Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act of 2004

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act,'' together with my colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. This bill would extend the successful model of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provision--which requires candidates for Federal office to take explicit personal responsibility for TV and radio ads--to additional types of media, including the Internet, that today aren't covered.

Although the elections of 2004 are still months away, the onslaught of political advertising has already begun. As the election nears, with each passing day, political ads become more and more prevalent.

But something is different this year. Two things, actually.

First, as anyone who watches television has probably noticed, this year political ads feature a personal statement by the candidate saying ``I'm so-and-so and I approved this message.'' The candidates are taking full personal responsibility, clearly and publicly, for the advertisements put out by their campaigns.

This is the direct result of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions included in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. As the author of the original ``Stand By Your Ad'' amendment, together with my good friend Senator Collins, I'm proud of the effect our new requirement is having on the tone of radio and TV campaign ads. Already, in the first election cycle where it applies, it's making a real difference.

The reason is simple. The public is turned off by aggressively negative attack ads--and candidates know it. So when candidates have to associate themselves in a personal manner with their ads, they are going to be extra careful about the tone. A nasty or controversial attack can backfire, leading to negative perceptions of the candidate who approved it.

In short, candidates are thinking twice about the tone of the ads they put on the air. Representatives of national, non-partisan campaign reform groups such as Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and the Center for Responsive Politics have all been quoted in the press as saying that there has been a noticeable shift away from the overly negative attack ads of the past.

The second change this year is that Internet communications are coming into their own as a vehicle for political advertising. Americans are spending more time online--plus many now have Internet connections and computing power that enables them to view video that matches the quality of television. Political campaigns have taken note, and have made major strides in tapping into the tremendous potential of the Internet for reaching large numbers of people at low cost.

According to press reports, the Presidential campaigns already have e-mailed links to campaign videos to literally millions of people. These Internet-based communications can spread like wildfire, because each recipient can easily forward them to others. Moreoever, Web videos often attract attention from the news media, so the message sometimes ends up getting carried on television as well.

Political messages are also starting to appear on websites that carry banner or pop-up ads. It has been estimated that politicians will spend an estimated $25 million this year on online ads.

The rise of Internet-based ads is not just a flash in the pan--it's a trend that is sure to continue.

I have a long history of supporting the Internet, e-commerce, and Internet-based innovation. In politics as in so many other areas, the Internet brings exciting opportunities--in this case, to create new avenues for democratic dialogue and engagement in the political process.

But I don't believe that the Internet should be allowed to become a vehicle for political candidates to sidestep existing campaign rules and engage in mudslinging without accountability.

The problem is, the scope of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions is limited. They only apply to television and radio ads. Internet communications are not covered. Nor are communications such as newspaper ads or mass mailings.

Already, there are clear signs that highly negative ads are migrating to the Internet--in part because the ``Stand By Your Ad'' requirements don't apply there. Here are a few recent press headlines:

``Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web.''

``Presidential Ad War Hits the Web--Harsh Attacks Leveled Online, Where TV Rules Don't Apply.''

``Political Smears Thrive Online.''

The ads these articles talk about aren't just ordinary text messages sent through e-mail or posted on a website.

Often, they are full, professionally produced videos, equal in quality to anything you might see on TV--and therefore packing the same emotional impact as a well crafted TV ad. But instead of using broadcast, satellite, or cable, they are e-mailed to thousands or even millions of Internet users.

So today, I am introducing the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act.'' You could also call it ``Stand By Your Ad II.'' The basic idea is that what works for TV and radio should work for other types of communications as well. Candidates wishing to distribute negative campaign materials via the Internet or the mail should be held just as accountable as they are now for ads they put on the air.

Specifically, the bill would require that campaign communications such as audio or video ads transmitted over the Internet, newspaper ads, brochures, bulk mailings, bulk e-mail, and prerecorded telephone calls--if they mention another candidate for the same office--must carry a ``Stand By Your Ad'' disclaimer stating that the candidate personally approved the message. For Internet audio or video and prerecorded phone calls, the requirements would be identical to those that now apply to radio or television. For printed materials, whether paper or electronic, a picture of the candidate would be required to accompany the statement.

