A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend the availability of allotments for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 under the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the United States-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act.

This bill is the result of a field hearing I conducted in Las Cruces, NM two years ago during my tenure as the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The focus of the hearing was water resource issues that were developing along the U.S.-Mexico border-- particularly the area encompassing Las Cruces, El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico.

There had long existed an ongoing effort to address water quality issues and waste-water infrastructure needs in the border region, but I was concerned that issues regarding the availability of future water supplies were growing. The testimony at that hearing made clear that there exists little consensus on how growing communities in the border region will address their future water needs. In particular, I was struck by the lack of agreement on the long-term viability of future groundwater sources, many of which involve aquifers underlying communities in both the United States and Mexico. Given the rapid population growth along the U.S.-Mexico border and the increasing demand for water, there is a strong need to gain a common understanding of the limits of our shared groundwater resources. A thorough understanding of the resource is the first step to avoiding conflicts similar to those that have arisen between the United States and Mexico over shared surface waters--e.g. the Rio Grande.

The United States-Mexico Transboundary Assessment Act is intended to address the lack of binational consensus regarding the source and availability of future water supplies along the border. It will do this by establishing a scientific program, involving entities on both sides of the border, to comprehensively assess priority transboundary aquifers. The information and scientific tools developed by this program will be extremely valuable to State and local water resource managers in the border region. This effort is to be led by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) working closely with the border states and local entities. Over the last several years the USGS has been working with key stakeholders in the border region to design this technical program.

I understand that establishing this scientific program and accurately assessing our shared water resources is just a step towards developing the long-term plans and solutions that will help avoid future international disputes concerning scarce water supplies. This small step, however, is an important one, and is recognized by a number of organizations familiar with the need for cooperative efforts between the United States and Mexico on shared water resources. In its 6th Report on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, an independent federal advisory committee managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recommended the initiation of a ``border-wide groundwater assessment program to systematically analyze priority trans-boundary aquifers.'' Also, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a January 2003 report of its U.S.-Mexico Binational Council, included as one of its recommendations that Mexico and the United States ``improve data collection, information gathering, and transparency as the first step to developing a long-term strategy for water management.''

Ultimately, the necessary long-term strategy will have to be developed by the communities and other water users who reside along the border. Working with each other and their state water resource agencies, I believe successful strategies can be developed so long as the information that is the basis for the plans is the most accurate possible. In that respect, the USGS has a strong and important role to play. This bill will ensure that the USGS will be able to fulfill this role which, in turn, will enhance the prospects for our border communities to plan for their future and manage their growth in a manner that ensures their long-term viability and prosperity.

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

Mr. President, I want to speak for just a few minutes today on an issue on which I have introduced a bill. The bill is S. 1966. It is a bill to require a report on the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The purpose of this legislation is to shed some light on the process that is being used by this administration to determine the status of so-called enemy combatants who are held by our Government at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. It has now been nearly 2 years since the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo as prisoners of the United States. Yet these individuals are still being held in what most would refer to as legal limbo.

My colleagues will recall that on July 16, I urged the Senate to adopt an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill. That amendment was tabled 52 to 42. It is essentially the same provision--it contained the same provisions I have now put into S. 1966, this freestanding legislation I have introduced.

The day after that amendment was defeated I sent a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld expressing my concern over the apparent lack of any kind of legal process being extended to the detainees being held at Guantanamo. Only recently I received a reply from the Department of Defense. In that letter, the Department of Defense maintains that it:

. . . reviews on a regular basis the continued detention of

each enemy combatant and assesses the appropriate disposition

of each individual case.

According to the Defense Department, at the time they wrote back to me, they said that the review had resulted in the release of 64 detainees who were determined to no longer pose a threat to the United States, and more releases were expected.

However, the letter fails to address the more important question, which is whether the Department's review of these detainees is being done in accordance with any recognized civilian or military legal process.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

What prompted me to come to the floor of the Senate today was an article I saw in the morning paper. This appeared in various papers around the country, but the one I have here in front of me is from the Boston Globe. It says:

The U.S. military sent home 20 ``enemy combatants'' last

weekend who were being held without trial at Guantanamo Bay

Naval Base in Cuba, only to replace them with the same number

of new prisoners.

It has a quotation from a spokesperson for the military saying:

We cannot talk about any of the individuals that may have

departed the island due to security concerns.

