Free Speech Protection Act of 2004

Mr. President, I am going to send a copy of this bill to the desk to be printed in the Record. It is not going to be referred to any committees in the waning minutes of this 108th Congress, but I will submit it for the Record. My plans are to reintroduce this legislation in January when we reconvene for the 109th Congress.

I thought it might be helpful to have this legislation in the Record for my colleagues to review. It is called the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004.

This bill is designed to ensure that the free speech guarantees enshrined in the First to the Constitution will be strong and effective for many generations to come. After all, it is the free flow of news and information to the public on a wide variety of concerns which makes our democracy vibrant and alive.

Indeed, the very design of our democratic institutions is premised in large part upon an informed citizenry that could exercise informed judgments.

As James Madison once observed:

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And apeople who

mean to be their own Governor, must arm themselves with the

power that knowledge gives.

Madison and the other Founders of our great Republic understood full well that the best guarantee of a knowledgeable citizenry is a free press and a public free to speak to the press. The press must be free to report on the human condition, the conduct of public officials, matters of business and corporate governance, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of our society and its institutions.

A free press must also be able to access a broad spectrum of views from a wide variety of sources. Once individuals deliberate over such information, they are able to make more educated decisions. In addition, they can also more effectively and intelligently participate in matters of public concern. To quote Madison once again:

Popular government without popular information or the means

of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy,

or perhaps both.

In fact, one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian government is that the state controls the press and similar sources of public information. Such regimes are characterized by extreme levels of secrecy and a total lack of transparency. The free flow of information to the public is greatly restricted. Criticism of the government could result in imprisonment or even death.

In recent memory, such regimes existed in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where the press was often used as a tool for propaganda. Unfortunately, there are still a number of governments around the globe today that greatly restrict the flow of news and information to their citizens.

The United States, in its formative years, never chose that path. The Founding Fathers of this great Nation of ours knew the value of a free press because they had often been denied it by their colonial rulers. Repressive measures had long been part of English history in this regard, such as the censorship of published materials and a licensing system whereby nothing could get published without the government's consent.

Our Founding Fathers recognized then that for a society to remain free, it must also allow for divergent views and opinions to be expressed, and for ideas to be openly exchanged. In many respects, the rights of free speech and a free press protect the government from trampling on the other political and personal liberties all Americans hold so dear.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are like the government watchdog that shines a spotlight when other rights are being threatened. Without this, the press becomes an extension of the government and the people know only what the government wants them to know. As Jefferson once commented:

When the press is free and everyone is able to read, all is

safe.

Congress cannot afford to stand idly by and allow our sacred First Amendment freedoms to be threatened. Let me be clear. The legislation I submitted to the desk, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004, is not merely about protecting the press. Instead, this legislation is about consumer protection. It is about openness, debate, the free flow of information and deliberation--the very ideals that the Senate holds so dear.

It is also about ensuring that our constituents, the American citizenry, have access to the knowledge and information they need to make educated decisions and fully participate in our democracy.

Yet these freedoms which we hold so dear are not as safe as they have been in other times in the life of our Nation. They have come under attack by the heavy hand of Government in a manner not seen since the height of the Watergate scandal 30 years ago.

The press today is frequently being subpoenaed to appear in Federal court and threatened with fines and/or imprisonment if they refuse to reveal a confidential source to the prosecutor or attorneys involved in the lawsuit. In some instances, the prosecutor or attorneys might also request the reporter's notes, video outtakes, or other unpublished information.

In recent months, the press has come under intense pressure to reveal the identity of their confidential sources, threatening the public's right to know.

In Providence, RI, WJAR-TV reporter Jim Taricani aired an FBI surveillance tape in 2001 that showed an aide to Mayor Vincent ``Buddy'' Cianci accepting a bribe from a local businessman. Taricani broke no law in airing the tape, but a special prosecutor was subsequently brought in to investigate who leaked the information. He refused to identify the source and was convicted of criminal contempt yesterday in Federal court. Taricani now faces 6 months in prison when he is sentenced in December.

