A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an additional advance refunding of tax-exempt bonds issued for the purchase or maintenance of electric generation, transmission, or distribution assets.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing, with Senators Hatch, Schumer, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, and Edwards, the Criminal Spam Act of 2003. This bill is designed to counter the most objectionable forms of email marketing. In an effort to clear electronic channels for legitimate communications, the bill targets those spammers who deceive Internet Service Providers, ``ISPs'', and email recipients into thinking that messages come from someone other than a spammer--a ploy many spammers use to increase the likelihood that their unwanted ads will evade filtering software and be opened.

Without a doubt, spam is a serious problem today, one that is threatening to undermine the vast potential of the Internet to foster the free exchange of information and commerce. Businesses and individuals currently wade through tremendous amounts of spam in order to access email that is of relevance to them--and this is after ISPs, businesses, and individuals have spent time and money blocking a large percentage of spam from reaching its intended recipients.

Email users are having the online equivalent of the experience of the woman in the Monty Python skit, who seeks to order a spam-free breakfast at a restaurant. Try as she might, she cannot get the waitress to bring her the meal she desires. Every dish in the restaurant comes with Spam; it's just a matter of how much. There's ``egg, bacon and Spam''; ``egg, bacon, sausage and Spam''; ``Spam, bacon, sausage and Spam''; ``Spam, egg, Spam, Spam, bacon and Spam''; ``Spam, sausage, Spam, Spam, Spam, bacon, Spam, tomato and Spam''; and so on. Exasperated, the woman finally cries out: ``I don't like Spam! . . . I don't want ANY Spam!''

Individuals and businesses are reacting similarly to electronic spam. A Harris poll taken late last year found that 80 percent of respondents view spam as ``very annoying,'' and fully 74 percent of respondents favor making mass spamming illegal. They are fed up.

ISPs are doing their best to shield customers from spam, blocking billions of spam each day, but the spammers are winning the battle. Millions of unwanted, unsolicited commercial emails are received by American businesses and individuals each day, despite their own, additional filtering efforts. A recent study by Ferris Research estimates that spam costs U.S. businesses $8.9 billion annually as a result of lost productivity and the need to purchase more powerful servers and additional bandwidth; to configure and run spam filters; and to provide help-desk support for spam recipients. The costs of spam are significant to individuals as well, including time spent identifying and deleting spam, inadvertently opening spam, installing and maintaining anti-spam filters, tracking down legitimate messages mistakenly deleted by spam filters, and paying for the ISPs' blocking efforts.

And there are other less prominent but equally important costs of spam. It may introduce viruses, worms, and Trojan Horses into personal and business computer systems, including those that support our national infrastructure. It is also fertile ground for deceptive trade practices. The FTC recently estimated that 96 percent of the spam involving investment and business opportunities, and nearly half of the spam advertising health services and products, and travel and leisure, contains false or misleading information.

This rampant deception has the potential to undermine Americans' trust of valid information on the Internet. Indeed, it has already caused some Americans to refrain from using the Internet to the extent that they otherwise would. For example, some have chosen not to participate in public discussion forums, and are hesitant to provide their addresses in legitimate business transactions, for fear that their email addresses will be harvested for junk email lists. And they are right to be concerned. The FTC found spam arriving at its computer system just nine minutes after posting an email address in an online chat room.

At a recent FTC forum on spam, experts agreed that the issue is ripe for Federal action. Some 30 States now have anti-spam laws, but the nature of email makes it difficult to discern where any given piece of spam originated, and, thus, what State has jurisdiction and what State law applies. This may explain why spammers continue to flout State laws. For example, several States require that spam begin the subject line with ``ADV,'' but the FTC has found that only 2 percent of spam contains this label.

Technology will undoubtedly play a key role in fighting spam. However, a technological solution to the problem is not predicted in the foreseeable future. In addition, given the adroitness with which spammers adapt to anti-spam technologies, the development and implementation of technological fixes to spam entail constant vigilance and substantial financial investment. This raises the question: Why should individuals and businesses be forced to invest large amounts of time and money in buying, installing, and maintaining generation after generation of anti-spam technologies?

I have often said that the government should regulate the Internet only when absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, spammers have caused this to be one of those times. Congress needs to address the spam problem quickly and prudently, and the Criminal Spam Act, by targeting the most injurious types of spam, is a good start.

