Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) Act of 2003

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 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, as I rise to speak to the issue of the conference report to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, I want to first recognize the efforts of Energy Committee Chairman Domenici and Finance Committee Chairman Grassley for the extraordinary time and effort they have devoted to developing a national energy policy for a 21st century America. Theirs was an arduous task in addressing not only political differences with the bill but also regional ones as well. So I thank them for their work.

This has certainly been a long road. Congress has been debating and voting on a number of energy issues over the past two Congresses, one when under Democratic control and one under Republican leadership. There have been a myriad of issues to consider as we have attempted to shape appropriate policy, and to help increase the public's awareness of the benefits to our health and national security in shifting from foreign fossil fuel imports toward renewable, efficient, and alternative energy sources and manufacturing technologies. Yes, it has been a long, hard road but this conference report simply does not put us on the right road to accomplish these goals for the good of the Nation. We have yet to find that new direction, but we must keep seeking it.

As Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation.'' The conferees had the opportunity to raise the bar for the Nation's future domestic energy systems through new energy policies, through the creation of tax incentives for available and developing technologies, and most of all for incentivizing the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. But, this goal, in my opinion, has not been reached in the Energy conference report before us.

Since we started to develop new strategies for the Nation's energy policy for the 21st century, we have had to undergo a fundamental reassessment of our energy infrastructure in the aftermath of the horrific events of 9/11 and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East. We realize now more than ever that we must reduce our vulnerabilities to terrorism with more secure, localized, and reliably distributed energy delivery systems rather than relying solely on our current centralized infrastructure of pipelines, refineries, powerplants, patchwork of electricity grids, and oil tankers berthed in our harbors. The United States simply cannot afford to continue to spend at least $57 billion a year buying oil from the Middle East and continue its upward trend of fossil fuel usage.

The entire world--particularly the developing and fast-growing nations of China, India, and Brazil--desperately needs access to clean, low-cost, energy-efficient and renewable resources. The key is to make the best alternate energy systems that are competitive with today's nonrenewable sources of energy

so that they can be developed and used both at home and sold abroad.

Since 2000, I have been proud to have been a member of the Finance Committee where I worked to develop responsible tax incentives to increase the efficiencies of the electricity we produce, the vehicles we drive, the appliances we use, the homes in which we live, and, in turn, enhance the competitiveness of our domestic manufacturers. Our task is to incentivize, through the Tax Code, our U.S. manufacturers to develop and employ the most promising and cost-effective technologies to the U.S. and global marketplace with all due speed.

Unfortunately, the conference report increases oil and gas tax credits to $11.9 billion while conservation and energy efficiency incentives were decreased to $1.5 billion. An equitable balance has not been achieved nor is it a step forward.

We need to expand the mix of the country's energy sources with the realization that power from nuclear and fossil fuels will continue to be a large part of the energy basket in the next decades--but, at the same time, we must encourage safer, cleaner and decentralized sources as well. The conference report before us simply does not progress far enough in this direction, instead maintaining more of a ``business as usual'' approach to the Nation's energy future.

One of my greatest disappointments is the absence of provisions from the Feinstein-Snowe SUV loophole legislation that would have phased-in changes in CAFE standards requirements in four, attainable stages that would have brought the standards for SUVs in line with passenger cars within the next 8 years. Closing this loophole alone would save our nation approximately 1 million barrels of oil, or fully 10 percent of the oil our vehicles consume on a daily basis.

Right now, all our vehicles combined consume 40 percent of our oil, while coughing up 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions--the major greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put this in perspective, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions just from U.S. vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon dioxide emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, I cannot fathom why we continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution into the air than our passenger cars.

Like Senator Feinstein and I, other nations have realized the value of these changes. Even China--a developing country--has great concerns about its increased reliance on foreign oil, so much so that Chinese officials say they have to save energy--and how are they prepared to accomplish this? By implementing more stringent CAFE standards for new vehicles--including those manufactured in the United States--in their country than we currently have in the United States or in this conference report. How ironic that China is more progressive than the United States in their attempts to save energy and decrease dependency in oil imports at the same time that the United States overall fuel economy has actually fallen to its lowest level since 1980.

According to a November 18 New York Times article, vehicles made by Western automakers that do not meet the standards the Chinese Government has drafted may have to be modified to get better gas mileage before the first phase of the new rules becomes effective in July of 2005. I ask unanimous consent to print the November 18 article in the Record.