Perhaps the most alarming instance in recent months of the growing threat to the sacred right to freedom of speech in America is the case of Judith Miller of the New York Times. Last month, a Federal judge held Miller in contempt of court for refusing to name her sources to prosecutors investigating the disclosure to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and to other journalists of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, IV, had in a New York Times editorial criticized the Bush administration for claiming that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Unidentified senior administration officials revealed Plame's identity to Robert Novak and other Washington area journalists, allegedly as an act of revenge for Wilson speaking out against President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq.

Mr. Novak then published Plame's identity in a July 2003 column, which prompted an investigation by the Justice Department and the subpoenaing of several journalists before a Federal grand jury, including Judith Miller, Tim Russert of NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Walter Pincus and Glen Kessler of the Washington Post, and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

Some of these reporters have talked to the prosecutors after the alleged Government sources signed waivers releasing the journalists from any pledge of confidentiality. New York Times reporter Judith Miller, however, has refused to testify, even under the limited terms of the waiver. As a result, she is being held in contempt of court and could face up to 18 months in jail unless she agrees to testify.

What is so surprising about this case is that Judith Miller never even published an article in the New York Times, or any other newspaper or magazine for that matter, about Valerie Plame. The mere fact that Miller contemplated writing such an article and had conducted interviews for it was enough for the judge to hold her in contempt of court for refusing to name sources.

Currently, 31 States and the District of Columbia have enacted protections for gatherers and disseminators of news and information. They include red States, blue States, Alabama, North Carolina, and Montana, for example.

Why then is there a need for a Federal statute in this area? A strong and uniformed Federal law on shielding would provide uniformity and consistency to the patchwork of inconsistent court decisions and State statutes currently in place.

In many instances, whether the disclosure will be compelled and how much information will be disclosed depends upon the particular State in which the journalist is pursuing a story when he or she is subpoenaed. The different potential outcomes affect reporters' practices, the flow of information, the articles written or not written, in various news media. It ultimately impacts the public's ability to learn about matters of interest and importance as well.

The protections that these laws and court rulings provide vary widely in detail and in scope. For example, some States grant nearly complete protection for sources and information, while

others provide little or none. In addition, the protections may differ in their applicability to criminal and/or civil proceedings.

In the Federal court system, for instance, most have interpreted Branzburg, a 1972 United States Supreme Court decision, to provide at least qualified news gathering protection--that is, a protection that can be overcome in certain circumstances. A few Federal courts, however, such as the Seventh Circuit, have rejected such protection, or have limited it only to when the subpoenas are being used to harass the press.

For those reasons, I think it is quite clear that a national standard would protect gatherers and disseminators of information from the varying State statutes and their interpretations by State courts. This goal is exactly what the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004 would achieve.

Under the legislation, the protection against compelled disclosure for sources would be absolute. The protection against compelled disclosure of news and information, however, is qualified. That is, an individual involved in gathering news would be required to reveal their unpublished material only under certain circumstances. The legislation requires three criteria to be met before such news or information can be disclosed.

First, the person seeking the news or information must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the news or information is critical or necessary to significant legal issues before a judicial, legislative, or administrative body that has the power to issue a subpoena.

Secondly, the news or information could not be obtained by alternative means. Finally, there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure that must exist.

The legislation I am introducing this evening is a work in progress. Obviously, in the coming weeks I intend to further refine it, and in the 109th Congress to seek out my colleagues' advice and counsel on how we might proceed. I am nevertheless introducing this bill in the closing hours of this Congress because I believe the Senate discussion of this matter is urgent. The public's right to know is under attack. When that happens, all Americans suffer since they are deprived of knowledge and information which affects their lives.

There are countless examples of information that we have received because there have been confidential sources who have come forward. Certainly, we can go back to Watergate, Whitewater, or Iran-Contra, Abu Ghirab--the prison scandal in Iraq--Enron, WorldCom, corporate governance issues, the list is almost endless. Had it not been for confidential sources coming forward and sharing information with a free press that would then share that with the public, if we had to rely exclusively on government press releases or press conferences, then we might never have learned anything about some of these issues which have been so vitally important to make our Government and our Nation stronger.

