Child Nutrition Initiatives Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation designed to prevent our nation's children and youth from succumbing to the dangers associated with underage alcohol use. The legislation that we introduce today, the STOP (Sober Truth On Preventing) Underage Drinking Act, will greatly strengthen our Nation's ability to combat the too often deadly consequences associated with underage drinking.

An initial examination of the problems presented by underage drinking is truly alarming. Alcohol is the most commonly used drug among America's youth. More young people drink alcohol than smoke tobacco or use marijuana combined. In 2002, 20 percent of eighth graders had drunk alcohol in the previous 30 days. Forty-nine percent of high school seniors are drinkers, and 29 percent report having had five or more drinks in a row, or binged in the past 2 weeks.

Tragically, we know that this year underage drinking will directly lead to more than 3,500 deaths, more than two million injuries, 1,200 babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome and more than 50,000 youths treated for alcohol dependence. We also know that the social costs associated with underage drinking total close to $53 billion annually, including $19 billion from automobile accidents and $29 billion from associated violent crime.

And while no one can argue with the tragic loss of life and significant financial costs associated with underage drinking, too few of us think of the equally devastating loss of potential that occurs when our children begin to drink. Research indicates that children who begin drinking do so at only 12 years of age. We also know that children that begin drinking at such an early age develop a predisposition for alcohol dependence later in life. Such early experimentation can have devastating consequences and derail a child's potential just as she or he is starting out on the path to adulthood. The consumption of alcohol by our children can literally rob them of their future.

The truly alarming and devastating effects of underage alcohol use are what initially led Senator DeWine and I to begin work to address this important issue. Over the last few months we have worked extensively with Representatives Roybal-Allard, Wolf, DeLauro, Osbourne and Wamp to craft the broad legislative initiative that we introduce today.

The STOP Underage Drinking Act creates the framework for a multifaceted, comprehensive national campaign to prevent underage drinking. Specifically, the legislation includes four major areas of policy development. First, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $2 million to establish an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate all Federal agency efforts and expertise designed to prevent underage drinking. Chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, this committee will be required to report to the Congress on an annual basis the extent to which Federal efforts are addressing the urgent need to curb underage drinking.

I am particularly pleased that one of the many items in this annual report to Congress will provide for the public health monitoring of the amount of alcohol advertising reaching our children. I have become increasingly concerned about the degree to which alcohol advertisements appear to target our Nation's children. It is my hope that the monitoring called for by this legislation will expose any unethical advertising practices that reach children. We must do all that we can to ensure that our children are not exposed to harmful and deceptive alcohol promotions.

In addition to the Federal coordination of Federal underage drinking prevention efforts, the STOP Underage Drinking Act additionally authorizes $1 million to fund an adult-oriented National Media Campaign against Underage Drinking. Research indicates that most children who drink obtain the alcohol from their parents or from other adults. The National Media Campaign against underage drinking will specifically seek to educate those who provide our children with alcohol about the dangers inherent in underage alcohol use. This media campaign will build upon the valuable underage drinking prevention efforts begun last year by the Ad Council, whose campaigns average an estimated $28 million in donated media from media outlets nationwide.

The legislation additionally authorizes $10 million to provide States, not-for-profit groups and institutions of higher education the ability to create statewide coalitions to prevent underage drinking and alcohol abuse by college and university students. This section will also provide alcohol-specific enhancement grants through the Drug Free Communities Program.

Lastly, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $6 million to expand research to assess the health effects of underage drinking on adolescent development, including its effect on the brain. This effort will additionally increase Federal data collection on underage drinking, including reporting on the types and brands of alcohol that kids consume.

I want to convey my belief that this legislation truly offers a historical, first step toward addressing the national tragedy represented by underage drinking. I pledge to work strenuously toward passing the STOP Underage Drinking Act and building on its strong foundation and I ask for the support of my colleagues for this critically important initiative.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Durbin and Feingold to introduce The International and Foreign Language Studies Act of 2004.

In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills across 70 federal agencies. These agencies have stated over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counter-terrorism and diplomatic efforts.

Despite our growing needs, in the 2000-01 school year, the number of undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred was only one percent of all degrees. In 2003, only 41 percent of undergraduates reported taking foreign language courses while only 18 percent reported having studied abroad. And yet, 79 percent of Americans believe that students should study abroad sometime during college.

At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our disposal a multilingual, multi cultural, internationally experienced workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act attempts to provide us with this.

The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will increase undergraduate study abroad opportunities as they relate to programs designed to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen cultural knowledge. The Dodd-Cochran bill will reinstate undergraduate eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The Dodd-Cochran bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on international education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand exactly what our needs in this area are. And, most importantly, the Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to increasing the foreign language proficiency and international experience of our electorate by increasing the amount appropriated to international education within the Higher Education Act to $120 million each year.

The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill that mission.

Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly international economy. Foreign language skills and international study are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish to enter the international arena.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Stabenow and Lautenberg to introduce the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees (GRAD) Act.

The percentage of individuals pursuing graduate education has increased dramatically in recent decades as individuals seek the education and skills needed to participate in a technologically complex and global economy. In the last 25 years alone, graduate enrollment in the United States has increased by 39 percent. In the fall of 2000, there were 1.85 million graduate students enrolled in American schools.

The economic benefits of graduate education are significant. The median earnings of workers who possess a graduate or professional degree are more than 3\1/2\ times those of high school dropouts.

Despite the impact of graduate education on individuals' economic well being, and on the economic strength of our national economy as a whole, graduate education is, for many, financially out of reach. In 2001-02 the average graduate school tuition at public institutions was $4,491 and $15,233 at private institutions. In a 2002 borrower's survey, the average debt reported by graduate students was $45,900. This is an astounding figure.

To respond to the need for a highly educated workforce, I have put together a series of proposals that will make graduate education more accessible and affordable to qualified applicants regardless of income level, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act (GRAD). The purpose of the GRAD Act is to encourage students to pursue graduate education and to assist them in affording it.

Specifically, the GRAD Act increases the authorization level of the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program to $50 million and the Jacob Javits Fellowship Program to $35 million. The GAANN fellowship program helps to support graduate study in areas of national need such as chemistry, computer and information science, engineering, mathematics and physics. The Jacob Javits Fellowship Program helps support graduate study in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

To encourage greater participation by minority students in graduate studies, the Act creates the Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program to offer assistance to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. The Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program will help address the important problem of underrepresentation of students from certain minority groups in graduate education.