The bill that Senator Hatch and I introduce today would prohibit the four principal techniques that spammers use to evade filtering software and hide their trails.

First, our bill would prohibit hacking into another person's computer system and sending bulk spam from or through that system. This would criminalize the common spammer technique of obtaining access to other people's email accounts on an ISP's email network, whether by password theft or by inserting a ``Trojan horse'' program--that is, a program that unsuspecting users

download onto their computers and that then takes control of those computers--to send bulk spam.

Second, the bill would prohibit using a computer system that the owner makes available for other purposes as a conduit for bulk spam, with the intent of deceiving recipients as to the spam's origins. This prohibition would criminalize another common spammer technique--the abuse of third parties' ``open'' servers, such as email servers that have the capability to relay mail, or Web proxy servers that have the ability to generate ``form'' mail. Spammers commandeer these servers to send bulk commercial email without the server owner's knowledge, either by ``relaying'' their email through an ``open'' email server, or by abusing an ``open'' Web proxy server's capability to generate form emails as a means to originate spam, thereby exceeding the owner's authorization for use of that email or Web server. In some instances the hijacked servers are even completely shut down as a result of tens of thousands of undeliverable messages generated from the spammer's email list.

The bill's third prohibition targets another way that outlaw spammers evade ISP filters: falsifying the ``header information'' that accompanies every email, and sending bulk spam containing that fake header information. More specifically, the bill prohibits forging information regarding the origin of the email message, the route through which the message attempted to penetrate the ISP filters, and information authenticating the user as a ``trusted sender'' who abides by appropriate consumer protection rules. The last type of forgery will be particularly important in the future, as ISPs and legitimate marketers develop ``white list'' rules whereby emailers who abide by self-regulatory codes of good practices will be allowed to send email to users without being subject to anti-spamming filters. There is currently substantial interest among marketers and email service providers in ``white list'' technology solutions to spam. However, such ``white list'' systems would be useless if outlaw spammers are allowed to counterfeit the authentication mechanisms used by legitimate emailers.

Fourth and finally, the Criminal Spam Act prohibits registering for multiple email accounts or Internet domain names, and sending bulk email from those accounts or domains. This provision targets deceptive ``account churning,'' a common outlaw spammer technique that works as follows. The spammer registers, usually by means of an automatic computer program, for large numbers of email accounts or domain names, using false registration information, then sends bulk spam from one account or domain after another. This technique stays ahead of ISP filters by hiding the source, size, and scope of the sender's mailings, and prevents the email account provider or domain name registrar from identifying the registrant as a spammer and denying his registration request. Falsifying registration information for domain names also violates a basic contractual requirement for domain name registration.

Penalties for violations of these provisions are tough but measured. Recidivists and those who send spam in furtherance of another felony may be imprisoned for up to five years. Large-volume spammers, those who hack into another person's computer system to send bulk spam, and spam ``kingpins'' who use others to operate their spamming operations may be imprisoned for up to three years. Other offenders may be fined and imprisoned for no more than one year. Convicted offenders are also subject to forfeiture of proceeds and instrumentalities of the offense.

In addition to these criminal penalties, offenders are also subject to civil enforcement actions, which may be brought by either the Department of Justice or by an ISP. Civil remedies are important as a supplement to criminal enforcement for several reasons. First, bringing cases against outlaw spammers is very resource intensive because of the extensive forensic work involved in building a case; providing for civil enforcement will allow ISPs to assemble evidence to make prosecutors' jobs easier. Second, although criminal prosecutions are a critical deterrent against the most egregious spammers, the Justice Department is unlikely to prosecute all outlaw spam cases; civil enforcement, backed by strong financial penalties, will serve as a second layer of deterrence. Third, criminal penalties may not be appropriate in all cases, as for example in the case of teenagers hired by professional outlaw spammers to send out email for them; civil enforcement gives the Justice Department a more complete and refined range of tools to address specific outlaw spam problems.

That describes the main provisions of our bill. In addition, because commercial email can be, and is being, sent from all over the world into the virtual mailboxes of Americans, the bill directs the Administration to report on its efforts to achieve international cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of outlaw spammers.