According to this article, all those transferred last week have been returned, many of them to Pakistan, and all of those transferred last weekend, according to representatives from the countries they are citizens of, said they will be released once they have arrived in those countries.

The figure now, as I understand it, is there are 88 suspects who have been transferred out of Guantanamo Bay. Four were released, 4 were handed over to Saudi Arabia, and the remaining 650 or 700 are still there. As this article indicated, we continue to add additional people to this prison we are operating there at Guantanamo.

There are various complaints described in the article by foreign diplomats about the process we are following. There is a statement by the attorney for one of the human rights organizations that has complained bitterly about the improvisational policy decisions and the arbitrary power over prisoners at the base.

My motives for offering this legislation are very simple. While I obviously have concerns about judicial treatment and the failure of any kind of legal process being followed in the treatment of these detainees in Guantanamo, I am even more concerned about the implications of this treatment we are affording these individuals for our own fighting forces as well as our international reputation.

The bill I filed here in the Senate today requires the Secretary of Defense to report on the status of these detainees, including the process that was utilized to determine that status for those who have already been released from Guantanamo. The bill requires the Secretary to provide information related to this release, how long they were detained, the conditions of their release, if any, the explanations of why the Department of Defense has now determined these individuals could be released after what has in many cases been a very long detention.

For the remaining detainees--those who are still at Guantanamo--the administration has still refused to provide ``access to an impartial tribunal to review whether any basis exists for [detainees] continued detention.'' The detainees have not been allowed to speak with their families or their counsel, nor have they been informed of any charges against them, as far as I am informed.

The bill I filed requires that within 90 days of its enactment the Secretary of Defense provide the Senate with information related to the process used to categorize and hold these detainees. It does not call for release of the detainees. It does not in any way, shape, or form require the release of any classified information other than to the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate and House committees. The amendment merely seeks to clarify for the Senate and for the Congress the process by which the detainees' status is determined.

Like most Americans, I have always thought that what distinguished our country in the history of the world was our commitment to individual freedom and to the rule of law; that the bedrock of a free society is the obligation taken by the Government to afford individuals with certain legal protections, and as a Nation committed to these principles we have been instrumental in the formulation and enforcement of international law, particularly when it came to the treatment of prisoners of war. For over 75 years, the United States has adhered to the Geneva Convention. Even during conflicts with insurgents and irregular forces, we have adhered to the Geneva Convention. Whenever our Nation has gone to war, we have taken pride in going above and beyond the requirements of international law as set out in the third Geneva Convention of 1929. In fact, the Department of Defense has adopted its own detailed regulations and doctrine and field manuals built on the provisions of the Geneva Convention which have guided our military through many conflicts regardless of size and scope and duration.

These regulations we have in our own military, like international law, do not contemplate the legal limbo we are holding these detainees in at Guantanamo. Neither the Geneva Convention nor the established military regulations define or use the term the President is using here. This term, unlawful combatant, is a new term which has come up in order to sidestep the requirements both of the Geneva Convention and of our own military regulations. Army Regulation 190-8 provides an effective and efficient process to

categorize the detainees on the battlefield. According to that provision, detainees must be classified either as an enemy prisoner of war, a recommended retained person entitled to enemy prisoner-of-war protections, an innocent civilian who should be immediately returned to his or her home or released, or a civilian internee who, for reasons of operational security, or probable cause incident to criminal investigation, should be retained. Such internees have the right to appeal the order directing their internment by challenging the existence of imperative security reasons that led to their detention.

The President's unilateral determination of the detainee's status at Guantanamo Bay signals a significant departure from the spirit of the Geneva Convention and a significant departure from the letter of established military regulations. In stark contrast to our Government's previous commitment to adherence to the rule of law and human rights, this administration has adopted a position that once the President designates that a person is a so-called enemy combatant or unlawful combatant, a term created by the administration, that person can be locked up and held incommunicado as long as the President desires, with absolutely no legal rights; no right to review of that decision. This means even if the administration makes a mistake or is given faulty information, it is virtually impossible for the person involved to prove his or her innocence because not only can they not talk to a lawyer or to family members, but they do not have the right even to know what they are being charged with.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the narrow question of whether the Federal courts have the power to hear challenges to the detainees' imprisonment. This is a significant move towards restoring the system of checks and balances, which needs to be restored--the system of checks and balances our Founders felt was essential to preserving liberty in the country. Similarly, the bill I have filed begins to fulfill Congress's constitutional responsibility to oversee what the executive branch does. It calls on the administration to tell us whether its actions are in accordance with military regulations and doctrine.