To help students afford the costs of graduation education, the GRAD Act expands the tax-exempt status of scholarships to treat reasonable room and board allowances as part of permitted higher education expenses. The Act revises the cost of attendance calculations for financial aid for students with dependents to reflect the true cost of living expenses for themselves and their children. The Act increases the amount of earnings students can set aside without having to apply those earnings to the cost of attendance. The GRAD Act also increases the unsubsidized Stafford loan limit for graduate and professional students from $10,000 to $12,500 so they are less likely to have to turn to more expensive private loans.

The Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act will help students meet the financial challenges faced in pursuing graduate studies. The Act strengthens programs that support graduate students in areas of vital importance to our Nation and makes assistance available to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. By helping students to pursue and afford graduate education, the GRAD Act will help individuals, families and the nation as a whole, realize the important benefits of graduate education.

I hope more of my colleagues will join me in support of graduate education by signing on this bill. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that more individuals are able to pursue graduate education and assist our Nation in meeting the challenges faced in a global economy.

Mr. President, it is often said that small things can make a very large difference in our society. That saying certainly fits the subject I have come to speak briefly about this afternoon. That little thing in question that I am talking about is 3\1/8\ inches wide, 2\1/8\ inches long, and no thicker than one's fingernail. But it has a monumental impact on how millions of Americans live their lives each and every day. The object to which I am referring, of course, is the credit card.

We have come a long way from the day in 1950 when the Diner's Club issued the first universal credit card that allowed its holders to use credit at certain very select restaurants in New York City. Today, the credit card has become an indispensable part of how we do business in the United States, and across the globe, for that matter.

For many Americans, the main appeal of the credit card is convenience and flexibility. They allow us to go out and eat, go to a shopping mall, to the movies, and stop off at the grocery store on the way home, without folding a single bill or fumbling for loose change in their pockets. Credit cards allow people to shop for products on the Internet in a matter of seconds.

But for more and more Americans, credit cards serve a very different purpose. As the name implies, these cards provide access to credit. We are living in a time when real wages are failing to keep up with price increases, when health care costs and college tuition are on the rise. Millions of Americans are having difficulty making ends meet. For Americans who are strapped for cash, credit cards are much more than a convenience. They have become the only way they can afford basic necessities, such as food, gas, clothing, and medical care.

These Americans are not paying by credit card because they want to; they are doing so because they have no other choice. It is this function of credit cards that make them so appealing to American consumers, but I must also say it is this function that presents the greatest danger to them as well.

Today, the level of credit card debt in the United States is at record heights. Total consumer debt in America is over $2 trillion. Out of that, $735 billion is credit card debt. The average American household has over $9,000 worth of credit card debt. Let me repeat that. The average family living in the United States has over $9,000 of credit card debt. In comparison, the average family household income is just above $40,000.

Due in large part to credit card debt, more Americans are filing for bankruptcy. Last year, over 1.6 million families declared they were bankrupt. For every one family that actually does file for bankruptcy, there are seven more whose debt suggests that they, in fact, should do the same.

Credit card debt does not affect all Americans equally. It is a growing burden that is disproportionately being borne by middle-income, low-income, and working-poor families. According to a recent report, during the 1990s, on average, the American family saw its credit card debt go up by 53 percent. The debt of middle-class families, those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year, went up 75 percent. For the older Americans, senior citizens, their average credit card debt went up 149 percent. Finally, for very low-income families, those making less than $10,000 a year, credit card debt grew by a shocking 184 percent.

Why is this happening? Why are millions of Americans drowning in credit card debt? There are some who would describe the numbers I just quoted as a matter of personal responsibility, that some Americans are spending way beyond their means and ultimately are paying the price.

I do believe personal responsibility is extremely important, but many of the victims of credit card debt today are not in that state because they bought a home entertainment system, an expensive vacation, or a plasma TV set.

Take Roberto Towler. Roberto was a professional accountant who was very careful to always pay his bills on time. In early 2000 he was forced to take 2 months off from work because of a back injury. The lost salary meant he had much less cash on hand than before. He had no alternative but to use his credit card for toiletries, clothes for his children, and groceries. He eventually was able to return to work and scale back the use of his credit card, but he found himself barely able to pay back his debt. Eventually Roberto was forced to file bankruptcy with $22,000 of credit card debt.

Many Americans have stories just like Mr. Towler. They work hard, they play by the rules, but after a few twists of fate suddenly find themselves in a tremendous debt. For those caught in the quicksand of debt, a credit card appears to be a lifeline. But, in reality, it only pulls them in deeper and deeper.

We often speak of the ill and infirm as living on borrowed time. These people are living on borrowed money.

In the middle of all this are credit card companies. If we demand responsibility from individuals, and we should, and we do demand it, then we also ought to demand it from corporations as well. Responsibility is not limited to those who are consumers alone.

The reason I am here today is because a good deal of the blame for the crisis in credit card debt we are seeing in America lies in the practices of credit card companies.

I am not someone who takes regulatory reform lightly. I am not a believer in regulation that stifles innovation or efficiency. But at the same time, when we see practices that are truly hurting working families around the country, I believe we have an obligation to act. Just what kind of practices are we talking about? Let me spell it out.

Let's start with interest rates. I am not naive about this. I certainly do not expect credit card companies to be terribly benevolent when it comes to interest rates. But what I expect, and what all Americans deserve, is honesty and fairness.

We have all seen print ads and commercials that advertise fantastically low interest rates, sometimes as low as zero percent. But what these commercials don't tell you is that these teaser rates, as they are called, often expire and rise considerably only after a few months.

If you slip up even once by failing to make a minimum monthly payment, your interest rate may go up even faster. Just one mistake can be enough to drive an interest rate up by nearly 30 percentage points. Of course that information is usually hidden in the fine print of a lengthy disclosure statement.

Most Americans would assume that their interest rates will stay low as long as they make their minimum monthly payments. Not so. Today, credit card companies don't just look at the bill that you pay them, they look at your entire financial picture in deciding how high your interest rate ought to be, how high a rate they ought to charge you.

I learned of a doctor in Illinois who had always paid his credit card bills on time and stayed within his credit card limits. Then one day he took a look at his bill and discovered that the interest rate on his credit card had jumped from 6 percent to nearly 17 percent. He asked the credit card issuer, why? The company said that he was now a higher risk.

What was the reason?

He had taken out a mortgage on his new home.

This is incredible to me. There are few things more rewarding to a family than buying their first home. We celebrate home ownership here in America. Apparently for credit card companies it's a reason to celebrate as well, because it's an excuse to charge higher interest rates.

Interest rates, of course, are not the only way credit card companies make money. In recent years, more and more companies have found another way to increase their bottom lines, by assessing exorbitant fees for the most minor of offenses. Miss a payment by a single day and you may be charged $30 or even $40 for that mistake. Gone are the grace periods that gave consumers some reasonable leeway.