Again, the purpose of the Criminal Spam Act is to deter the most pernicious and unscrupulous types of spammers--those who use trickery and deception to induce others to relay and view their messages. Ridding America's inboxes of deceptively delivered spam will significantly advance our fight against junk email. But the Criminal Spam Act is not a cure-all for the spam pandemic.

The fundamental problem inherent to spam--its sheer volume--may well persist even in the absence of fraudulent routing information and false identities. In a recent survey, 82 percent of respondents considered unsolicited bulk email, even from legitimate businesses, to be unwelcome spam. Given this public opinion, and in light of the fact that spam is, in essence, cost-shifted advertising, it may be wise to take a broader approach to our fight against spam.

One approach that has achieved substantial support is to require all commercial email to include an ``opt out'' mechanism, that is, a mechanism for consumers to opt out of receiving further unwanted spam. At the recent FTC forum, several experts expressed concerns about this approach, which permits spammers to send at least one piece of spam to each email address in their database, while placing the burden on email recipients to respond. People who receive dozens, even hundreds, of unwanted emails each day would have little time or energy for anything other than opting-out from unwanted spam.

According to one organization's calculations, if just one percent of the approximately 24 million small businesses in the U.S. sent every American just one spam a year, that would amount to over 600 pieces of spam for each person to sift through and opt-out of each day. And this figure may be conservative, as it does not include the large businesses that also engage in on-line advertising.

A second possible approach to spam--a national ``Do Not Spam'' registry--raises a different but no less difficult set of concerns. The two FTC Commissioners who testified last month at the Senate Commerce Committee's hearing on spam both questioned the potential of a national registry to alleviate the spam problem. Although this approach would place a smaller burden on consumers than would an opt-out system, it would entail immense costs, complexity, and delay, all of which work in the spammers' favor.

A third way of attacking spam--and one that was favored by many panelists and audience members at the FTC forum--is to establish an opt-in system, whereby bulk commercial email may only be sent to individuals and businesses who have invited or consented to it. This approach has strong precedent in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, TCPA, which Congress passed to eliminate similar cost- shifting, interference, and privacy problems associated with unsolicited commercial faxes. The TCPA's ban on faxes containing unsolicited advertisements has withstood First Amendment challenges in the courts, and was adopted by the European Union in July 2002.

I have discussed three possible approaches to the spam problem, and there are several others, some of which have already been codified in state law. I encourage the consideration of all these anti-spam approaches in the weeks and months to come.

Reducing the volume of junk commercial email, and so protecting legitimate Internet communications, will

not be easy. There are important First Amendment interests to consider, as well as the need to preserve the ability of legitimate marketers to use email responsibly. If Congress does act, it must get it right, so as not to exacerbate an already terribly vexing problem.

The Criminal Spam Act is a first step in countering spam. If we can shut down the spammers who use deception to evade filters and confuse consumers, we will give the next generation of anti-spam technologies a chance to do their work. Our bill targets the most egregious offenders, it provides a much-needed federal cause of action, and it allows the states to continue to serve as a ``laboratory'' for tough anti-spamming regulation. I urge its speedy enactment into law.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2003, the EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me as an original cosponsor of this important legislation. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 authorizes the President to impose immediate emergency import restrictions on the archaeological and ethnological materials of Iraq. The purpose of this bill is simple--to close a legal loophole which could allow looted Iraqi antiquities to be brought into the United States. Allow me to explain how this might happen.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, former President Bush issued Executive Orders 12722 and 12744, which declared a national emergency with respect to Iraq. Those orders imposed economic sanctions against Iraq, including a complete trade embargo which automatically prohibited trade in Iraqi antiquities as of that time. The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 661 on August 6, 1990, which also imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions imposed under the Executive Orders are spelled out in the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations. These regulations are administered by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC.

Now until recently, the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations continued to restrict trade with Iraq, including trade in Iraqi antiquities. However, on May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1483, which lifted most sanctions on Iraq. Resolution 1483 also provided that Member States should establish a prohibition on trade in archaeological, cultural, historical, religious, and rare scientific items of Iraq, that may have been illegally removed from the country since the adoption of Resolution 661 back in 1990. On May 23, 2003, OFAC implemented UN Resolution 1483 and issued a General License which lifted most of our trade sanctions with respect to Iraq. Importantly, OFAC's general license continues to ban trade in looted Iraqi antiquities. However, this legal structure that is currently in place is vulnerable to a potential loophole.