Our goal is to bring transparency to the issue and to fulfill Congress's constitutional role of oversight of the executive. We should know what process the administration is using to determine the status of these detainees.

My concern is much broader than what happens to these particular detainees. I am concerned about the impact of our treatment of these detainees on the treatment of our own military personnel who are captured in future conflicts. Former U.S. diplomats and judge advocate generals and even former U.S. prisoners of war filed ``friend of the court'' briefs in the Supreme Court questioning the legality and wisdom of the administration's policy of open-ended detentions at Guantanamo. Some of those briefs were extremely thoughtful, in my view. One former diplomat wrote:

It has been the experience of each of us that our most

important diplomatic asset has been this Nation's values. . .

. The hint that America is not all that it claims, that it .

. . can accept that the Executive Branch may imprison whom it

will and do so beyond the reach of due process of law demeans

and weakens this Nation's voice abroad.

In their brief, former judge advocate generals, the military's legal prosecutors and those most familiar with the law as it applies to enemy prisoners of war, strongly argue:

To be sure, this is a perilous time, as the President has

stated. But that does not justify indefinite confinement

without any type of hearing or judicial review. The United

States played a major role in the development and adoption of

the Geneva Conventions. The requirements of those

Conventions. The requirements of those Conventions are

incorporated directly into American Military Regulations.

American failure to provide foreign prisoners with the

protections of the Geneva Conventions may well provide

foreign authorities, in current or future conflicts, with an

excuse not to comply with the Geneva Conventions with respect

to captured American military forces.

Just as compelling are the stories told in the ``friends of the court'' brief filed by former prisoners of war. They argue that as a result of their own experience as prisoners of war, the United States has an interest ``in fostering the development, acceptance and enforcement of international norms pursuant to which prisoners of war and others captured during armed conflicts will be treated humanely and in accordance with the rule of law.'' They emphasize, that in particular, they ``wish to ensure that the treatment by the Untied States of foreign detainees . . . is such that the United States and former American POWs retain the moral authority to demand fair and humane treatment for any future Americans detained by foreign governments.''

However, nothing more clearly demonstrates this point than the actual stories themselves. Leslie H. Jackson, Edward Jackfert, and Neal Harrington are former prisoners of war. Mr. Jackson was captured by the Germans, who adhered to the Geneva Conventions. Mr. Jackfert and Mr. Harrington were held by Japan, which had not ratified and did not purport to follow international law.

If you will allow me to read them their brief:

Mr. Jackson was captured by the German Army on April 24,

1944, when his B-17 bomber crashed. Jailed and interrogated

for approximately one week, he was then transported to Stalag

17, a converted concentration camp. In his 13 months of

captivity, Mr. Jackson was granted the bare necessities:

shelter, minimal food, and the ability to socialize with

other American POWs. While the experience was harsh and

unpleasant, Mr. Jackson was never tortured or otherwise hurt

by the German guards. To follow the terms of the Geneva

Conventions of 1929, to which Germany was a party, Mr.

Jackson's German captors placed the appropriate Geneva

Convention signage in the barracks, permitted the

international Red Cross to ship basic necessities to POWs,

and allowed a Geneva inspector to survey the premises. Mr.

Jackson believes that his survival and relatively good health

while in captivity are the result of the German Army's

adherence to the 1929 Geneva Conventions.

The experiences of Mr. Jackfert and Mr. Harrington in the

custody of Japan, which had not ratified and did not purport

to follow the 1929 Geneva Conventions, offer a sharp

contrast. Both men were serving with the U.S. Army in the

Philippines when it surrendered to the Japanese in 1942, and

both subsequently served several years of hard captivity

beyond the reach of any Geneva Convention protections. Both

were part of the Bataan Death March and its well-documented

horrors. Mr. Harrington was forced into slave labor in a

Japanese coalmine, and saw his compatriots starved, beaten

and killed. Mr. Jackfert was also forced into slave labor

and suffered the extreme effects of heavy labor, cruelty

and inadequate nourishment, going from 125 pounds to 90

pounds in a matter of months. There was no Geneva signage,

no recognition of prisoner rights, and virtually no Red

Cross access.

Nor were the experiences of Mr. Harrington and Mr. Jackfert

atypical. Studies have determined that the death rate of U.S.