I believe that forcing candidates to take personal responsibility also forces them to think long and hard about releasing the types of aggressive negative attacks that have been growing all too common during election seasons. This is important, because when people get turned off by the electoral process, voting and public involvement suffer. Decreasing the amount of negativity in our political campaigns may help reduce some of the cynicism about politics, and bring more people back into the process.

I say to my colleagues, Stand By Your Ad is working. So let's take the next step and extend this success to campaign communications generally. Let's build on the good work we've already done in getting candidates to take responsibility for what they say.

And yes, I'm Ron Wyden, and I stand by this statement.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act,'' together with my colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. This bill would extend the successful model of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provision--which requires candidates for Federal office to take explicit personal responsibility for TV and radio ads--to additional types of media, including the Internet, that today aren't covered.

Although the elections of 2004 are still months away, the onslaught of political advertising has already begun. As the election nears, with each passing day, political ads become more and more prevalent.

But something is different this year. Two things, actually.

First, as anyone who watches television has probably noticed, this year political ads feature a personal statement by the candidate saying ``I'm so-and-so and I approved this message.'' The candidates are taking full personal responsibility, clearly and publicly, for the advertisements put out by their campaigns.

This is the direct result of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions included in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. As the author of the original ``Stand By Your Ad'' amendment, together with my good friend Senator Collins, I'm proud of the effect our new requirement is having on the tone of radio and TV campaign ads. Already, in the first election cycle where it applies, it's making a real difference.

The reason is simple. The public is turned off by aggressively negative attack ads--and candidates know it. So when candidates have to associate themselves in a personal manner with their ads, they are going to be extra careful about the tone. A nasty or controversial attack can backfire, leading to negative perceptions of the candidate who approved it.

In short, candidates are thinking twice about the tone of the ads they put on the air. Representatives of national, non-partisan campaign reform groups such as Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and the Center for Responsive Politics have all been quoted in the press as saying that there has been a noticeable shift away from the overly negative attack ads of the past.

The second change this year is that Internet communications are coming into their own as a vehicle for political advertising. Americans are spending more time online--plus many now have Internet connections and computing power that enables them to view video that matches the quality of television. Political campaigns have taken note, and have made major strides in tapping into the tremendous potential of the Internet for reaching large numbers of people at low cost.

According to press reports, the Presidential campaigns already have e-mailed links to campaign videos to literally millions of people. These Internet-based communications can spread like wildfire, because each recipient can easily forward them to others. Moreoever, Web videos often attract attention from the news media, so the message sometimes ends up getting carried on television as well.

Political messages are also starting to appear on websites that carry banner or pop-up ads. It has been estimated that politicians will spend an estimated $25 million this year on online ads.

The rise of Internet-based ads is not just a flash in the pan--it's a trend that is sure to continue.

I have a long history of supporting the Internet, e-commerce, and Internet-based innovation. In politics as in so many other areas, the Internet brings exciting opportunities--in this case, to create new avenues for democratic dialogue and engagement in the political process.

But I don't believe that the Internet should be allowed to become a vehicle for political candidates to sidestep existing campaign rules and engage in mudslinging without accountability.

The problem is, the scope of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions is limited. They only apply to television and radio ads. Internet communications are not covered. Nor are communications such as newspaper ads or mass mailings.

Already, there are clear signs that highly negative ads are migrating to the Internet--in part because the ``Stand By Your Ad'' requirements don't apply there. Here are a few recent press headlines:

``Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web.''

``Presidential Ad War Hits the Web--Harsh Attacks Leveled Online, Where TV Rules Don't Apply.''

``Political Smears Thrive Online.''

The ads these articles talk about aren't just ordinary text messages sent through e-mail or posted on a website.

Often, they are full, professionally produced videos, equal in quality to anything you might see on TV--and therefore packing the same emotional impact as a well crafted TV ad. But instead of using broadcast, satellite, or cable, they are e-mailed to thousands or even millions of Internet users.

So today, I am introducing the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act.'' You could also call it ``Stand By Your Ad II.'' The basic idea is that what works for TV and radio should work for other types of communications as well. Candidates wishing to distribute negative campaign materials via the Internet or the mail should be held just as accountable as they are now for ads they put on the air.