It is important to recognize that the legal authority for OFAC's continuing restrictions on trade in Iraqi antiquities derives from the Executive Orders issued in 1990, which are themselves premised upon the existence of emergency conditions with respect to Iraq. It is possible that once an interim government is in place, the President may determine that emergency conditions no longer exist with respect to Iraq and relations between the United States and Iraq will be normalized. At that point, the legal authority for the OFAC restrictions will be terminated. This bill is designed to bridge a potential gap in the protections afforded Iraqi antiquities by allowing the President to impose emergency import restrictions without delay. These emergency restrictions would be authorized for an interim period to extend beyond any termination of the OFAC restrictions, and would remain in place until such time as other, more lengthy, legal mechanisms for the protection of cultural antiquities can be completed. I will elaborate on these other legal mechanisms in a moment.

If Congress does not act to provide the means for establishing the interim ban on trade contained in this bill, the door may be opened to imports of looted Iraqi antiquities into the United States. Already the press has reported allegations that European auction houses have traded in looted Iraqi antiquities. The last thing that we in Congress want to do is to fail to act to prevent trade in looted Iraqi artifacts here in the United States.

The stopgap authority in this bill derives from legislation implementing the U.N. Convention on the protection of cultural property. This bill amends the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, Implementation Act, to allow the President to impose immediate emergency import restrictions with respect to Iraqi antiquities. The Implementation Act already authorizes the President to restrict imports of cultural antiquities, but there is a somewhat lengthy process called for under the Implementation Act before the President may impose such restrictions. Since we passed the Implementation Act in 1983, we have imposed import restrictions on archaeological

or ethnological materials from ten countries to assist in the protection of their cultural property.

Unfortunately, the Implementation Act does not address the unique conditions that prevail in Iraq today. Normally, under the Implementation Act a country formally requests that the United States prohibit stolen or illegally exported cultural antiquities from entering into the United States. The State Department will then publish a Federal Register notice announcing the request. Following publication, a Cultural Property Advisory Committee will investigate and review the request and report its recommendation to the President. With the benefit of the Committee's report, the President can then proceed to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the foreign country. In the past, this entire process has taken at least a year before import restrictions are put in place.

There are two major deficiencies with the current process which necessitate the bill we are introducing today. First, the Implementation Act requires a foreign government to make a formal request to the United States. Right now, there is no Government of Iraq to request such a bilateral agreement with the United States. The second problem is that, even if there were an Iraqi Government in place to make such a request, the administrative process called for under the Implementation Act just takes too long given the present circumstances--although the extent of looting of museums, libraries, and archaeological sites in Iraq may not be as great as was first feared, the fact remains that such looting has occurred and that illicit trade in such antiquities could spread if there is even a temporary lifting of import restrictions.

Now granted, the Implementation Act does authorize the President to impose emergency import restrictions even before a bilateral agreement is finalized. However, before the President can do so, all of the other administrative processes under the Implementation Act must be completed; this includes a three month period for the preparation of a report to the President by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Again, the problem here is that the normal process for imposing even emergency import restrictions could take too long.

If the Administration were to normalize relations between the United States and the next Government of Iraq, thereby terminating the OFAC import restrictions, it is possible that looted Iraqi antiquities could begin entering the United States while we sit and wait for a possible bilateral agreement to be finalized. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 solves this problem. This legislation provides a uniquely and narrowly tailored amendment to the Implementation Act which closes the potential legal loophole between the time when relations are normalized and the time when we can undertake and complete the normal processes for the protection of cultural antiquities contained in the Implementation Act.

By extending the President's authority under the Implementation Act for an interim period, this bill is narrowly designed to meet the unique circumstances in Iraq today. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 provides that this extension of the President's authority will terminate one year after relations are normalized, or by September 30, 2004, so that the next Iraqi Government can determine for itself whether to seek a bilateral agreement with the United States, and if so, the President can negotiate such an agreement with the benefit of input from the Cultural Property Advisory Committee--as envisioned by the Implementation Act. In short, our bill does not seek to supplant the established process for protecting cultural antiquities under the Implementation Act; instead, it permits an extra guarantee of protection for Iraq's cultural antiquities in the short term while Iraq completes its transition back into the community of nations.

I thank Senator Baucus for his support, and I hope our colleagues can also support this important and timely bill. I hope we are able to move this legislation quickly, perhaps as part of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003, which is waiting for full Senate approval.