Military personnel interned by Japan was as high as 40

percent while the death rate of personnel captured and

interned by Germany was little more than 1 percent. . . .

Moreover, while it was rare for American POWs detained in

Germany to be tortured, the opposite was true for American

POWs in Japan. No one can adequately impart the suffering

most allied prisoners endured [in Japan]. . . . They were

beaten, kicked, robbed . . . and were buried alive. . . .

[T]he overwhelming majority endured ``hell on earth.''

Again, let me say, I am in no way suggesting that the detainees are not being treated humanely. In fact, from all information I have received, they are being treated humanely. But what I and these briefs that were filed in the Supreme Court are suggesting is that our failure to adhere to some recognized legal process in determining the status of these detainees opens the door for other countries to refuse to adhere to any legal process as well. It may very well result in arbitrary confinement and harsh treatment or other inhumane practices applied to our own citizens.

This bill will help Congress fulfill its duties and obligations as outlined in the Constitution and in U.S. law and regulation.

I hope we can quickly pass this legislation when we return for the second session of the Congress in January.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Boston Globe, Nov. 25, 2003]

US Releases 20 Detainees, Transfers 20 More to Cuba

(By Charlie Savage)

Washington.--The U.S. military sent home 20 ``enemy

combatants'' last weekend who were being held without trial

at Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba--only to replace them

with the same number of new prisoners.

The prisoner transfer, the first such movement since mid-

July, followed a determination by senior military and

intelligence officials that the outgoing group ``either no

longer posed a threat to U.S. security or no longer required

detention by the United States,'' according to a statement

the Department of Defense released yesterday.

``We can't talk about any of the individuals that may have

departed the island due to security concerns,'' said

Lieutenant Colonel Pamela Hart, a spokeswoman for the

isolated facility at which the United States detains and

interrogates suspected terrorists.

But a high-ranking Pakistani official, who said yesterday

that at least five of the outgoing transferees were Pakistani

citizens, offered a chilly reaction to the Pentagon's news.

``The government is happy, but this is too damn late,''

said Imran Ali, second secretary of the Pakistan Embassy,

adding that 21 Pakistanis have been released from Guantanamo,

but another 37 are still there.

``Their lives have been destroyed. Their families have gone

through psychological trauma, since they were not terrorists;

they were just low-level Taliban fighters.''

The Pakistani official's reaction illustrated the pressure

on the United States to resolve the situation--especially

from allies in the war on terrorism who have expressed

concern for their citizens who are among the 660 prisoners

from 42 countries being held at the base.

Although the State Department has been negotiating with a

number of countries to continue the detention of some, all

those transferred last weekend will be released by their

countries, U.S. officials said.

The Pentagon statement said that ``at the time of their

detention, these enemy combatants posed a threat to U.S.

security.'' It offered little information about the new

arrivals, except that they were transferred from U.S. Central

Command in the Middle East.

Navy Lieutenant Commander Barbara Burfeind, a Pentagon

spokeswoman, said none of the new detainees were captured in

Iraq.

The weekend transfers of the detainees bring to 88 the

number of Al Qaeda or Taliban suspects who have been

transferred out. Of those, 84 were released and four were

handed over to Saudi Arabia.

Ruth Wedgwood, an international law professor at Johns

Hopkins University, said the arrival of the 20 new detainees

follows a flare-up of fighting by Taliban insurgents in

Afghanistan.

Wedgwood has defended the Bush administration's position

that the rules of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the

detainees because they were not soldiers of a regular Afghan

army.

``Dismayingly, the Taliban have become very active again in

the southern area, so really . . . the war isn't over in that

area,'' she said.

Not among those who were transferred for release, according

to a senior Pentagon official, were the three ``juvenile

enemy combatants''--Afghans ages 13 to 15 who were captured

fighting alongside the Taliban and whose detention at the

prison has attracted particularly intense international

criticism. The commander of Guantanamo operations, Major

General Geoffrey Miller, had recommended that they be sent

home in August.

U.S. officials say they have been coordinating with UNICEF

in the event that the young fighters are released. UNICEF, a

United Nations agency that has offered to handle the juvenile

combatants, runs a program to ease the reintegration of

former child soldiers back into their home societies.

``The State Department and UNICEF will make sure that if

they're returned to Afghanistan, they won't just be plopped

down,'' a Pentagon official told The Boston Globe last week.