I urge my colleagues to take a look at this proposal and urge them to consider it when we return in January. I will reintroduce it again and urge them to support it.

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

Mr. President, I am going to send a copy of this bill to the desk to be printed in the Record. It is not going to be referred to any committees in the waning minutes of this 108th Congress, but I will submit it for the Record. My plans are to reintroduce this legislation in January when we reconvene for the 109th Congress.

I thought it might be helpful to have this legislation in the Record for my colleagues to review. It is called the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004.

This bill is designed to ensure that the free speech guarantees enshrined in the First to the Constitution will be strong and effective for many generations to come. After all, it is the free flow of news and information to the public on a wide variety of concerns which makes our democracy vibrant and alive.

Indeed, the very design of our democratic institutions is premised in large part upon an informed citizenry that could exercise informed judgments.

As James Madison once observed:

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And apeople who

mean to be their own Governor, must arm themselves with the

power that knowledge gives.

Madison and the other Founders of our great Republic understood full well that the best guarantee of a knowledgeable citizenry is a free press and a public free to speak to the press. The press must be free to report on the human condition, the conduct of public officials, matters of business and corporate governance, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of our society and its institutions.

A free press must also be able to access a broad spectrum of views from a wide variety of sources. Once individuals deliberate over such information, they are able to make more educated decisions. In addition, they can also more effectively and intelligently participate in matters of public concern. To quote Madison once again:

Popular government without popular information or the means

of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy,

or perhaps both.

In fact, one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian government is that the state controls the press and similar sources of public information. Such regimes are characterized by extreme levels of secrecy and a total lack of transparency. The free flow of information to the public is greatly restricted. Criticism of the government could result in imprisonment or even death.

In recent memory, such regimes existed in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where the press was often used as a tool for propaganda. Unfortunately, there are still a number of governments around the globe today that greatly restrict the flow of news and information to their citizens.

The United States, in its formative years, never chose that path. The Founding Fathers of this great Nation of ours knew the value of a free press because they had often been denied it by their colonial rulers. Repressive measures had long been part of English history in this regard, such as the censorship of published materials and a licensing system whereby nothing could get published without the government's consent.

Our Founding Fathers recognized then that for a society to remain free, it must also allow for divergent views and opinions to be expressed, and for ideas to be openly exchanged. In many respects, the rights of free speech and a free press protect the government from trampling on the other political and personal liberties all Americans hold so dear.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are like the government watchdog that shines a spotlight when other rights are being threatened. Without this, the press becomes an extension of the government and the people know only what the government wants them to know. As Jefferson once commented:

When the press is free and everyone is able to read, all is

safe.

Congress cannot afford to stand idly by and allow our sacred First Amendment freedoms to be threatened. Let me be clear. The legislation I submitted to the desk, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004, is not merely about protecting the press. Instead, this legislation is about consumer protection. It is about openness, debate, the free flow of information and deliberation--the very ideals that the Senate holds so dear.

It is also about ensuring that our constituents, the American citizenry, have access to the knowledge and information they need to make educated decisions and fully participate in our democracy.

Yet these freedoms which we hold so dear are not as safe as they have been in other times in the life of our Nation. They have come under attack by the heavy hand of Government in a manner not seen since the height of the Watergate scandal 30 years ago.

The press today is frequently being subpoenaed to appear in Federal court and threatened with fines and/or imprisonment if they refuse to reveal a confidential source to the prosecutor or attorneys involved in the lawsuit. In some instances, the prosecutor or attorneys might also request the reporter's notes, video outtakes, or other unpublished information.

In recent months, the press has come under intense pressure to reveal the identity of their confidential sources, threatening the public's right to know.

In Providence, RI, WJAR-TV reporter Jim Taricani aired an FBI surveillance tape in 2001 that showed an aide to Mayor Vincent ``Buddy'' Cianci accepting a bribe from a local businessman. Taricani broke no law in airing the tape, but a special prosecutor was subsequently brought in to investigate who leaked the information. He refused to identify the source and was convicted of criminal contempt yesterday in Federal court. Taricani now faces 6 months in prison when he is sentenced in December.