As we work to reestablish the free flow of trade with a liberated Iraq, I believe it is very important that we in Congress remain mindful of the need to take steps to protect Iraq's cultural heritage. Our bill will ensure that going forward we continue to adhere to the full spirit of Resolution 1483 and avoid any break in the protections afforded to Iraqi antiquities. Our bill also provides an important signal of our commitment to preserving Iraq's resources for the benefit of the Iraqi people. It is time to close the potential gap in protections, and pass the EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with Senators Leahy, Schumer, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, and Edwards, the Criminal Spam Act of 2003. This legislation, which enjoys bipartisan support, targets the most egregious types of spammers--those who hijack computer systems and those who use other fraudulent means to send unsolicited commercial electronic mail.

Over the course of the past several years, the amount of unsolicited commercial email, or spam, has grown at an exponential rate. During a recent Senate hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Brightmail Inc., a provider of spam filtering software that serves six of the ten largest U.S. Internet service providers, estimated that in April 2003, 46 percent of all email traffic was spam. This figure represented a nearly five fold increase in spam in merely 18 months. At the same hearing, America Online testified that on any given day, it blocks approximately 2.3 billion spam messages.

This tremendous growth rate is due in large part to sophisticated spammers who use abusive tactics to send millions of email messages quickly, at an extremely low cost. By using deceptive methods, these spammers conceal their identities, evade Internet service provider filters, and exploit the Internet by advertising and promoting pornographic web sites, illegally pirated software, questionable health products, pyramid schemes and other ``get rich quick'' or ``make money fast'' scams. The extraordinary volume of spam generated by their schemes imposes significant costs on Internet users, threatens to disrupt Internet services, and undermines the public's confidence in online commerce.

A recent study conducted by the Federal Trade Commission demonstrates the alarming frequency with which spammers are using the Internet to conceal their true identities and the electronic paths of their messages. This study found that 40 percent of email messages contain indicia of falsity in the body of the message; approximately 33 percent contain indicia of falsity in the ``from'' lines of the spam; 22 percent contain indicia of falsity in the ``subject'' line; and some 66 percent contain at least one form of deception.

The Criminal Spam Act of 2003 targets fraudulent and deceptive spam by enhancing the ability of federal law enforcement authorities to prosecute and punish the most egregious wrongdoers. Specifically, the Act makes it a crime to hack into a computer, or to use a computer system that the owner has made available for other purposes, as a conduit for bulk commercial email. The Act also prohibits sending bulk commercial email that conceals the true source, destination, routing or authentication information of the email, or is generated from multiple email accounts or domain names that falsify the identity of the actual registrant.

The Act subjects violators to stiff criminal penalties of up to 5 years' imprisonment where the offense is committed in furtherance of any felony, or where the defendant has previously been convicted of a similar Federal or state offense, and up to 3 years' imprisonment where other aggravating factors exist. It also contains criminal forfeiture provisions and directs the Sentencing Commission to consider enhancements for offenders who obtain email addresses through illegal means, such as harvesting.

The strong deterrent effect of the legislation is further enhanced by civil enforcement provisions that authorize the Department of Justice and aggrieved Internet service providers to bring suit for violations of the Act. In appropriate cases, courts may grant injunctive relief, impose civil fines, and award damages of up to $25,000 per day of violation, or between $2 and $8 per email initiated in violation of the Act.

Recognizing that spammers can send their fraudulent and deceptive messages from any location in the world, the Act directs the Department of Justice and the Department of State to work through international fora to gain the cooperation of other countries in investigating and prosecuting spammers worldwide and to report to Congress about their efforts and any recommendations for addressing international predatory spam.

The Criminal Spam Act represents an important legislative step toward curbing predatory and abusive commercial email. However, broader legislative measures, coupled with technological

solutions, are also needed. Any effective solution to the spam problem requires cooperative efforts between the government and the private sector, as well as the assistance of our international partners.