Ken Hurwitz of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, a

New York-based organization, said that the surprise release

reflected the military's ``improvisational'' policy decisions

and its arbitrary power over the prisoners at the base.

``It's the rule of law that's the point,'' he said.

``They're saying, `Trust us, and we'll do the right thing.'

But there is no right thing unless it's pursuant to some kind

of ordered, lawful proceeding.''

Challenges to the detentions that have been filed in

federal court have so far been dismissed because the base is

located on Cuban soil--it has been leased and controlled by

the United States for a century--and outside the jurisdiction

of U.S. sovereignty. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court said it

would review the question of whether federal court

jurisdiction may extend there.

In a related development, the lawyer for Army Captain James

``Yousef'' Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who

was arrested in September in the alleged mishandling of

classified material, sent a letter to President Bush

yesterday asking that his client be released from pretrial

detention for Thanksgiving and his daughter's birthday.

``These charges do not warrant pretrial confinement of any

kind,'' Eugene Fidell wrote in the letter. ``While military

sources initially reported a wild laundry list of suspected

offenses, such as spying or aiding the enemy, these have now

been reduced to two relatively minor [charges]. . . .

Nonetheless, he is being treated as if the original laundry

list of charges was the legal basis for his confinement. This

is totally wrong and unfair.''

Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security

Council, said he would look into the letter, but had no

comment on the president's behalf.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Domenici, Murray, Jeffords, Cantwell, Akaka, Reed, Chafee, and Inouye entitled the ``Children's Health Equity Technical Amendments Act of 2003.''

Since the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, in 1997, a group of States that expanded coverage to children in Medicaid prior to the enactment of CHIP have been unfairly penalized for that expansion. States are not allowed to use the enhanced matching rate available to other States for children at similar levels of poverty under the act. As a result, a child in the States of New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania, because they were grandfathered in the original act or in Iowa, Montana, or a number of other States at 134 percent of poverty is eligible for an enhanced matching rate in CHIP but that has not been the case for States such as New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and a number of others, including Connecticut, Tennessee, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Maryland.

As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association reads, ``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 of the majority of uninsured children in their states.

For six years, our group of States have sought to have this inequity addressed. Early this year, I introduced the ``Children's Health Equity of 2003'' with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Ms. Cantwell and we worked successfully to get a compromise worked out for inclusion in S. 312 by Senators Rockefeller, and Chafee. This compromise extended expiring CHIP allotments only for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 in order to meet budgetary caps.

The compromise allowed States to be able to use up to 20 percent of our State's CHIP allotments to pay for Medicaid eligible children about 150 percent of poverty that were part of our State's expansions prior to the enactment of CHIP. That language was maintained in conference and included in H.R. 2854 that was signed by the President as Public Law 108-74. Unfortunately, a slight change was made in the conference language that excluded New Mexico and Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode Island needed specific changes so an additional bill was passed, H.R. 3288, and signed into law as Public Law 108-107, on November 17, 2003. This second bill included language from legislation that I introduced with Senator Domenici, S. 1547, to address the problem caused to New Mexico by the conference committee's change.

Unfortunately, one major problem with the compromise was that it would allow the 10 States flexibility with its CHIP funds for allotments between 1998 and 2001 and not in the future. Therefore, the inequity continues with CHIP allotments last year, this year, and into the future. This legislation would address that problem and ensure that all future allotments give these 11 States the flexibility to use up to 20 percent of our CHIP allotments to pay for health care services of children above 150 percent of poverty in our respective state Medicaid programs.

This rather technical issue has real and negative consequences in States such as New Mexico. In fact, due to the CHIP inequity, 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 last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its federal CHIP allocations.

With the passage of H.R. 2854 and H.R. 3288, that situations will improve somewhat. Unfortunately, the change was not made permanent and does not apply to future CHIP allotments. This legislation would correct this problem.

It is important to note that this initiative includes strong maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our State to conduct outreach and

enrollment efforts and program simplification to find and enroll uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they must receive the health coverage for which they are eligible.

The bill does not take money from other States's CHIP allotments. It simple allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments from the Federal government on our uninsured children--just as other States across the country are doing.

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

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, I rise today to introduce legislation that, if enacted, could have a monumental impact on the lives of thousands of working men, women and families in America. Today, along with Senators Enzi, and Sessions, I am pleased to reintroduce the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act. The primary purpose of this legislation is to give families and employers greater flexibility in meeting and balancing the demands of work and family.