Perhaps the most alarming instance in recent months of the growing threat to the sacred right to freedom of speech in America is the case of Judith Miller of the New York Times. Last month, a Federal judge held Miller in contempt of court for refusing to name her sources to prosecutors investigating the disclosure to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and to other journalists of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, IV, had in a New York Times editorial criticized the Bush administration for claiming that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Unidentified senior administration officials revealed Plame's identity to Robert Novak and other Washington area journalists, allegedly as an act of revenge for Wilson speaking out against President Bush's rationale for invading Iraq.

Mr. Novak then published Plame's identity in a July 2003 column, which prompted an investigation by the Justice Department and the subpoenaing of several journalists before a Federal grand jury, including Judith Miller, Tim Russert of NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Walter Pincus and Glen Kessler of the Washington Post, and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

Some of these reporters have talked to the prosecutors after the alleged Government sources signed waivers releasing the journalists from any pledge of confidentiality. New York Times reporter Judith Miller, however, has refused to testify, even under the limited terms of the waiver. As a result, she is being held in contempt of court and could face up to 18 months in jail unless she agrees to testify.

What is so surprising about this case is that Judith Miller never even published an article in the New York Times, or any other newspaper or magazine for that matter, about Valerie Plame. The mere fact that Miller contemplated writing such an article and had conducted interviews for it was enough for the judge to hold her in contempt of court for refusing to name sources.

Currently, 31 States and the District of Columbia have enacted protections for gatherers and disseminators of news and information. They include red States, blue States, Alabama, North Carolina, and Montana, for example.

Why then is there a need for a Federal statute in this area? A strong and uniformed Federal law on shielding would provide uniformity and consistency to the patchwork of inconsistent court decisions and State statutes currently in place.

In many instances, whether the disclosure will be compelled and how much information will be disclosed depends upon the particular State in which the journalist is pursuing a story when he or she is subpoenaed. The different potential outcomes affect reporters' practices, the flow of information, the articles written or not written, in various news media. It ultimately impacts the public's ability to learn about matters of interest and importance as well.

The protections that these laws and court rulings provide vary widely in detail and in scope. For example, some States grant nearly complete protection for sources and information, while

others provide little or none. In addition, the protections may differ in their applicability to criminal and/or civil proceedings.

In the Federal court system, for instance, most have interpreted Branzburg, a 1972 United States Supreme Court decision, to provide at least qualified news gathering protection--that is, a protection that can be overcome in certain circumstances. A few Federal courts, however, such as the Seventh Circuit, have rejected such protection, or have limited it only to when the subpoenas are being used to harass the press.

For those reasons, I think it is quite clear that a national standard would protect gatherers and disseminators of information from the varying State statutes and their interpretations by State courts. This goal is exactly what the Free Speech Protection Act of 2004 would achieve.

Under the legislation, the protection against compelled disclosure for sources would be absolute. The protection against compelled disclosure of news and information, however, is qualified. That is, an individual involved in gathering news would be required to reveal their unpublished material only under certain circumstances. The legislation requires three criteria to be met before such news or information can be disclosed.

First, the person seeking the news or information must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the news or information is critical or necessary to significant legal issues before a judicial, legislative, or administrative body that has the power to issue a subpoena.

Secondly, the news or information could not be obtained by alternative means. Finally, there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure that must exist.

The legislation I am introducing this evening is a work in progress. Obviously, in the coming weeks I intend to further refine it, and in the 109th Congress to seek out my colleagues' advice and counsel on how we might proceed. I am nevertheless introducing this bill in the closing hours of this Congress because I believe the Senate discussion of this matter is urgent. The public's right to know is under attack. When that happens, all Americans suffer since they are deprived of knowledge and information which affects their lives.

There are countless examples of information that we have received because there have been confidential sources who have come forward. Certainly, we can go back to Watergate, Whitewater, or Iran-Contra, Abu Ghirab--the prison scandal in Iraq--Enron, WorldCom, corporate governance issues, the list is almost endless. Had it not been for confidential sources coming forward and sharing information with a free press that would then share that with the public, if we had to rely exclusively on government press releases or press conferences, then we might never have learned anything about some of these issues which have been so vitally important to make our Government and our Nation stronger.