Recent years have witnessed extraordinary technological advances. These innovations, and electronic communications in particular, have significantly increased the efficiencies, productivity and conveniences of our modern world. The abusive practices of fraudulent spammers threaten to choke the lifeblood of the electronic age. This is a problem that warrants swift but deliberative legislative action. I am committed to working with my colleagues in both Houses to address the spam problem on all fronts.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce today the ``Protect the Pledge Act of 2003.'' The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag has been an integral part of this Nation's identity since its early days. It was first written by a Baptist minister in 1892 as part of the commemoration of the 400th Anniversary of the discovery of America. For over a century, children and adults have recited this Pledge in schools, in government and military ceremonies, and on other formal occasions. It represents a promise of loyalty to the Flag itself, to the country it represents, and to the government that unites all fifty states. Perhaps more importantly, for many people, its recitation represents as essential element of what it means to be an American.

In United States v. Newdow, the Ninth Circuit jeopardized the integrity of the Pledge of Allegiance. It held that a school district's policy of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge violates the First Amendment Establishment Cause because it includes the phrase ``under God.'' This decision is simply wrong. It claims that the American flag symbolizes monotheism. It does no such thing. The Pledge represents our country, our independence, our government--simply, it represents liberty and justice for all. While the phrase ``under God'' undeniably has some religious connotation, it is a term of art with de minimus theological significance. It is not intended to establish a national religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religious beliefs. The thirty-one words of the Pledge of Allegiance, however, are worthy of reverence and respect. To eliminate the phrase ``under God'' would be equivalent to depicting the flag with forty-nine stars or twelve stripes. It changes the constitution of our American identity.

The ``Protect the Pledge Act of 2003'' prevents further judicial encroachment by eliminating federal jurisdiction of claims that the recitation of the Pledge violates the First Amendment. By passing this legislation, Congress is exercising its Constitutional duty to preserve the separation of powers. When the judiciary has oversteps its boundaries, as it has done in Newdow, Congress must act to protect the sanctity of the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill represents a reasoned response to Newdow. By limiting its scope to federal jurisdiction, it leaves open a potential remedy in state court, thereby obviating any due process concerns.

I am hopeful that my colleagues in both Houses will work expeditiously, on a bi-partisan basis, to enact this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help rural and underserved communities across the country get connected to the information economy.

Today I am introducing the Community Telecommunication Planning Act of 2003. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Kennedy, Leahy, and Pryor as original cosponsors. This bill will give small and rural communities a new tool to attract high speed services and economic development.

Representative Inslee from my home State, along with several other members, will soon introduce a companion bill in the House. I appreciate him working with me to meet this challenge.

I am especially proud of how this legislation came about. For the last four years, I've been working with a group of community leaders in Washington State to find ways to help communities get connected to advanced telecommunications services.

I want to take a moment to thank the members of my Rural Telecommunication Working Group for their hard work on this bill. The members include: Brent Bahrenburg, Gregg Caudell, Dee Christensen, Dave Danner, Louis Fox, Tami Garrow, Larry Hall, Rod Fleck, Ray King, Dale King, Terry Lawhead, Dick Llarman, Jim Lowery, Jim Miller, Joe Poire, Skye Richendrfer, Ted Sprague, Jim Schmit, and Ron Yenney.

We met as a working group, and we held forums around the State that attracted hundreds of people. We've tapped the ideas of experts, service providers and people from across the State who are working to get their communities connected. The result is this legislation, which I am proud to say is part of Washington State's contribution to our national effort to connect all parts of our country to the Internet.

The bill was originally introduced in the 107th Congress. I was able to attach a version of it to the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the provision was removed during Conference.

This bill addresses a real need in many communities. While urban and suburban areas have strong competition between telecommunications providers, many small and rural communities are far removed from the services they need.

We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced telecommunications like high speed internet access and the wireless Internet. Just as yesterday's infrastructure was built of roads and bridges, today our infrastructure includes advanced telecom services.

Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is already turning some small companies in rural communities into international marketers of goods and services.

Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble getting the access they need. Before communities can take advantage of some of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work together and got through a community planning process. Community plans identify the needs and level of demand, create a vision for the future, and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom needs of their community for today and tomorrow. These plans take resources to develop, and my bill would provide those funds.

Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they need help developing it. Unfortunately, many communities get struck on that first step. They don't have the resources to do the studies and planning required to attract service. So the members of my Working Group came up with a solution: have the Federal Government provide competitive grants that local communities can use to develop their plans. I took that idea and put it into this bill.

After determining what services they need, communities must then go out and make a market case to providers. That is why I've added ``market development'' to the list of allowable uses of grant funding.