Over the past 2 years, the amount of money generated by credit card fees has simply skyrocketed. In fact, the term ``skyrocketed'' may be something of an understatement. In 1996, the fees raised $1.7 billion for credit card companies. That's 1996. Last year the credit card companies raised $11 billion in fees alone, only 8 years later.

You might think that if credit card companies know that someone is a risk they would take some action to limit that person's spending, such as lowering their credit line. Or perhaps they might not issue a card to that person in the first place.

But there is a little secret the credit card companies don't want Americans to know. They are actively soliciting and signing up customers who are tremendous credit risks. They are soliciting these people not in spite of the risk, but because of it.

Contrary to what one might think, customers who cannot afford to pay their bills on time are the credit card companies' best customers--not their worst. Unbelievably, these customers who do pay on time are known within the credit card industry as ``deadbeats.''

Let me repeat that. Those who pay their credit card bills on time are known within the industry as ``deadbeats.'' Why is this? Because when people fail to pay their bills on time, that means more profits for the credit card industry, in the form of more interest charges and penalty fees.

How much more of a profit? Let's say you are the average American, with $9,000 in credit card debt, which is the case today. Let's say you stopped accumulating any more debt and decided you would pay it off by making the minimum monthly payment of 2 percent. Let's say further that your interest rate is 15 percent--which is just about the average today, I might add.

How long would it take you to pay off that debt? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? It would take 39 years to pay off your debt. Over the course of those 39 years, you would pay $14,000 in interest payments alone, in addition to the $9,000 you owe. This is all assuming, of course, that your interest rate wouldn't rise over those years and that you wouldn't be hit with unexpected fees.

Credit card companies know this. They know their greatest chance of financial profit lies in those customers who have the least chance of paying their bills on time. That is why they continue to solicit these customers and that is why those who do pay on time are known within the industry as the deadbeats.

Last year, credit card companies mailed out 5 billion solicitations to about 200 million individuals in the United States. The average person received about one offer every other week. The average household received more than one per week. I guarantee that a great many of these people do not have sparkling credit ratings, yet these companies continue to send out offer after offer, hoping that yet another customer will take the bait.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the July 6, 2004 edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Growing Profit Source for Banks: Fees from Riskiest Card Holders.''

This goes into the topic in greater detail.

What I find most troubling about this trend is that credit card companies have set their sights on the most vulnerable members of our society when it comes to debt--low-income individuals, the elderly, mentally retarded, and most recently, our children.

Go to any college campus in America and you are bound to come across a table where an enthusiastic sales person is offering free T-shirts, or sports bags, or Frisbees--almost anything in exchange for signing up as a credit card customer. According to a report on CBS News, the average college student is offered 8 cards in his or her first semester in college--8 credit cards. By the end of college, the average graduating senior has 6 credit cards in his or her name.

Why are credit card companies targeting college students so frequently? Because of their limited experience with financial matters, students tend to accumulate debt very quickly, and as a result, more and more of our young people are falling deeper and deeper into the financial hole from which they cannot escape.

In 1998, 67 percent of college students had a credit card. Today, 83 percent have credit cards. In 1998, the average college student graduated with $1,800 in credit card debt. Today the average college senior graduates with $3,000 in credit card debt.

I was shocked to learn that the fastest growing segment of our population that is forced to declare bankruptcy is people under the age of 25. Think of

that. The fastest growing group of people declaring bankruptcy are people under the age of 25.

When we think about bankruptcy, we generally envision middle-aged Americans with failed businesses, investments gone bad, perhaps medical bills that have spiraled out of control. The answer is not so. It's college kids, recent graduates.

Some time ago, a piece on ``60 Minutes II'' told a story of one student's circumstance, Sean Moyer. I have told the story on the floor before but I think it deserves being repeated.

Sean's life began to spin out of control as a result of huge debts racked up in 3 years of college. He could not get loans to go to law school, as he dreamed. His parents couldn't afford to pay his way.

Sean Moyer had 12 credit cards and more than $10,000 in debts. He had two jobs, one at the library, another as a security guard in a Holiday Inn, but he still could not pay the collectors who continually harassed him with letters and phone calls. In 1998, Sean Moyer took his own life.

Three years after his son's death, his mother still gets pre-approved credit card offers in Sean's name. According to his mother, one company preapproved Sean for a $100,000 credit card line.

How is the credit card industry doing as a result of these practices? These companies are thriving. Credit Card Management, an industry publication, reported that 2003 was the most profitable year for credit cards since the magazine began tracking the industry in 1992.

What makes matters even more astonishing is that this is happening when interest rates are at an all-time low. Yet, for millions of Americans, the interest rates they read about in the newspapers, those set by the Federal Reserve, bear absolutely no relationship whatsoever to interest rates that appear on their credit card bills.

Still, the industry wants more. In recent years, while they have been encouraging consumers to accumulate debt, credit card companies have simultaneously been lobbying Congress to change bankruptcy laws to make it harder and harder for people to have their debts forgiven. This amounts to a two pronged attack on working families in America--get people into as much debt as possible, and then change the rules of the game so they can't get rid of that debt.

It is time we stood up for consumers. It is time we restored a sense of responsibility to this industry.

I am here today to introduce the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2004, also known as the Credit CARD Act. This bill takes aim at what I consider to be some of the more egregious abuses of consumers by credit card companies.

This bill takes some simple, common-sense steps to stop abusive practices, educate cardholders, and stiffen the penalties on corporations that violate the law.

First of all, I think we can all agree that it is reasonable for a consumer to be clearly notified if his or her interest rates are going up. That is not a radical idea, that is just common sense. My bill would require clear disclosure of any rate changes so there aren't any surprises for the average consumer.

I also don't believe a company should be able to retroactively change the interest rate on debt that already exists. If you want to raise interest rates, fine, but raise them on future debt, not existing debt. Our bill would prohibit any retroactive interest rate changes.

Second, I believe that companies should be rewarding people for responsible card use--not penalizing them. If you pay your bills on time, your interest rate shouldn't go up. If you pay off your balances in full, your company shouldn't be able to charge you any new fees. If you decide to cancel your card, your interest rate shouldn't go up. I am pointing out these facts because that is exactly what happens. My bill would codify all of these common-sense principles into law.

Third, my bill would protect some of the most vulnerable in our society--our Nation's youth--by implementing new requirements for issuing credit cards to people under the age of 21. We are not going to prohibit college students from getting cards, but we are going to make sure that companies can't simply give away cards to millions and millions of students who they know will rack up years and years worth of debt and potentially face bankruptcy and financial ruin before their working lives have barely begun.