Mr. President, just consider for a moment how much the world has changed technologically over the past 25 years. We have seen the advent of the home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our automobiles, and global positioning system devices are guiding drivers to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going to say that, while even a developing country like China is transforming, America doesn't have the wherewithal to make SUVs that get better fuel economy?

We should keep in mind that China is expected to pass the United States in the next 10 years as the largest emitter of manmade carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas that the vast majority of international scientists believe is causing global climate change. And, it is interesting to note that there is not one mention of climate change in the entire conference report. Not one reference in a report of over 1,000 pages that is supposed to shape the Nation's energy policy for the 21st century.

Last year's Energy bill--which I remind my colleagues is the bill the Senate actually passed this year--had at least three different titles addressing climate change, including research on abrupt climate change. Also, the administration's National Energy Policy of May, 2001, stated, ``Energy-related activities are the primary sources of U.S. man-made greenhouse gas emissions representing about 85 percent of the U.S. man- made total carbon-equivalent emissions in 1998.''

Other grave concerns I have involve provisions in the report that will threaten coastal and marine environments and lead to further degradation of our oceans. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I am troubled by the ramifications of these provisions, as I strongly believe that any changes to U.S. marine policy should only be developed with contributions and oversight of the subcommittee.

For example, under section 321 of title III, the bill grants sole authority for all energy-related projects in the Outer Continental Shelf to the Secretary of the Interior. Currently, protecting these ecosystems is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. This section does not suggest that the Department of the Interior should even consult with Commerce.

Two other sections in this bill would limit the ability of the Secretary of Commerce and coastal States to guide, plan, and regulate activities that affect coastal and ocean resources and that occur in offshore areas-- a right they currently have under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Further, section 325 would shorten the timeframes for submitting information and appealing the permitting decisions for offshore activities that are inconsistent with States' coastal management plans--regardless of the quality or quantity of information received. Another section, section 330 would limit all appeals or reviews of offshore energy action to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission record. I believe that the Secretary of Commerce should have the discretion to develop a record that is relevant to issues on appeal.

These provisions are inconsistent with the administration's proposed rule amending the appeals processes, and they conflict with the goals and purposes of the Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization bill, S. 241, I introduced last January. Moreover, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, established and appointed by President Bush pursuant to the Oceans Act of

2000, is poised to present its recommendations to Congress on offshore energy and other ocean-related issues.

All of these provisions have serious consequences for marine environmental health, and they should not be hastily adopted without the thoughtful input of the Commerce Committee, the administration, and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

Moving from our oceans to our air, there are other disturbing provisions in the conference report that have been raised by many of my colleagues. For instance, the report contains a provision delaying clean air protections for millions of Americans, leading to thousands of additional asthma attacks--and that is of particular concern to me as my State of Maine leads the Nation in per capita cases of asthma.

Also, I am disappointed that the conference report contains no renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, to raise the amount of renewable energy as a source of electricity nationwide by increasing the percentage of electricity produced from wind, solar, geothermal, incremental hydropower, and clean biomass that produces electricity from burning forest waste.

The conference report does not ban MTBE that is polluting our ground water for another decade rather than the 4 years in the Senate bill, while at the same time virtually dismissing pending lawsuits states already have filed against MTBE producers for cleanup. State officials in Maine do not approve of extending the ban on MTBE or the fact that the heavy financial burden of cleanup will shift to the communities and water users because MTBE producers receive a safe harbor from lawsuits in the report.

For hydropower, the conference report provisions give the last say for hydropower permits to industry and does not give equal weight to the agencies/stakeholders process that has worked so well in Maine for reaching consensus on hydropower decisions, especially for dam removals.

On electricity reliability, the report holds up FERC's ability to go forward with its standard market design for regional transmission organizations--or RTOs except on a voluntary basis, until 2007. A voluntary only program, however, does not spur the capital needed right now for increased electricity transmission in New England, for instance. I hope my colleagues are aware that the New England RTO kept the great majority of New England's electricity grid working and the lights on during the blackout of August of 2003. Actually, the only component of the electricity title that effectively addresses the basic causes of the 2003 blackout is the establishment of electric reliability organizations that would enforce reliability standards through improved communication standards and would be overseen by FERC.

Regarding consumer protections, the conference report repeals PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company Act, that currently protects consumers from higher electricity prices. However, the conference report contains little language that ensures that consumers are shielded from higher bills resulting from, for instance, large electricity and gas convergence mergers. Public Power, co-ops and municipalities, who represent 25 percent of the industry, are especially vulnerable to the lack of adequate consumer protections in the report.

