixed immediately upon return from the August recess. I thank them for their commitment to New Mexico.

Once again, many States are accessing their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those states are certainly no more worthy and the children of New Mexico deserve better than they are getting from the Federal Government. I accept the commitment made by the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee to fix this problem and therefore urge the passage of both H.R. 2854 and the original legislation that I introduced today.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act.

This bill would amend the Patriot Act to protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. It would set reasonable limits on the Federal Government's access to library, bookseller, medical, and other sensitive, personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related foreign intelligence authority.

I am pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues--Senators Bingaman, Kennedy, Cantwell, Durbin, Wyden, Corzine, Akaka, and Jeffords--have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

I and millions of other patriotic Americans love our country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad, but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home.

Much of our Nation's strength comes from our constitutional liberties and respect for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for our two and a quarter century history. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values, are what make our country worth fighting for in the fight against terrorism.

Here at home, there is no question that the FBI needs ample resources and legal authority to prevent future acts of terrorism. But the Patriot Act went too far when it comes to the government's access to personal information about law-abiding Americans.

Even though in the end I opposed the Patriot Act, there were several provisions that I did support. For example, Congress was right to expand the category of business records that the FBI could obtain by subpoena pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prior to the Patriot Act, the FBI could seek a court order to obtain only travel records--such as airline, hotel, and car rental records--and records maintained by storage facilities. The Patriot Act allows any business records to be subpoenaed. I don't quibble with that change.

But what my colleagues and I do find problematic--and an increasing number of Americans who value their privacy and First Amendment rights agree with us--is that the current law allows the FBI broad, almost unfettered access to personal information about law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism or spying.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act requires the FBI to show in an application to the court for a subpoena that the documents are ``sought for'' an international terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. There is no requirement that the FBI make a showing of individualized suspicion that the documents relate to a suspected terrorism or spy.

In other words, under current law, the FBI could serve a subpoena on a library for all the borrowing records of its patrons or on a bookseller for the

purchasing records of its customers simply by asserting that they want the records for a terrorism investigation.

During the last year, librarians and booksellers have become increasingly concerned by the potential for abuse of this law. I was pleased to stand with the American Booksellers Association and the Free Expression Network a little over a year ago when we first started to raise these concerns.

Librarians and booksellers are concerned that under the Patriot Act, the FBI could seize records from libraries and booksellers in order to monitor what books Americans have purchased or borrowed, or who has used a library's or bookstore's internet computer stations, even if there is no evidence that the person is a terrorist or spy, or has any connection to a terrorist or spy.

These concerns are so strong, that some librarians across the country have taken the unusual step of destroying records of patrons' book and computer use, as well as posting signs on computer stations warning patrons that whatever they read or access on the internet could be monitored by the Federal Government.

As a librarian in California said, ``We felt strongly that this had to be done. . . . The government has never had this kind of power before. It feels like Big Brother.''

And as the executive director of the American Library Association said, ``This law is dangerous. . . . I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy? There's no clear link between a person's intellectual pursuits and their actions.''

The American people do not know how many or what kind of requests federal agents have made for library records under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department refuses to release that information to the public.

But in a survey released by the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, about 550 libraries around the Nation reported having received requests from Federal or local law enforcement during the past year. About half of the libraries said they complied with the law enforcement request, and another half indicated that they had not.

Americans don't know much about these incidents, because the law also contains a provision that prohibits anyone who receives a subpoena from disclosing that fact to anyone.

David Schwartz, president of Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops, the oldest and largest independent bookseller in Milwaukee, summed up well the American values at stake when he said: ``The FBI already has significant subpoena powers to obtain records. There is no need for the government to invade a person's privacy in this way. This is a uniquely un-American tool, and it should be rejected. The books we read are a very private part of our lives. People could stop buying books, and they could be terrified into silence.''

Afraid to read books, terrified into silence. Is that the America we want? Is that the America where we'd like to live? I don't think so. And I hope my colleagues will agree.

It is time to reconsider those provisions of the Patriot Act that are un-American and, frankly, un-patriotic.

Bu my concerns with the Patriot Act go beyond library and bookseller records. Under section 215 of the Patriot Act, the FBI could seek any records maintained by a business. These business records could contain sensitive, personal information--for example, medical records maintained by a doctor or hospital or credit records maintained by a credit agency. All the FBI would have to do is simply assert that the records are ``sought for'' its terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act goes too far. Americans rightfully have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their library, bookstore, medical, financial, or other records containing personal information. Prudent safeguards are need to protect these legitimate privacy interests.

The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act is a reasonable solution. It would restore a pre-Patriot Act requirement that the FBI make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy.

My bill will not prevent the FBI from doing its job. My bill recognizes that the post-September 11 world is a different world. There are circumstances when the FBI should legitimately have access to library, bookseller, or other personal information.

I would like to take a moment to explain how the safeguard in my bill would be applied. Suppose the FBI is conducting an investigation of an international terrorist organization. It has information that suspected members of the group live in a particular neighborhood. The FBI would like to serve a subpoena on the library in the suspects' neighborhood. Under current law, the FBI could decide to ask the library for all records concerning anyone who has ever borrowed a book or used a computer, and what books were borrowed, simply by asserting that the documents are sought for a terrorism investigation. But under my bill, the FBI could not do so. The FBI would have to set forth specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a suspected terrorist. The FBI could subpoena only those library records--such as borrowing records or computer sign-in logs--that pertain to the suspected terrorists. The FBI could not obtain library records concerning individuals who are not suspected terrorists.