If you apply for a credit card and you are under 21, under this bill you will need one of three things: A signature of a parent or guardian who is willing to take responsibility for your debt; information indicating that you have some other means of repaying any debt; or a certification that you have completed a credit counseling course. And if you are a credit card company that offers cards to students under 21, you will be required to comply with these requirements--or face serious penalties.

Finally, this bill requires companies to be honest with consumers by introducing some new disclosure requirements. The most important one is a box--prominently located on every single bill--containing four simple pieces of information: The total balance on your account; your minimum monthly payment; how long it will take to pay your bill if all you pay is the minimum monthly payment; and finally, how much you will have to pay over time--in both interest and principal--if you only make the minimum payments.

The reason for these disclosures is simple, and to many, probably obvious: To allow consumers to know exactly what it means to carry a debt, so they can decide whether or not to do so.

The Credit CARD Act also contains a number of additional disclosure requirements to bring more transparency to an industry that has clearly reaped benefits from the use of fine print and lengthy and confusing policy statements.

We are not asking for much here--only that companies be fair and straightforward with consumers. Let us see some real disclosures so Americans can understand what their bill means, how much they are being charged, and why.

No one wants credit cards to disappear. I certainly believe credit cards are tremendously valuable and worthwhile as long as they are handled responsibly. And no one wants people who need and deserve credit to have no way to get it. But we can't simply stand by as more and more Americans fall deeper and deeper into debt with no way out. We need to take some responsible action so that the credit card can still be a useful financial tool without being a ticket to financial ruin.

If we are going to pass bankruptcy bills in the Senate that demand more responsibility from consumers, shouldn't we demand more responsibility from creditors, as well? This bill, the Credit CARD Act, does just that, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt it.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation which I believe is vital to our economic security. I am proud to introduce this legislation, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2004, with Senators Bennett, Schumer, Jack Reed, Hagel, Dole, Bunning, Crapo, Chafee, Harry Reid, and Ben Nelson.

As my colleagues know, the Senate hasn't been a model of legislative productivity this year. It has been a very difficult year--there has been partisan gridlock on a whole host of issues.

It is against this backdrop, the day that we adjourn for 6 weeks for the August recess which includes both conventions and campaigning, that I am proud to speak about an issue that has broad bipartisan support. That issue is an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

This critically important legislation has a history of bipartisan support and I am pleased to say that the robust support on both sides of the aisle still exists as we consider an extension of the program.

The original TRIA legislation was not an easy undertaking. But we persevered, negotiated, and had a frank exchange of views over numerous months and in the end, even though it was at times a laborious, difficult process, we produced a bipartisan bill that garnered 86 votes in this body on this critically important issue.

I worked closely with Democratic Senators Schumer, Sarbanes, Reed, and Corzine as well as Senators Bennett, Hagel, Phil Gramm, and many others on the Republican side to get this critical bill passed. That is the model that the Senate should follow more often and that is the model that we are following as we introduce a 2-year extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act today which will provide continued economic security and stability and avoid potential chaos in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

The September 11 tragedy resulted in disbelief, devastation, and economic dislocation. An attack on our country seemed unimaginable. Few believed any significant major terrorist attack would occur, no less the one as horrific and devastating as the one on 9/11.

September 11 changed everything, most visibly, of course, national and homeland security policy. But September 11 also fundamentally changed the way insurers looked at terrorism risks which suddenly started to resemble an act of war. As a result, after 9/11 the insurance market for terrorism nearly completely dried up. Coverage was unavailable. Many financial transactions weren't able to proceed. And construction workers and other hard-working Americans suddenly found themselves economic victims of terrorism.

In short, we wrote TRIA for a very simple reason: hundreds of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars of business investment hung in the balance.

We worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass this bill including significant support from this administration which deserves its fair share of credit for enactment of the legislation in November 2002.

TRIA was created as a 3-year Federal program to help make sure the part of the commercial insurance marketplace, disrupted by 9/11, could work again. Most Americans don't even know that TRIA provides a crucial economic safety net for virtually every sector of our economy. Transportation, real estate, utilities, construction, travel and tourism, and financial institutions are just a few of the sectors that need TRIA to protect them against the economic devastation that would come because of a terrorist attack.

Under TRIA, the Government shoulders a share of the financial risk of future attacks. This makes sense--these attacks are against us as Americans, against our democracy, our way of life.

But TRIA also required insurers to offer terrorism coverage on commercial policies. In addition, insurance companies would have to bear an escalating financial burden in future years.

TRIA is working. This public-private ``shared loss'' mechanism is making terrorism insurance available to all businesses at a reasonable cost. Under TRIA, in the event of another terrorist attack, private insurers will still shoulder tens of billions of dollars of terrorism related risk.

What TRIA does is act as a backstop to the private commercial property-casualty insurance system. It gives the market some certainty by establishing, by law, a limit to insured terrorism losses for the insurance industry and the Federal Government.

The Mortgage Bankers Association recently surveyed its 40 largest commercial/multi-family mortgage banking firms. A substantial majority of them believe that TRIA has made terrorism insurance both more available and less expensive.

But the Mortgage Bankers also noted that failure to extend TRIA would probably hurt the commercial real estate market. If we let TRIA expire, we will see the same uncertain environment we saw before TRIA.

TRIA does not expire until the end of 2005. Now some may wonder why I am choosing today to join with Senator Bennett and others to introduce this legislation to extend the program.

The answer is that we cannot wait until next year.

The economic safety net that TRIA provides will begin to come apart as

early as this fall if Congress does not act.

In the next few months, commercial insurers and their policyholders will begin negotiating new policies. But any 12-month policy taken out after Jan 1 will include at least some time where TRIA doesn't exist if we let it expire.

If we let TRIA expire, business consumers are going to have a hard time getting the coverage they need. That can only hurt our economy, and I'm sure that all Senators share the goal of growing our economy.

If we don't act this year, insurers will have to evaluate every policy as if the backstop will not exist for part of the coverage period.

Senator Bennett and I and other colleagues propose a 2-year extension this year. That will help avoid destabilizing the insurance market, and, in turn, the national economy. It will give Congress, insurers, businesses, and Government officials time to gather all available, relevant data.

Collecting that data--without fear of market disruption--will help all of us develop a more permanent solution for managing our Nation's economic exposure to catastrophic terrorism.

I know there is plenty of partisan tension in the Senate this year. But keeping our country safe from the economic devastation of a terrorist attack is a critical priority. It is too important to be affected by partisan politics. We didn't let that happen last time, and I hope everyone can work on a bipartisan basis and follow the bipartisan model--rare in this body these days--to make sure it doesn't happen this time.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give the State of California and the local communities of Sonoma, Napa, and Marin counties the opportunity for input and review of the tribe's plan for a major casino in the Bay Area.