Also, the conferees stripped the tradable tax credits for Public Power that I and others had included in the Senate Finance Committee amendment. These tradable tax credits would have allowed Public Power to invest in renewable energy and assist them in decreasing their CO2 emissions by moving away from burning as much coal as they currently do.

On fiscal policy, I do not believe the conference report shows fiscal restraint or uses taxpayer dollars wisely. The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution calls for approximately $15.5 billion to be spent on tax incentives, and the Senate Finance Committee stayed within this budget blueprint. The conference report contains $24 billion in tax incentives plus another $5.4 billion in spending and with no offsets.

One of my concerns is that important tax incentives that appeared in the Senate and House Energy bills over the past 2 years have not been included in the conference. Where they have been included, they are so pared back that I question whether the various industries will take advantage of the smaller energy efficiency tax incentives provided, particularly for the construction, lighting, and heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, or HVAC, for commercial buildings.

Gone are provisions for tax incentives to promote the use of more efficient air-conditioners, even though 70 percent of the energy demand in peak periods is for air-conditioners, and that was a significant factor in last August's major blackout in the Northeast. The lack of these provisions that could be instrumental in the short term for energy savings simply does not move the Nation's energy policy forward into this century.

The knowledge of alternative and renewable sources has been known for over a century as the simple principle of fuel cells --combining hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity and pure water--and the photovoltaic principle behind the solar power of the sun, were both discussed in 1839--164 years ago. We should ask ourselves why, instead of our daily diet of approximately 19 million barrels of oil a day, we are not also choosing to bolster even more the development of these sources of renewable energy for our consumption and to grow our economy.

Imagine automobiles driven by fuel cells--our U.S. auto manufacturers and the Federal Government are beginning to invest in fuel cells. Imagine businesses and homes having their own free-standing and reliable fuel cells--one of the cleanest means of generating electricity--that Senator Lieberman and I have promoted. Fuel cells can provide electricity instead of our current vast, centralized fossil fuel systems that make our air dirtier and less healthy, causing us to spend millions more on health care each year. We need to be more serious about promoting these technologies.

I do not believe that the Energy conference report before us sets the Nation on the right course for the future and well being of the Nation, and I will, regretfully, vote against the conference report with the hope that Congress can continue working toward a more meaningful, secure, and balanced energy-efficient future for the Nation.

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.

Mr. President, I agree with the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Kansas. There is no objection on this side. It has been cleared. There is no objection on our side. I presume the bill will be voted through.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence in recommending passage of the conference report on H.R. 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

The bill authorizes appropriations for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the intelligence components of the F.B.I. and other U.S. government agencies. It also contains a number of important provisions intended to lay the foundation for process and organizational changes in the intelligence community.

The classified nature of U.S. intelligence activities prevents us from disclosing publicly the details of our budgetary recommendations. As I described to the Senate when our bill was considered in July, 10 years ago I joined a majority of Senate colleagues in voting to express the sense of Congress that the aggregate amount requested, authorized, and spent for intelligence should be disclosed to the public in an appropriate manner. The House opposed the provision. I continue to believe that we should find a means, consistent with national security, of sharing with the American taxpayer information about the total amount, although not the details, of our intelligence spending. In holding the intelligence community accountable for performance, and the Congress and the President accountable for the resources they provide to the Intelligence Community, citizens should know the Nation's overall investment in intelligence.

The bill includes a number of provisions intended to promote innovations in information sharing, human intelligence, and counterintelligence, among other things. Many of these initiatives represent initial steps rather than solutions, but they are necessary to raise the level of awareness in Congress and the executive branch regarding a variety of urgent and complex challenges and to lay the foundation for reforms the committee will be considering next year.

Section 351 of the bill requires a report on the threat posed by espionage in an era when secrets are stored on powerful, classified U.S. computer networks rather than on paper. A single spy today can remove more information on a disk than spies of yesteryear could remove with a truck. We have already suffered losses, for example, in the Ames, Regan, and Hanssen cases, where sloppy computer security permitted traitors to exploit large quantities of highly classified information. Unfortunately, these cases provide a warning that appears to have gone largely unheeded. We still do not have a cohesive set of policies and procedures to protect our classified networks from cleared insiders who seek to betray their country, Our reliance on classified information systems for warfighting and intelligence is growing daily, yet hundreds of thousands of individuals have virtually unrestricted access to these critical networks.