The demand for family time is evident. Let me give you some of the latest statistics. Seventy percent of employees don't think there is a healthy balance between work and personal life. Seventy percent of employees today say that family is their most important priority. This compares to 54 percent in 2000. Forty six percent of employees either feel overworked, overwhelmed by the quantity of their work, or lack the time to step back and reflect on their work. Sixty one percent of adults say they would give up some of their pay for more time with their family. Employees say that finding time for family is a more pressing concern than layoffs, 32 percent vs 22 percent. This compares to 25 percent in 1999.

In light of the cry of America's workers for more family time, and in honor of today's 10-year anniversary of the Family Medical Leave Act, I am introducing the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act, which will build upon the spirit of the FMLA, by updating federal law to allow a more flexible workplace. This legislation is not a total solution: there are many other provisions under the 64-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act that need our attention. But the legislation I am introducing today is an important part of the solution. It gives working families a choice.

The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act in a nutshell consists of three main provisions. The first allows employees the option of taking time off in lieu of overtime pay. The second gives employees the option of ``flexing'' their schedules over a two week period. In other words, employees would have 10 ``flexible'' hours that they could work in one week in order to take 10 hours off in the next week. The third provision gives employees the option of a ``flexible credit hour program,'' under which the employer and employee can agree to allow the employee to work excess hours in his schedule in order to accrue hours to be taken off at a later time. The flexible credit hour option is for employees who do not get the opportunity to work overtime, but still want a way to build up hours to take off later.

Flexible work arrangements have been available in the Federal Government since 1978. For over three decades, federal workers have had this special privilege. The federal program was so successful in fact, that in 1994 President Clinton issued an Executive Order extending it to parts of the Federal government that had not yet had the benefits of the program. The President stated that: ``Broad use of flexible arrangements to enable Federal employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.'' I couldn't agree more.

While Federal employees enjoy the benefits of flexible workplace arrangements, members of the private sector do not have such options. The Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act corrects this and extends this option to all businesses covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

So, who are these workers who are currently covered by the FLSA but do not have the ability to exercise workplace flexibility? They are some of the hardest working Americans. Sixty percent of these workers have only a high school education. Eighty percent of them make less than $28,000. A great percentage of them are single mothers with children. They are working hard to meet their family's economic needs as well as their emotional needs. And while government can't mandate love and nurture, it can get out of the way and eliminate barriers to opportunities for love and nurture. That is what the Family Time and Workplace Flexibility Act does.

In the subsequent weeks and months we will undoubtedly hear from some that what working families really need is more money. They need their overtime pay. That may well be true for some families, and this bill does not affect them in any way. But for other families, for families who want to choose to take time off with pay to attend a child's school play or PTA meeting, the issue is time, not money. The point is this the family should have the right to choose. Washington should not decide for them which priority is important for their family.

I am one who believes in the working men and women of America and in their ability to know what is best for their families. It is time for Congress to give families what they want, and not what Congress thinks they need. It's time to give working families what Federal employees have already--workplace flexibility.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, a bill summary, and an article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Family and Medical Leave Act was intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or one's own ``serious medical condition.''

Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies. According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave, two-thirds of covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order to comply with the Act.

Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain provisions of the Act has resulted in significant unintended administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers when the Act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members when employees plan to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace due to increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing policies. These problems have been well documented in six separate congressional hearings, including one I chaired and a House hearing where I testified.

Problems with the FMLA implementation have been documented in the courts. The validity of 13 different Department of Labor regulations relating to the Act has been challenged in 64 reported court decisions. Included in this, of course, is the Supreme Court's invalidation of one of the Department's regulations in the 2002 case of Ragsdale v. Wolverine Worldwide Inc. And, yesterday's Washington Post reported that there have been some 1,300 Federal cases dealing with various aspects of the law, according to the Department of Labor.

The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing regulations and interpretations have resulted in the FMLA being misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure if situations like pink eye, ingrown toenails and even the common cold will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious health conditions. Because of these concerns and well-documented problems with the Act, today I am introducing the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed technical corrections to the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore it to its original congressional intent.