I am offering this legislation because the Boards of Supervisors of the local communities impacted by this planned casino have asked me to amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act. The Boards of Supervisors of Sonoma, Marin, and Napa counties have each unanimously passed resolutions seeking a change in Federal law to restore the Secretary of Interior's discretion in approving land into trust and allowing the State and local government to have a voice in the process.

Prior to today's introduction I have met with the Presidents of the Sonoma and Marin Boards of Supervisors, the Graton tribe, and Senators Campbell and Inouye the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian Affairs Committee.

This week I had a very spirited and frank conversation with Graton Tribal Chairman Greg Sarris and representatives from the casino investors. During the meeting Chairman Sarris committed to work with the local Boards of Supervisors and he committed to look at alternative sites for the casino. Chairman Sarris also said the Tribe and the casino investors would conduct an environmental review based on the criteria laid out in the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, before a site is selected. These are positive signs and I have told both the Boards of Supervisors and the Tribe that I would like to see them continue to work together.

This legislation guarantees that the local and State officials have a voice in the process. Without this change to the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act they do not have that voice.

In 2000, Congress passed the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to restore Federal recognition to the 355 members of the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria.

The Graton Tribe's original Rancheria was in the northern Sonoma County town of Graton on land purchased by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, in 1920 for the ``village home'' of otherwise homeless Miwok and Pomo Indians. The Rancheria was terminated in 1958 when the BIA approved a plan to distribute the assets to resident Indians and remove the Rancheria from Federal trust.

The original version of the Graton restoration bill, H.R. 946, sponsored by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey in the 106th Congress, passed the House of Representatives with a gaming restriction, to which the Tribe agreed.

In testimony before the House Resources Committee in May 2000, and in other public comments, Graton Chairman Greg Sarris stated that the Tribe had no intention of conducting gaming.

In fact, before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Sarris stated, ``Many may think our motives for restoration have been influenced by the opportunity gaming affords some other recognized tribes. Because our local political constituency, both democratic and republican has opposed any sort of development for environmental reasons, we agreed with these local political forces to not develop a gaming complex. So, as proof, we voted as a tribe to include a non- gaming clause in our bill, stipulating that we will not be a gaming tribe.''

Furthermore, in an article in the Marin Independent Journal on September 21, 2000, Chairman Sarris said, ``All we want is to be formally recognized as Indians and have the same rights that other Indians do for education and health care. We are not interested in gambling.'' I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of this article in the Record.

Senator Boxer sponsored legislation identical to Congresswoman Woolsey's in the Senate, but the gaming restriction was stricken when the bill was ultimately passed as part of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000.

The day the legislation passed on December 11, 2000, Senator Boxer stated on the Senate Floor that dropping the gaming restriction was necessary because of opposition to the no-gaming clause by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Clinton Administration and because, according to Senator Boxer, ``Senator Inouye asserts that the no-gaming clause is unnecessary because the Graton Rancheria have no intention of conducting gaming.''

So what has changed one might ask?

Well, even though the Gratons voluntarily and repeatedly took a no- gaming pledge while their restoration bill was under consideration by Congress, on April 23, 2003, the Tribe and its partner, Stations Casinos of Las Vegas, announced plans to purchase approximately 2,000 acres of land in Southern Sonoma County near Sears Point for the development of a casino.

This site is located on environmentally sensative open space and San Francisco--North Bay tidelands which have been the subject of a decades-long conservation effort by environmentalists and local residents.

This site is roughly 30 miles from San Francisco--along the gateway to Sonoma that leads thousands of travelers into the beautiful wine country each day.

The Tribe's casino proposal has outraged local elected officials and residents who had sympathized with the Tribe's plight and supported their restoration on the condition that they not seek to develop a casino. The Sonoma and Marin County Boards of Supervisors have each passed unanimous resolutions objecting to the Graton casino proposal. In fact, even the Board of Supervisors of neighboring Napa has also passed a resolution against the casino proposal. I ask unanimous consent to print these resolutions and letters from the counties in the Record.

Let me just read one part of the Resolution from Marin County which will give you an idea of the opposition to the Graton tribe's proposed casino:

RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin calls on its elected members of the United States Senate, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and its elected member of the House of Representatives, Lynn Woolsey, to assist the residents of Marin and the entire North Bay to preserve their environment by introducing legislation that would amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act and/ or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to stop the unregulated creation of tribal lands and to subject development of tribal lands in the Marin and Sonoma Counties at a minimum to the regulatory and approval processes applicable to newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

While the counties acknowledge that the Graton have a right to be recognized, they object to the site selected by the tribe and they especially object to language in the Restoration Act

that precludes the local community, the Governor, or the Secretary of the Interior from providing input on the suitability of this location for land taken into trust for gaming purposes.

There is a problematic section of the Restoration Act that states, ``Upon application by the Tribe, the Secretary shall accept into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any real property located in Marin or Sonoma County . . .'' According to the Department of the Interior, this language removes any discretion by the Secretary as well as any tribal obligations for consultation with the surrounding community or environmental review, as required by the normal process under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for newly acquired land taken into trust for gaming purposes.

According to the Department of the Interior, the tribe must only conduct a hazardous materials review and show title to the land for land to be taken into trust. This could be completed in 9 months--and it is an inadequate review in my opinion.

Since the local communities are seeking a remedy which would restore the Secretary's discretion in approving its land trust application and allow local government to provide input in the process, I am introducing this legislation today that will change the ``shall take land into trust'' to ``may take land into trust.'' This legislation will also require the two-part test that is standard under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to apply so that the State and local communities have input in the process.

There is precedent for this change. In 1994, legislation was passed restoring the United Auburn Tribe with the same directive to the Secretary of the Interior, requiring that land ``shall'' be taken into trust for the Tribe. One of the restoration act's sponsors, Congressman John Doolittle sponsored an amendment to change ``shall'' to ``may'' after it had been passed, thereby affording the Secretary of Interior discretion in accepting particular parcels of land into trust and local government officials an opportunity to weigh in on the Tribe's proposed site.

The result of that change was that the Auburn Tribe and Placer County officials successfully cooperated in not only identifying a mutually agreeable site, but they signed a Memorandum of Understanding to mitigate potential impacts from the proposed Thunder Valley Casino. And earlier this month, the tribe opened its casino.