Specifically, the bill would require that campaign communications such as audio or video ads transmitted over the Internet, newspaper ads, brochures, bulk mailings, bulk e-mail, and prerecorded telephone calls--if they mention another candidate for the same office--must carry a ``Stand By Your Ad'' disclaimer stating that the candidate personally approved the message. For Internet audio or video and prerecorded phone calls, the requirements would be identical to those that now apply to radio or television. For printed materials, whether paper or electronic, a picture of the candidate would be required to accompany the statement.

I believe that forcing candidates to take personal responsibility also forces them to think long and hard about releasing the types of aggressive negative attacks that have been growing all too common during election seasons. This is important, because when people get turned off by the electoral process, voting and public involvement suffer. Decreasing the amount of negativity in our political campaigns may help reduce some of the cynicism about politics, and bring more people back into the process.

I say to my colleagues, Stand By Your Ad is working. So let's take the next step and extend this success to campaign communications generally. Let's build on the good work we've already done in getting candidates to take responsibility for what they say.

And yes, I'm Ron Wyden, and I stand by this statement.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Geospatial Information Act of 2004 which would create a Geospatial Management Office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Geospatial information is a critical component of effective planning for homeland security.

My interest in homeland security geospatial information developed out of my efforts to ensure support for pre-disaster mitigation programs, such as Project Impact. Project Impact was started by FEME in 1997 to help communities become disaster-resistant by preventing damage and loss of life and property during a disaster and reducing recovery time and costs afterwards.

Geospatial technologies, such as satellite imagery and aerial photography, provide data that create the maps and charts that can help prevent a disaster from occurring or lessen the impact of an unforeseeable event by equipping first responders with up-to-date information. In the event of a terrorist chemical attack, knowing which way a contaminated plume will travel can save lives. Similarly, the damage of a natural disaster, such as wildfire, can be lessened by maps that help predict which areas will be in the path of the blaze.

My own State of Hawaii is vulnerable to hurricanes, torrential rains and flooding, tsunamis, droughts, earthquakes, and even wildfires. Four years ago, flooding on the islands of Hawaii and Maui caused approximately $20 million in damage to private and public facilities. In order to predict floods more accurately, local officials need current, interoperable data on water levels and surrounding infrastructure so that accurate maps predicting the flow of water can be created on demand. Accurate maps are also critical for swift and safe evacuation procedures.

All levels of government are more effective and efficient when employing geospatial technology, especially in the area of homeland security. Its uses include, but are not limited to: disaster early warning and mitigation, border monitoring, criminal investigations, public health protection, and critical infrastructure oversight.

In the past, geospatial information management has been done in a piecemeal fashion. Domestic geospatial data procurement and sharing is poorly coordinated and managed. According to a 2003 study by Cary and Associates, a geotechnology consulting firm, the Federal Government spends $5 billion per year on geospatial goods and technologies. This figure does not include the amount being spent by State and local agencies, which some experts estimate is two to three times that of the

Federal Government. It is also estimated that at least half of the government's geospatial spending is going towards redundant activities.

During a House Government Reform hearing in June 2003, Mark Forman, then the Administrator of the Office of E-Government and Information Technology, admitted that the Office of Management and Budget had no idea how much money federal agencies spend on geospatial procurement.

The Administration's current solution to this problem is Geospatial One-Stop, an online portal where organizations and individuals can access geospatial information developed by Federal, State, and local agencies. While Geospatial One-Stop is a good sharing tool, it helps to reduce government redundancy only if agencies voluntarily access data from it instead of procuring the data themselves. With no one keeping a close eye on an agency's geospatial spending, there is no incentive for it to utilize this tool.

The legacy agencies that make up DHS had traditionally managed their own geospatial procurement. But many of the homeland and non-homeland security missions of DHS complement each other. Sharing maps and data reduces redundancy, provides savings, and ensures better information for disaster response.

Currently, the DHS Chief Information Officer (CIO) is working to break down this geospatial stove piping within the Department by naming a Geospatial Information Officer. However, there is no single office in DHS officially responsible for geospatial management, and therefore, no corresponding budget. In the present structure, the Geospatial Information Officer does not have the authority to compel the five DHS directorates to cooperate with his efforts. The entire agency should make geospatial coordination a priority.

A geospatial management office needs to be created and codified within DHS. A congressionally mandated office would give the Geospatial Information Officer more authority with which to do this job.