The need for FMLA technical corrections has been confirmed and strengthened by six congressional hearings and by the recent release of key surveys. Conclusive evidence of the need for corrections has now been established. The Congressional hearings demonstrated that the FMLA's definition of serious health condition is vague and overly broad due to the Department of Labor's interpretations. Additionally, the hearings documented that the intermittent leave provisions, notification, and certification problems are causing many serious workplace problems. In addition, some companies testified that Congress should consider allowing employers to permit employees to take either a paid leave package under an existing collective bargaining agreement or the 12 weeks of FMLA protected leave, whichever is greater.

I am concerned that a recent decrease in paid leave for employees has been attributed to the administration's problematic FMLA interpretations. Some research shows a decline in voluntarily provided paid sick leave and vacation leave by the private sector. The 2000 Society for Human Resource Management Benefits Survey found that paid vacation was provided by 87 percent of companies in the year 2000 while the year before it was 94 percent. Paid sick leave was at 85 percent in 1999, and decreased to 74 percent the following year.

A recent survey conducted by former President Clinton's Department of Labor confirmed FMLA implementation problems. The Labor Department report found that the share of covered establishments reporting that it was somewhat or very easy to comply with the FMLA has declined 21.5 percent from 1995 to 2000.

The recent release of the Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM, 2003 FMLA Survey strongly reinforces the need for FMLA technical corrections. Respondents to the SHRM survey stated that, on average, more than half, or 52 percent, of employees who take FMLA leave do not schedule the leave in advance. Consequently, managers often do not have the ability to plan for work disruptions. Yesterday's Washington Post article reported that the biggest thing the Department of Labor hears about is the ``chronic use of unforseen, intermittent leave.'' Respondents to the SHRM survey also reported that, in most cases, the burden of the workload from the employee on leave falls to employees who are not on

leave. When asked whether they have had to grant FMLA requests they felt were not legitimate, 50 percent said they had. Additionally, more than one-third, or 34 percent, of respondents said they were aware of employee complaints over the past year regarding a co-worker's questionable use of FMLA leave.

The issue of intermittent leave also continues to be extremely difficult. SHRM's 2000 FMLA survey showed that three-quarters, or 76 percent, of respondents said they would find compliance easier if the Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to be offered and tracked in half-day increments rather than by minutes.

I am very concerned that both the SHRM and the Labor Department surveys show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not easier, ten years after it has been in place. I am hopeful that the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act will advance in the 108th Congress on a bipartisan basis to address this problem.

The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of the Society for Human Resource Management, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Society of Healthcare Human Resources Professionals, and close to 300 other leading companies and associations that make up the Family and Medical Leave Act Technical Corrections Coalition. This broad-based coalition shares my belief that both employers and employees would benefit from making certain technical corrections to the FMLA, corrections that are needed to restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good faith effort to comply with the Act.

The bill I am introducing today does several important things:

First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for ``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats' own original Committee Report on what types of medical conditions, such as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc., were intended to be covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions, for which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick leave policies.''

On the other hand, the Department of Labor's current regulations are extremely confusing and expansive, defining the term ``serious health condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than 3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives any type of continuing treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist. Such a broad definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not improve. The regulations also define as a ``serious health condition'' any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma, diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that absence and is absent for less than three days.

Second, the bill amends the act's provisions relating to intermittent leave to allow employers to require that intermittent leave be taken in minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine justification for early departures.

Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request that leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to provide written application within 5 working days of providing notice to the employer for foreseeable leave.

With respect to unforeseeable leave, the bill requires the employee to provide, at a minimum, oral notification of the need for the leave not later than the date the leave commences unless the employee is physically or mentally incapable of providing notice or submitting the application. Under that circumstance the employee is provided such additional time as necessary to provide notice.

Shifting the burden to the employee to request that leave be designated as FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question the employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's family's private matters, as required under current law, and helps eliminate personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be expected to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even attorneys have a difficult time understanding.

Under current law, it is the employer's responsibility in all circumstances to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. Failure to do so in a timely manner or to inform an employee that a specific event does not qualify as FMLA leave may result in that unqualified leave becoming qualified leave under FMLA. In addition, the courts have held that there is personal liability for employers under the FMLA and that an individual manager may be sued and held individually liable for acts taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. For example, in the 1995 case of Freemon v. Foley, in the Northern District of Illinois, the court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends to all those who controlled `in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability to take leave of absence and return to her position.''

Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans, including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules and procedures dealing with attendance requirements.

The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the concerns that have been raised about the Act. It leaves in place the fundamental protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very legitimate concerns that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to restore the FMLA to its original Congressional intent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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