Today California is home to 109 federally recognized tribes. 61 tribes have gaming compacts with the State and there are 54 tribal casinos. With more than 50 tribes seeking Federal recognition and approximately 23 recognized tribes seeking gaming compacts from the Governor, revenues from California's tribal gaming industry are expected to surpass Nevada's by the end of the decade.

The dramatic growth in tribal gaming in California has the potential to yield much needed benefits for tribal members in terms of healthcare, education and general welfare, as Congress and California voters intended. However, the question is not whether gaming should be permitted, but rather how and where. Those questions were asked and answered in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, IGRA. But without the modest change made by this legislation, the Graton tribe will be allowed to develop an off-reservation casino outside the requirements established in IGRA, the first time such an exception has ever been made for a California tribe. Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous precedent not only for California, but every State where tribal gaming is permitted.

The changes we are seeking today are extremely modest. We are not reversing any restoration of the tribe. We are not infringing on Native American sovereignty. We are not even blocking the casino proposal. We are only seeking to give the State and the local communities a voice in the process. They were promised the tribe would not open a casino. That promise was broken, so the least we can do is ensure a normal review will take place.

I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian Affairs Committee to pass this legislation quickly.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2003. This legislation will require that individuals are notified when their most sensitive personal information is stolen from a corporate or government database.

Specifically, the bill would require government or private entities to notify individuals if a data breach has compromised their Social Security number, driver's license number, credit card number, debit card number, or financial account numbers.

In most cases, if authorities know that someone is a victim of a crime, the victim is notified. But that isn't the case if an individual's most sensitive personal information is stolen from an electronic database.

Unfortunately, data breaches are becoming all too common. Consider the following incidents which have compromised the records of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

On April 5, 2002, a hacker broke into the electronic records of Steven P. Teale Data Center, the payroll facility for California State employees. The hacker compromises files containing the first initials, middle initials, and last names, Social Security numbers, and payroll deduction information of approximately 265,000 people. Despite the breathtaking potential harm of the crime, the breach was not publicly acknowledged and State employees were not made aware of their vulnerability to identify theft until May 24, 2002--17 days later.

On December 14, 2002, TriWest Health Care Alliance, a company that provides health care coverage for military personnel and their families, was burglarized at its Phoenix, AZ offices. Thieves broke into a management suite and stole laptop computers and computer hard drives containing the names, addressed, telephone numbers, birth dates and Social Security numbers of 562,000 military service members, dependents and retirees, as well as medical claims records for people on active duty in the Persian Gulf.

In February 2003, a hacker gained access to 10 million Visa, MasterCard, American Express Card and Discovery Card numbers from the databases of a credit processor, DPI Merchant services of Omaha, NE. Company officials maintained that the intruder did not obtain any personal information for these card numbers such as the account holder's name, address, telephone number or Social Security number. However, at least one bank canceled and replaced 8,800 cards when it found out about the security breach.

And in March of this year, a University of Texas student was charged with hacking into the university's computer system and stealing 55,000 Social Security numbers.

These are just some examples of the types of breaches that are occurring today. Except for California, which as a notification law going into effect in July, no State of Federal law requires companies or agencies to tell individuals of the misappropriation of their personal data.

I strongly believe Americans should be notified if a hacker gets access to their most personal data. This is both a matter of principle and a practical measure to curb identity theft.

Let me take a moment to describe the proposed legislation.

The Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act will set a national standard for notification of consumers when a data breach occurs.

Specifically, the legislation requires a business or government entity to notify an individual when there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a hacker or other criminal has obtained unencrypted personal data maintained by the entity.

Personal data is defined by the bill as an individual's Social Security number, State identification number, driver's license number, financial account number, or credit card number.

The legislation's notification scheme minimizes the burdens on companies or agencies that must report a data breach.

In general, notice would have to be provided to each person whose data was compromised in writing or through e-mail. But there are important exceptions.

First, companies that have developed their own reasonable notification policies are given a safe harbor under the

bill and are exempted from its notification requirements.

Second, encrypted data is exempted.

Third, where it is too expensive or impractical, e.g., contact address information is incomplete, to notify every individual who is harmed, the bill allows entities to send out an alternative form of notice called ``substitute notice.'' Substitute notice includes posting notice on a website or notifying major media.

Substitute notice would be triggered if any of the following factors exist: 1. the agency or person demonstrates that the cost of providing direct notice would exceed $250,000; 2. the affected class of subject persons to be notified exceeds 500,000; or 3. the agency or person does not have sufficient contact information to notify people whose information is at risk.

The bill has a tough, but fair enforcement regime. Entities that fail to comply with the bill will be subject to fines by the Federal Trade Commission of $5,000 per violation or up to $25,000 per day while the violation persists. State Attorneys General can also file suit to enforce the statute.

Additionally, the bill would allow California's new law to remain in effect, but preempt conflicting State laws. It is my understanding that legislators in a number of States are developing bills modeled after the California law. Reportedly, some of these bills have requirements that are inconsistent with the California legislation. It is not fair to put companies in a situation that forces them to comply with database notification laws of 50 different States.

I strongly believe individuals have a right to be notified when their most sensitive information is compromised--because it is truly their information. Ask the ordinary person on the street if he or she would like to know if a criminal had illegally gained access to their personal information from a database--the answer will be a resounding yes.

Enabling consumers to be notified in a timely manner of security breaches involving their personal data will help combat the growth scourge of identity theft. According to the Identity Theft Resources Center, a typical identity theft victim takes six to 12 months to discover that a fraud has been perpetuated against them.

As Linda Foley, Executive Director of the Identity Theft Resources center puts it: ``Identity theft is a crime of opportunity and time is essential at every junction. Every minute that passes after the breach until detection and notification increases the damage done to the consumer victim, the commercial entities, and law enforcement's ability to track and catch the criminals. It takes less than a minute to fill out a credit application and to start an action that could permanently affect the victim's life. Multiply that times hundreds of minutes, hundreds of opportunities to use or sell the information stolen and you just begin to understand the enormity of the problem that the lack of notification can cause.''

If individuals are informed of the theft of their Social Security numbers or other sensitive information, they can take immediate preventative action.

They can place a fraud alert on their credit report to prevent crooks from obtaining credit cards in their name; they can monitor their credit reports to see if unauthorized activity has occurred; they can cancel any affected financial or consumer or utility accounts; they can change their phone numbers if necessary.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this vitally needed legislation. This bill will give ordinary Americans more control and confidence about the safety of their personal information. Americans will have the security of knowing that should a breach occur, they will be notified and be able to take protective action.

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

I rise to introduce with Senator Wyden a bill to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in our country's magnificent national forests.

No one who watched last week as Arizona's community of Summerhaven on Mount Lemmon burned can doubt the importance of this issue. My heart goes out to the residents of Summerhaven, and to the others who will be displaced by the fires yet to come this summer.