I urge my colleagues to take a look at this proposal and urge them to consider it when we return in January. I will reintroduce it again and urge them to support it.

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

I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Mikulski, Senator Bennett, and Senator Harkin to establish a division of food and agricultural science within the National Science Foundation to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I present this to begin a critical discussion that I believe we must have over the next several months and perhaps over the next year or so about how we are going to ensure we capitalize on the technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of our agricultural production.

We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. farm has grown from 19 to 129. We have a tremendously innovative agricultural research program. Our farmers, our farm leaders are on the cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible for one farmer to feed 129 people.

In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology.

In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. As some have said: A person who is well fed can have many problems. A person who is hungry has but one problem. Unless we maximize technology and new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural resources.

Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The leading competitiveness of our U.S. producers is only as solid as our willingness to invest in forward-looking investments and build upon our historic successes.

Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations.

It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in how it works but what it can do.

We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many as half a million children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and maybe a million die from vitamin A deficiency. Well, through plant biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines has developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from the sunflower, a beta-carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The Golden Rice now has that vitamin A, and that is going to make a significant difference in dealing with malnutrition.

We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make farmers self-sufficient, where we can restore the farm economy in many of these countries, is through plant biotechnology.

But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing today is a discussion draft which I hope is going to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the future.

This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University.

I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm.

In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world.

I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 109th Congress. I invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and my cosponsors in the next session of Congress to talk about moving forward on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture and its benefits to all our populations.

Now, I cannot speak for all agricultural groups, but I talked to agricultural leaders of the various commodities, the farm organizations in my State of Missouri. They are very excited about it because these are the people who have been on the leading edge, who have pushed for the new technology, who have pushed for the new research that has enabled them to go from feeding 19 people per farmer a half century ago to feeding 129 people per farmer.

Madam President, this, I hope, will be the start of something really big. So, with that, I send the draft of the legislation to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I want to share a few remarks about our friend and colleague Peter Fitzgerald. It has been a real honor for me to serve with him. We have had quite different backgrounds.

Peter grew up in suburban Chicago and attended very fine parochial schools. He attended Dartmouth College where he graduated cum laude with highest distinction majoring in Latin and Greek. He got his law degree from the University of Michigan and came from a very prominent family there.

He is a wonderful person, a person I got to know, although our backgrounds are different, I having grown up in south Alabama, the son of a country store owner, going barefoot and swimming in the creeks. We enjoyed talking with one another. He liked Bear Bryant, and we talked about a number of things.

One thing he shared with me on a number of occasions is his belief that there should be in government, in the business of the United States and the State governments, integrity. He talked with me about his recommendation to President Bush about a U.S. attorney appointment in Chicago. He wrestled with it and talked with me over a period of weeks about the fact

he believed that even if he chose any of the very fine candidates who had been discussed in Chicago, he would be choosing somebody from that area that people would think was not the best, was not independent, that they might be influenced by someone.

He had a growing feeling that he should choose someone from outside the area. It is an usual thing to do, but that is what he did. He searched the country over and chose U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald, a nonrelative, I believe, who tried some of the biggest terrorist cases in New York. That is who he recommended and that is who he put there. Why? Because he wanted the best prosecutor with the best background, with the most integrity, and total independence to do the right thing there. That indicated to me just how serious he was about this issue.

When he ran for the Senate, he was in the banking business, an attorney in the banking business. He promised he would not involve himself and would recuse himself from decisions dealing with banking. People said that was not necessary. Others did not do that. He said he thought it was the appropriate thing to do, and he adhered to that the entire time he was here, recusing himself on a number of such issues.

He chose the higher standard, the road less traveled. He did not like fraud, corruption, and abuse. As a member of the Consumer Affairs Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, he took a key role in the investigation of Enron and the abuses that occurred there.