All but a few Government personnel are honest and patriotic Americans, but the sad fact is that there has not been a day since WWII when we have not had spies within our Government. There have been over 80 espionage convictions in the last 25 years. They include personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, NSA, CIA, FBI, State Department, the National Reconnaissance Office and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It is a very real and continuing problem and there will undoubtedly be more espionage arrests in the months and years ahead. Espionage is an unfortunate fact of life, and we simply cannot afford to operate classified systems in which thousands of individuals enjoy the ability to download or upload classified information at will.

Other countries are seeking to exploit this situation to collect defense secrets, and no doubt contemplate blinding our Government and troops in time of war. We would never permit such broad access to weapons in an armory, yet these classified systems are of much greater strategic significance than M-16 rifles, tanks, or 500 pound gravity bombs. We simply must develop the policies and capabilities necessary to control input and output devices on these systems and monitor their use.

Section 352 of the bill calls for a review of our cumbersome, outmoded, and many would say ineffective personnel security system. It is a fact that almost every spy has held high-level security clearances. It is also a fact that few, if any of these individuals were identified through routine security clearance updates.

Most people who become spies join the government with no intention of betraying their country. Research by the Defense Department shows that most spies are people who develop grievances as their careers progress, at times having developed money and alcohol problems as well, and then turn to espionage as a way of feeding their egos and their bank accounts.

Yet, we give a young, single Navy recruit seeking an intelligence assignment the same scrutiny as a 30-year intelligence operative with financial troubles who routinely travels to countries of concern. Further, even when derogatory information surfaces, sometimes even very disturbing information which raises serious espionage issues, the government rarely revokes the clearances we rely on so heavily and which cost so much.

In the information age, we cannot wait 5 to10 years to identify employee problems that may be related to espionage. Too much damage can be done too quickly. We need fresh thinking and recommendations that will provide more effective security for the large sums of money the taxpayer is investing.

Section 354 of our bill calls for a review of classified information sharing policies within the Federal Government. This is an issue closely related to the foregoing provisions regarding inadequate security policies. ATM machines, for example, are a wonderfully convenient and effective means of providing access to banking resources--but they could not exist without magnetic cards, personal identification

numbers, cameras and locks. Similarly, improved security is not a barrier to more flexible information sharing, it is a fundamental ingredient. The Joint Inquiry report on the 9/11 attacks highlighted information sharing as a critical shortcoming that prevented the interception of several hijackers. To help accelerate reform, the Joint Inquiry requested an administration report by this past June 30 on progress to reduce barriers among intelligence and law enforcement agencies engaged in counterterrorism. Unfortunately, no report has been submitted.

We have the technology for improved information sharing, and significant progress is being made. A Terrorist Threat Integration Center has been established, and new guidelines regarding sharing of grand jury information have been promulgated. These are very important steps forward. But to truly break down the barriers to information sharing, rather than relying on work-arounds, we need revised policies on sharing classified information which recognize and exploit the opportunities provided by modern information technology. This is especially important as we look to bridging the gap between the Intelligence Community and organizations charged with Homeland Security.

Section 355 of the bill identifies a problem that would probably stun most taxpayers. Simply stated, notwithstanding the many billions of dollars invested in complex intelligence systems, ranging from satellites, to aircraft, to ships, and land-based collection platforms, there is no capability in the executive branch to independently and comprehensively model the performance of these systems. Consequently, new multi-billion-dollar systems are procured without the ability to rigorously evaluate potential trade-offs with other systems.

Questions such as these should be asked: Given projected satellite, aircraft and UAV constellations, what is the marginal value of adding space-based radar satellites? Are there alternative investments that can better satisfy intelligence requirements? Don't senior policymakers need the ability to systematically examine the interactions of these many systems to identify trade-offs that can be achieved?

Currently, most of the analysis of proposed collection systems is performed by the agencies seeking to justify their programs, or by senior policy officials who struggle to apply common sense and spread- sheet level analysis to systems that often have overlapping capabilities. There is no reason that a rigorous, independent and comprehensive capability cannot be developed to support the programmatic reviews of the DCI and the Defense Department. This is but one example, though an important one, of the ways in which we believe the intelligence community can improve its strategic planning and decisionmaking processes.

Section 356 of the bill raises an issue of profound strategic significance for the United States, namely the growing reliance of our country on hardware and software produced overseas. Although specific cases are classified, this is clearly a growing problem.