Americans know that there is something wrong with our national forests. For too long we have suppressed fires, gradually letting brush and small trees multiply until many of our forests are now choked by a dense thicket.

Today, there are 57 million acres of Federal lands at the highest risk of catastrophic forest fires. If we do not take action now, these forests could go up in smoke. This bill we are introducing today is balancing, and it will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in our country's magnificent national forests.

This legislation would speed up the environmental review process-- without sacrificing the most important environmental protections. It also would protect the communities which face the highest risk and safeguard old growth stands and large trees. And it would include sensible provisions on judicial review that will help projects go forward quickly without compromising our independent judiciary. These are provisions that makes sense, and I hope that my colleagues will support the bill.

We have crafted our bill around three fundamental principles:

We should focus limited Federal resources on protecting communities and on the forest lands truly most at risk;

We should speed up the environmental review process, but without sacrificing the most important environmental protections; and

We should protect old growth stands and large trees.

Let me show how the bill achieves these three goals.

First, the bill prioritizes our efforts. Many people believe that we should protect communities first. The bill does so. Seventy percent of the funding is directed to the wildland-urban interface near communities.

Of course, conditions vary by State. The bill allows Governors to adjust the percentage of work that is to be done within the wildland-- urban interface for their State, up to a maximum of 75 percent, or down to a minimum of 50 percent.

By way of contrast, H.R. 1904, which passed the House, includes no focus on protecting communities. All the money can be spent far from communities under H.R. 1904, even if the Governor of a State wishes otherwise.

Senator Wyden and I believe that in addition to protecting communities, there are some forest lands that should be thinned to ensure that catastrophic fires do not devastate the forest and eliminate habitat for the species that have there.

In the last century, Americans have rigorously suppressed fires, stamping them out whenever they start. In certain forests like ponderosa pine, these fires would naturally have cleared out the brush and small trees every 10 or 20 years or so.

In the absence of these fires, brush has grown into ``doghair thickets'' with dangerous levels of fuel loadings. When fires burn now in these forests, they will be so hot that they won't just clear out the brush but will kill the large trees and often scorch the soil.

These are the forests where we need to focus our efforts. We thus target thinning projects to forests that are both Fire Regime I and Condition Class 3. Fire Regime I forests are those that used to have low-intensity, brush-clearing fires; and Condition Class 3 forests are the most altered from their natural condition. The combination of Fire Regime I and Condition Class 3 are the highest priority lands for treatment.

We also direct projects to municipal watersheds and diseased or windblown forests that are in Condition Class 3. If we don't protect the municipal watersheds, catastrophic fires could strip off the tree cover that prevents soils from eroding into creeks and lakes. Municipalities' water quality could suffer.

In contrast to our bill, H.R. 1904 fails to prioritize brush-clearing projects for the areas that need it the most. Instead, H.R. 1904 provides expedited processes for lands that are only moderately altered by fire suppression--Condition Class 2 lands in addition to Condition Class 3.

In many of the forests where H.R. 1904 would direct brush-clearing work, there naturally would have been severe fires that burned all the trees in the stand. After a thinning project, fires in these forests will still behave the same way, scorching and killing most of the trees. Thus, much of the thinning called for in H.R. 1904 would have little effect on the fire behavior or forest health.

Senator Wyden and I have worked very hard to develop a bill that speeds up the review process so important work can get done without sacrificing environmental protections.

Almost everyone agrees that we need to work quickly to protect the areas immediately around communities. There is little controversy or debate over these projects.

The Forest Service has proposed an analytical short-cut for these projects, which requires very little environmental analysis and no formal pubic comment process or administrative appeal.

There is some uncertainty, however, over the Forest Service's proposed approach. People can claim that laws Congress has previously passed will require some of these projects to be held up by more environmental analysis or administrative appeals.

Our bill eliminates this uncertainty. When the Forest Service works in the immediate vicinity of a community, the bill would make absolutely clear that there need to be no environmental analysis or administrative appeals. The only exception is where there might be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major threat to endangered species. We also prohibit the Forest Service from conducting clearcuts around communities, requiring them to focus on clearing out the brush.

By way of comparison, the House-passed bill does not provide any assistance to thinning projects in the immediate vicinity of communities, even though everyone agrees on the need for these projects.

Senator Wyden and I have also sped up the process for projects outside the immediate vicinity of communities. These projects are more controversial, so we want to make sure that the public has some opportunity for input.

In the past, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have been able to conduct the majority of brush-clearing mechanical treatment following a National Environmental Policy Act process known as environmental assessments. Our bill simplified these environmental assessments in several ways.

The bill provides one round of public comment--the administrative appeal process--rather than two.

The bill shortens the time frame for administrative appeals from 90 to 60 days.

Finally, the appeal deciding offer can make necessary changes rather than having to send the project back to the original decisionmaker for further time-consuming review.

Together, these changes will likely speed up the process by a few months or more. We do all this without eliminating public comment or gutting core parts of the environmental analysis.

In contrast, the House-passed bill would eliminate the requirement that the Forest Service consider alternatives to the proposed project as part of its environmental analysis. In other

words, the Forest Service doesn't have to study other, less damaging ways of undertaking the project--it can just do the project the way it wants.

Many people think that public debate over alternatives is the core of the National Environmental Policy Act. Our bill does not eliminate this important environmental protection.

Another important part of our bill is its protection of magnificent old growth stands. The remaining groves of these trees provide a connection to nature untrammeled by human activity, a connection that many of us cherish.

Our bill would require full protection of these old growth stands. In addition, outside old growth stands, the bill focuses on small-diameter trees and protects large trees that promote fire-resistant stands and species diversity.

By way of contrast, H.R. 1904 provides no protection for these magnificent resources.

Let me now talk about judicial review. No one wants court cases to go on too long. In addition, people should not be able to tie up projects by gaming the system and picking and choosing the friendliest courts to hear their lawsuits.

Our bill addresses these problems. The bill encourages courts, to the maximum extent practicable, to resolve lawsuits over brush-clearing projects quickly. These are important projects for the safety of our communities and our forests, and it is appropriate to give them some priority.

In addition, we require that potential litigants file suit in the same judicial district where a fuels reduction project takes place, No one can game the system by looking for a friendly judge somewhere else.

Finally, we limit temporary injunctions that are typically issued at the outset of a case to 60 days. They can be renewed if necessary--but the challengers to a projects must submit updates explaining why the injunctions should be extended. This provision prevents projects from being held up any longer than is strictly necessary.

These changes will expedite the process--but they still respect our court system's essential autonomy. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I spend much of my time trying to make sure our court system is as fair as possible.