He was a constant and strong opponent of no-bid contracts. He saw a lot of those in Illinois. He did not like it, and he spoke out against it in a very strong way. Particularly, there was a matter involving Springfield and a major construction contract. He feared the good old boys, those with influence and inside word, would be the beneficiaries of those contracts rather than the taxpayers. He thought it should be bid on a professional basis, and he battled very hard for that. He did not like and does not like cronyism, and he spoke out against it.

His commercial banking experience led him to study the behavior of the stock markets and brokerage firms in the Federal thrift plan, which he admired greatly, saying it was the most efficient and best plan for investors that he was aware of because the fees and costs were so low.

He, therefore, was a champion of integrity and full disclosure of fees in the brokerage business and spoke out aggressively in favor of that. Why did he say that? Because he thought insiders were taking too big a piece of the pie and if that money, instead of being paid out in fees, sometimes never seen by the investors, had been reinvested in the stocks or mutual funds, that the investor would have ended up with a lot more money over a lifetime, and he had charts to show it.

He spoke out against that special interest group because he believed it was the right thing to do. He believed in representing the consumers, and those are the people who make America go.

He has a wonderful wife Nina who attended Smith College, the London School of Economics, and Harvard Law School. They have one son, Jake. He has chosen to spend more time with them. We can certainly understand his decision to do that.

I also thank him for his service to the people of the United States. He did so in this single term with integrity, courage, decency, and a great spirit of cooperativeness. I have enjoyed serving with him, as did all of us in this body, and I wish him Godspeed.

I yield the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin and Senator Dodd in introducing the ``National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act.'' Our goal is to assist States in establishing in electronic databases to monitor the administration of prescription drugs and deal more effectively with the growing national problem of prescription drug abuse.

Our Health Committee listened carefully to the thoughtful concerns and comments of the expert witnesses who testified at our recent hearing on this issue, and we have sought to meet these concerns in our bill.

Over 6 million Americans currently use prescription drugs for non- medical purposes. 31 million adults and adolescents have reported abusing prescription drugs at least once. Since 1992, the number of young adults who abuse prescription pain relievers and other potentially addictive drugs has more than tripled. Prescription drug abuse among youths of age 12 to 17 has increased tenfold.

State efforts to monitor the prescribing of potentially addictive medications can help curb this abuse. Currently, 19 States have such monitoring programs in place, including Massachusetts, and they vary widely in the collection and storage of data and the methods used for protecting privacy, while using the information in the databases to encourage the non-medical use of prescription drugs and reduce their diversion for illegal purposes.

This bill authorizes the Secretary of HHS to award grants to states to establish prescription drug monitoring programs. For States with existing programs, the Secretary can award grants to upgrade their systems, standardize the data collected, and allow its sharing among States. The legislation includes an important provision allowing States with existing programs to receive funding, even if it is not feasible for the States to meet all the conditions required for new programs. The legislation recognizes that existing programs have been designed with the specific needs of each state in mind, and we should not block funding, even if particular programs do not match exactly the template in the bill.

Any such program, however, must include strong safeguards for medical privacy, and must make certain that the database cannot be used to bring improper pressure on physicians to avoid prescribing essential medication for patients in need. The proper treatment of patients in pain, for example, is an enormous medical challenge, and this essential medical mission will be more difficult if patients fear that the privacy of their prescription histories will not be protected, or if physicians begin to look over their shoulders whenever they prescribe needed pain medication. The legislation permits state programs to release data under controlled and limited conditions. It is important to note, however, that States are free to impose even more stringent restrictions on the release of data than those required under our legislation.

We all share the goal of reaching the right balance between the interests of patients, physicians, and law enforcement. Our bill requires that in their grant applications, each State must propose security standards for the electronic databases, including appropriate encryption or other information technology. In their applications, States must also set standards for use of the database, including a description of a process to certify that requests for information are legitimate. The bill also requires the Secretary to provide an analysis of the privacy protections within two years after enactment.

Prescription drug abuse has been increasing every year. Physicians want to treat pain, and law enforcement officials want to stop the flow of prescription drugs from the pharmacies to the streets. A national prescription drug monitoring program will be a valuable resource to achieve both goals. I commend Senator Sessions for his leadership on this important health issue, and I look forward to early action by Congress to deal with this serious national problem.