While this bill deals with new technology, it's really just an extension of the infrastructure support the federal government traditionally provides to communities.

The Federal Government already provides money to help communities plan other infrastructure improvements--everything from roads and bridges to wastewater facilities. Because today's economic infrastructure includes advanced telecom services, I believe the Federal Government should provide similar support for local technology infrastructure.

In summary, this bill would provide rural and underserved communities with grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments and other analytical work, and it would allow these communities to use the funding to market these plans to providers.

With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for access into real access that can improve their communities and strengthen their economies. This bill can open the door for thousands of small and rural areas across our country to tap the potential of the information economy.

I urge the Senate to support this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see it passed.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``TRADE for America's Communities Act'' in recognition of the critical need to provide economic development assistance to communities, across this Nation, that have been negatively impacted by trade. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Murkowski in offering this critical legislation.

We are faced with a challenge to a U.S. trade program from the international community and with communities that are being left behind in an era of global commerce. Congress must make the difficult decisions to turn these two challenges into opportunities for this Nation. In 1999, I supported the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, authored by Senator DeWine, that used the revenue from countervailing and antidumping tariff duties to provide assistance to the firms that were affected by unfair trade. I supported that bill because it introduced an important policy principle: that the revenue from unfair trade should be used to help those hurt by trade.

Unfortunately, that act ran afoul of our international commitments. In January, the World Trade Organization ruled that this program was in violation of our Antidumping Agreement, and the President requested Congress repeal that program in order to bring the United States into compliance. While I cannot support a full repeal of this program, I believe the bill we are introducing today will bring the United States into compliance with our international obligations, while maintaining the principle that this money be used to help those hurt by trade.

In fact, the TRADE for America's Communities Act builds upon the strong foundation and principles of Senator DeWine's program and it is my hope that other proponents of the CDSOA will support our efforts to address the needs of these communities. While it is necessary to live up to our international agreements, it is just as imperative that we live up to our responsibilities to the fishing towns, mining towns and mill towns of America where jobs have been lost.

With the momentum provided by the passage of Trade Promotion Authority, the President has put forth an agenda on a bilateral, regional and global basis that promotes the liberalization of trade. As the President has argued, this policy agenda creates new opportunities for prosperity and growth.

At the same time, we must never forget that opportunities of market access, improved consumer choice, and availability of manufacturing inputs, come with the price of transitions, dislocations, and shifts in the U.S. economy. These dynamic changes that are outgrowths from trade are similar to technological advances in productivity that leave workers out of jobs, or plants out of operation. However, while technological advances are the initiative of private enterprise, trade liberalization is the chosen policy of government. Free trade creates opportunities, but it also creates responsibilities that this government must embrace just as firmly as it embraces free trade.

The bill we are introducing today address these issues by giving the Department of Commerce the revenue from these tariffs, which currently goes to corporations, to provide technical assistance to communities that have been negatively impacted by trade, to develop strategic plans that would focus on creating and retaining jobs in a community and promote economic diversification. Once the strategic plans have been approved by the Department of Commerce, grants would be available, based on the needs of the community, to implement economic development projects, improve the local infrastructure, support the establishment of small businesses, and attract new businesses.

In small towns, where the livelihood of the local economy depends on one industry, one plant, or one company, that is suffering under trade liberalization, it can cause devastation when that steel mill, paper mill, or textile mill shuts down. In towns like East Millinocket, ME, where Great Northern Paper went bankrupt, or in Waterville, Maine, where Hathaway shut down their plant and moved shirt production overseas, local economies were sent into disarray. That is just part of the reason I was so adamant in my support last year for improvements in Trade Adjustment Assistance.

Congress did the right thing when we expanded TAA training and benefits in the Trade Act of 2002, but one of the complaints leveled against TAA was the concern over what these workers would be able to do with their new

training in small towns that had few jobs to offer. The ``TRADE for America's Communities Act'' seeks to answer those concerns by ensuring that in towns where there may be few opportunities left, this government takes the first step towards providing hope through economic adjustment assistance.

The ``TRADE for America's Communities Act'' would lay the groundwork for an America where no community is left behind in the march towards a free and open global economy. As the Finance Committee continues its work on trade legislation and the numerous trade agreements being proposed by this Administration, I look forward to the opportunity to address the economic development needs of these communities.