After 1973, when the risks inherent in America's reliance on foreign oil became clear, many positive steps were taken to ameliorate our national vulnerabilities. Those steps included establishment of a strategic petroleum reserve, establishment of the Central Command, and research into alternative fuels. Unlike our dependence on foreign oil, however, our rapidly growing dependence on foreign hardware and software creates numerous opportunities for espionage and information operations that are extremely difficult to detect. Ironically, the countries identified by the FBI as most actively engaged in economic espionage against the United States are leading producers of the hardware and software we all use on a daily basis.

The plain truth is that even the Defense Department does not know where most of the hardware and software it uses originates. Moreover, the Government does not have the right to examine source code unless voluntarily supplied. Further, at the present time, there are limited capabilities for analyzing source code that is made available. This situation requires serious attention by senior policymakers, including Congress, and the report required by section 356 should help to prompt a long overdue discussion of these issues.

In concluding my remarks, I would like to look beyond our current bill to the issues the Intelligence Committee must contend with next year. Other committees share responsibility for reviewing the funding and systems needed by the intelligence community, but our committee is uniquely positioned to evaluate the intelligence community's performance--both its successes and failures--and to identify the changes required to meet the challenges of the future.

In my view, money alone is not sufficient to enable the intelligence community to reach its full potential. The current structure of the intelligence community is fundamentally unchanged from its establishment in 1947. Serious change is long overdue. I strongly believe that new structures and authorities, coupled with able and aggressive leadership, are required to dramatically improve our intelligence community's efficiency and effectiveness.

In many respects, the organizational issues confronting the intelligence community are analogous to those confronting the Defense Department prior to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The fundamental problem confronting the Department of Defense prior to Goldwater-Nichols was excessive military service control over military operations, policies and budgets. In response, Congress strengthened the weak integrating mechanisms in DoD, specifically the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commanders of the Combatant Commands. The difference in military performance before Goldwater-Nichols--e.g., Desert 1, Lebanon, and Grenada--and after--Panama, Haiti, and Iraq--is stark and clear. In fact, I am convinced that the Goldwater-Nichols Act did more to enhance U.S. national security than any weapons system ever procured by the Department of Defense.

Although the Goldwater-Nichols reorganization is not a precise template for restructuring the intelligence community, the problems are fundamentally similar: towering vertical structures--NSA, CIA, DIA, NRO, NIMA, the service intelligence components--and relatively weak integrating mechanisms--the DCI and his Community Management Staff. Any reorganization proposal needs to address this fundamental problem of inadequate integration and coordination. In that regard, I would suggest that the intelligence community's lack of responsiveness to the DCI's declaration of war on al- Qaida prior to 9/11 was in part a result of the DCI's weak community management authorities and inability to move the system. I am convinced that a strengthened DCI could more effectively manage the intelligence community, leading to performance improvements comparable to those achieved by the military in the wake of the Goldwater-Nichols Act.

A conservative, incremental approach would involve the creation of a permanent cadre to staff the DCI much as the Secretary of Defense has an OSD staff. This simple change, coupled with aggressive business process reengineering and ``year of execution budget authority'' for the DCI over NFIP programs, would significantly strengthen the DCI's ability to manage the intelligence community and respond to new threats and opportunities.

A more aggressive and far-reaching plan would have to address the fundamental changes that have occurred since the current structure was established by the National Security Act of 1947. Specifically, it would recognize that the once useful distinction between home and abroad has become not only irrelevant, but dysfunctional. This is not to suggest any need to reduce the protections afforded U.S. persons under the Constitution, merely that globalization and the development of cyberspace, combined with the rise of apocalyptic terrorists groups empowered by lethal new technologies, require a different, more agile structure that is not impeded by outmoded geographic distinctions. In that regard, we should find ways to more effectively coordinate foreign and domestic intelligence.

Achievement of any substantial reorganization will require meticulous research by the congressional oversight committees, a substantial hearing record, and sustained interest by the administration. At the end of the day,

incremental steps will be better than none, and a more aggressive reorganization require a consensus not only on the Intelligence Authorization Committees, but with the Armed Services Committees as well. As challenging as these issues are, we simply cannot fulfill our duty to the American people unless we confront these crucial issues when Congress returns next year.

In conclusion, the important steps we have taken with this measure, to include full funding of the administration's requests for intelligence activities, are the result of lengthy deliberations on matters as complex as they are vital. It is gratifying to see the work that has been done in both Chambers come together today in a bill we can send to the President. It is a useful first step, but only a first step, towards the development of an intelligence community better able to adapt to the rapidly evolving threats confronting our great nation.

Finally, I would like to thank the chairman and the Committee staff for their arduous work on this bill. I look forward to making great strides together next year.

I urge support for this measure.