So, under my bill, the FBI can still obtain documents that it legitimately needs, but my bill would also protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. I might add, that if, as the Justice Department says, the FBI is using its Patriot Act powers in a responsible manner, does not seek the records of law-abiding Americans, and only seeks the records of suspected terrorists or suspected spies, then there is no reason for the Department to object to my bill.

The second part of my bill would address privacy concerns with another Federal law enforcement power expanded by the Patriot Act--the FBI's national security letter authority, or what is sometimes referred to as ``administrative subpoena'' authority because the FBI does not need court approval to use this power.

My bill would amend section 505 of the Patriot Act. Part of this section relates to the production of records maintained by electronic communications providers. Libraries or bookstores with internet access for customers could be deemed ``electronic communication providers'' and therefore be subject to a request by the FBI under its administrative subpoena authority.

As I mentioned earlier, some librarians are so concerned about the potential for abuse by the FBI that they have taken matters into their own hands before the FBI knocks on their door. Some librarians have begun shredding on a daily basis sign-in logs and other documents relating to the public's use of library computer terminals to access the Internet.

Again, safeguards are needed to ensure that any individual who accesses the internet at a library or bookstore does not automatically give up all expectations of privacy. Like the section 215 I've discussed, my bill would require an individualized showing by the FBI of how the records of internet usage maintained by a library or bookseller pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy.

Yes, the American people want the FBI to be focused on preventing terrorism. And, yes, it may make sense to make some changes to the law to allow the FBI access to the information that it needs to prevent terrorism. But we do not need to change the values that constitute who we are as a nation in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We can protect both our nation and our privacy and civil liberties.

An increasing number of Americans are beginning to understand that the Patriot Act went too far. Three States and over 130 cities and counties across the country have now passed resolutions expressing opposition to the Patriot Act. And it's not just the Berkeleys and Madisons of the Nation, but other States and communities with strong libertarian values, such as Alaska and cities in Montana, have passed such resolutions.

I have many concerns with the Patriot Act. I am not seeking to repeal it, in whole or in part. My colleagues and I are only seeking to modify two provisions that pose serious potential for abuse.

The privacy of law-abiding Americans is at stake. Congress should act to

protect our privacy. And my bill is a reasonable approach to do just that.

I urge my colleagues to join me and support the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to offer the Data- Mining Reporting Act of 2003. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as data-mining is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and private records on each and every American. Almost weekly, we learn about a new data-mining program under development like the newly named Terrorism Information Awareness program. Congress should not be learning the details about these programs after millions of dollars are spent testing and using data- mining against unsuspecting Americans.

Coupled with the expanded domestic surveillance already undertaken by this Administration, the unchecked development of data-mining is a dangerous step that threatens one of the most important values that we are fighting for in the war against terrorism--freedom. My bill would require all Federal agencies to report to Congress within 90 days and every year thereafter on data-mining programs used to find a pattern indicating terrorist or other criminal activity and how these programs implicate the civil liberties and privacy of all Americans. If it was necessary, information in the various reports would even be classified.

The bill does not end funding for any program, determine the rules for use of the technology or threaten any on-going investigation that uses data-mining technology. But, with complete information about the current data-mining plans and practices of the Federal Government, Congress will be able to conduct a thorough review of the costs and benefits of the practice of data-mining on a program by program basis and make considered judgments about which programs should go forward and which should not.

My bill would provide Congress with information about the nature of the technology and the data that will be used. The Data-Mining Reporting Act would require all government agencies to assess the efficacy of the data-mining technology and whether the technology can deliver on the promises of each program. In addition, my bill would make sure that the federal agencies using data-mining technology have considered and developed policies to protect the privacy and due process rights of individuals and ensure that only accurate information is collected and used.

Without Congressional review and oversight, government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense will be able to collect and analyze a combination of intelligence data and personal information like individuals' traffic violations, credit card purchases, travel records, medical records, communications records, and virtually any information contained in commercial or public databases. Through comprehensive data-mining, everything from people's video rentals or drugstore purchases made with a credit card to their most private health records could be fed into a computer and monitored and reviewed by the Federal Government.

Using massive data mining, the government hopes to be able to detect potential terrorists. There is no evidence, however, that data-mining will, in fact, prevent terrorism. Data-mining programs under development are being used to look into the future before being tested to determine if they would have even been able to anticipate past events, like September 11 or the Oklahoma City bombing. Before we develop the ability to feed personal information about every man, woman and child into a giant computer, we should learn what data-mining can and can't do and what limits and protections are needed.

One must also consider the potential for errors in data-mining for example, credit agencies that have data about John R. Smith on John D. Smith's credit report make the prospect of ensnaring many innocents is real.

Most Americans believe that their private lives should remain private. Data-mining programs run the risk of intruding into the lives of individuals who have nothing to do with terrorism but who trust that their credit reports, shopping habits and doctor visits would not become a part of a gigantic computerized search engine, operating without any controls or oversight.

The Administration should be required to report to Congress about the impact of the various data-mining programs now underway or being studied, and the impact those programs may have on our privacy and civil liberties so that Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of this practice come at too high a price to our privacy and personal liberties.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. All it asks for is information to which Congress and the American people are entitled.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.