The Office of Geospatial Management has the potential to significantly increase the quality of the resources homeland security officials rely on by reducing redundancy and improving the quality of geospatial procurement. But in order to do this it needs authority and funding.

This office would also serve as a mechanism for coordinating with State and local authorities. Much of the geospatial information available today is created at the state and local levels. Centralizing this information will make it more widely available to first responders and other homeland security officials.

The Homeland Security Geospatial Act of 2004, will address these needs by: creating the Office of Geospatial Management under the CIO; giving this office the responsibility for managing DHS geospatial activities and coordinating with State and local officials on geospatial initiatives that pertain to homeland security; and naming the Department as member of the Geospatial One-Stop Board of Directors, which will give DHS a role in coordinating federal geospatial activities.

We can improve the Department's mission of protecting America, while maximizing the funds. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is intended to help the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) improve our Nation's aviation security system. All of us continue to have real concerns about our Nation's security given the threats that we face, and aviation continues to be a focus of those that want to do us harm.

I, first, want to acknowledge the work of Senators McCain and Hollings. We all have spent a lot of time thinking about the problems of our aviation system, and the threats our country faces in today's environment. Their support and thoughts have enabled all of us to put together a better piece of legislation, and we share a common goal--a better, and more secure, aviation system.

We began this process right after 9-11, but more needs to be done. Most of us understand that improvements have been made, but it has now been three years and we must complete the job. This bill, the Aviation Security Advancement Act, will move us further toward completion of this task.

When terrorists hijacked airlines and used them as weapons of mass destruction against our nation, the American people saw firsthand that we were quite vulnerable to an unseen enemy, and that our way of life was threatened in a way it had never been before. National security immediately became the primary focus of our government, and many other private entities, as everyone understood that another failure of this magnitude would be a devastating blow to the country.

In response to 9-11, Congress passed P.L. 107-71, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act or ATSA, which federalized the airport security screener workforce and required an expansive strengthening of aviation security in the U.S. As a frequent flier, I believe that the vast majority of travelers are confident in the new security regime and feel that we are much safer than we were under the system that existed before. This confidence is borne out through increasing passenger levels that are fast approaching those prior to the terror attacks in 2001. With an increased volume of passenger flow and aircraft traffic will come further challenges for aviation security. The Aviation Security Advancement Act is intended to help TSA foster a higher level of security than currently exists and focus on additional tasks that need to be addressed in this rapidly changing environment.

Yet I continue to be completely frustrated by the progress we are making with respect to screener effectiveness. Testimony before our Committee, public reports and recent editorials, all tell us that we can not rest until the effectiveness of screeners is improved. In addition, new technologies need to be deployed to help them do their jobs. We can not spend billions of dollars on a system and have it barely measure up to pre-9-11 days.

The Aviation Security Advancement Act takes needed steps to bolster aviation security and provides TSA the financial and physical support needed to close numerous loopholes in the current security regime. In response to

the increasing use of aviation by the traveling public, this legislation standardizes the Federal screener workforce and requires TSA make efforts to improve the efficiency of passenger screening to insure individuals are processed in a faster, more secure manner. To address shortcomings in cargo security, the bill would overhaul all- cargo aviation security by implementing recommendations developed by the Aviation Security Advisory Committee and by funding a new grant program to pursue technological improvements that will help secure freight on all-cargo and passenger aircraft. The bill also seeks to increase the efficiency of baggage screening by funding capital security projects at airports across the country, while providing money for the research and development of advanced screening machines, and mandating a schedule for in-line placement of Explosive Detection Systems rather than various alternative means now practiced at many airports.

In addition, the bill would mandate improvements to a number of other sectors of aviation security where I feel more needs to be done. Among these efforts would be increased support for the Federal Air Marshal program, airport perimeter security, and intelligence information sharing. It also authorizes funding for TSA to develop a biometric center of excellence to focus on definitive identification of travelers and employees which I believe could have a dramatic impact on the speed of passenger screening while providing greater security for the entire system.

It is clear that we need to take more action to improve the security of our skies. The Aviation Security Advancement Act will be a big step in the right direction. I appreciate the support of Senators McCain and Hollings and urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the bill so that we can move it through the Committee quickly.

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