Americans count on a judiciary independent of the executive branch to preserve their liberties and to right any wrongs that their government commits. I think it is very important that we do not interfere with the independence of our judiciary.

The House-passed bill would require the courts to give weight to certain findings by the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. Even if projects had been found to violate the environmental laws, courts would be told to give weight to the agencies' findings and allow many of the projects to go ahead anyway.

This is a dangerous provision for a bill to include, and I cannot support it. I believe our bill includes more sensible provisions on judicial review that will help projects go forward quickly without compromising the independence of our judiciary.

Our bill includes several provisions to address forest health problems on private and State lands.

We authorize $50 million annually in emergency grants to States and localities where lives are at risk. The last few years have seen vast insect epidemics killing millions of trees in Southern California, Arizona, and elsewhere.

In places like Lake Arrowhead, Big Bear and Idyllwild in Southern California, communities are surrounded by dead and dying trees that are perfect kindling for a catastrophic fire. There is a real threat to people's lives that we must address.

There is now no good funding source for clearing evacuation routes and clearing around schools and other emergency shelters that are on State and private lands. The emergency grants in the bill would authorize funds for these essential purposes.

The bill also includes two measures to encourage homeowners to clear brush around their houses and install non-flammable roofs. A study of Southern California fires by Forest Service researcher Jack Cohen has shown that these measures could reduce a blaze's threat to homes by as much as 85 to 95 percent.

Our bill would encourage these home-saving practices in two ways:

The bill would prioritize grants to those communities that encourage brush-clearing and use of non-flammable roofs or develop comprehensive fire plans.

The bill would record the Sense of Congress that insurers should offer lower premiums to homeowners who take steps to protect their homes.

Our bill would also include grants to encourage the use of woody material, or biomass, for energy production. Biomass-to-energy plants serve multiple beneficial purposes: one, they are a clean and renewable source of energy; and two, they make brush-clearing projects more cost- effective, so we can protect more with the finite Federal dollars available.

Finally, our bill would also include contracting provisions to benefit rural communities. The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior would be required to use ``best value contracting'' for brush- clearing projects under the Act.

This contracting approach requires the agencies to consider other factors besides the price of the bid in awarding contractors. Bidders would be rewarded for such factors as their commitment to hire local workers, and their past record of environmental stewardship.

I would like to close by saying that this is truly a bipartisan issue. All of us, Democrat and Republican, have an interest in clearing out dangerous accumulations of brush in our national forests. All of us have an interest as well in protecting the magnificent old growth stands and species habitat that Americans cherish, and in upholding our environmental laws.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass a bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Prescription Drug and Health Improvement Act of 2004, which is legislation designed to reduce the high prices of prescription drugs. Americans, specifically senior citizens, pay the highest prices in the world for brand-name prescription drugs. With 43 million uninsured Americans and many more senior citizens without an adequate prescription drug benefit, filling a doctor's prescription is unaffordable for many people in this country. The United States has the greatest health care system in the world; however, too many seniors are forced to make difficult choices between life-sustaining prescription drugs and daily necessities.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that in 2003 per capita spending on prescription drugs rose approximately 12 percent, with a similar rate of growth expected for this year. Much of the increase in drug spending is due to higher utilization and the shift from older, lower cost drugs to newer, higher cost drugs. However, rapidly increasing drug prices are a critical component.

High drug prices, combined with the surging older population, are also taking a toll on State budgets and private sector health insurance benefits. Medicaid spending on prescription drugs increased at an average annual rate of nearly 20 percent between 1998 and 2001. Until lower priced drugs are available, pressures will continue to squeeze public programs at both the State and Federal level.

To address these problems, my legislation would reduce the high prices of prescription drugs to seniors by: one, allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers; and two, eliminate the coverage gap in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. The bill's $400 billion price tag over the next 10 years would be offset by, three, reducing medical errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and, four, increasing the use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health care.

Prescription Drug Negotiation: This legislation would repeal the prohibition against interference by the Secretary of HHS with negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and prescription drug plan sponsors and instead authorize the Secretary to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered prescription drugs. It will allow the Secretary of HHS to use Medicare's large beneficiary population to leverage bargaining power to obtain lower prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

Price negotiations between the Secretary of HHS and prescription drug manufacturers would be analogous to the ability of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers. This bargaining power enables veterans to receive prescription drugs at a significant cost savings.

In my capacity as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I introduced the Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act, S. 1153, which was reported out of committee on June 20, 2004.

This legislation would broaden the ability of veterans to access the Veterans Affairs Prescription Drug Program. All Medicare-eligible veterans will be able to purchase medications at a tremendous price reduction through the Veterans Affairs' Prescription Drug Program. In many cases this would save veterans who are Medicare beneficiaries up to 90 percent on the cost of commonly prescribed medications. Similar savings would be available to America's seniors from the savings achieved using the HHS bargaining power, like the Veterans Affairs bargaining power for the benefit of veterans.

Medicare Coverage Gap Elimination: The bill would eliminate the coverage gap, also known as the ``doughnut hole,'' for beneficiaries in the Medicare prescription drug program. Beginning in January 2006, Medicare beneficiaries with an individual income of over $13,470 and couples with an income over $18,180, 150 percent of the poverty level, will pay a monthly premium, approximately $35, a $250 deductible, and coinsurance of 25 percent up to an initial coverage limit of $2,250, but then do not receive coverage until they exceed $5,100 of total spending. Specifically, Medicare beneficiaries will have to make out- of-pocket payments for prescription drug purchases from $2,250 to

$5,100 in total spending. After $5,100 in total spending, the coinsurance payment for those beneficiaries is 5 percent. Medicare beneficiaries below 150 percent of the poverty level do not have a gap in drug coverage. My legislation would eliminate the gap in coverage for those over 150 percent of the poverty level in the Medicare prescription drug program, by extending the 25 percent beneficiary coinsurance payment from $2,250 to $5,100 in total spending.

This provision comes at an expected cost of $400 billion over 10 years, which will be paid for through savings from reducing medical errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and increasing the use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health care.

Reducing Medical Errors and Increasing the Use of Medical Technology: The bill provides grants for demonstration programs to test best practices for reducing errors, testing the use of appropriate technologies to reduce medical errors, such as electronic medication systems, and research in geographically diverse locations to determine the causes of medical errors. The implementation of automated prescription drug dispensers will prevent adverse drug reactions, which in turn can cause further illness resulting in increased care needed to correct the error. The utilization of electronic records will reduce the incidence of repeat medical tests, which will result in significant cost savings.

On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, issued a report entitled ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The IOM report estimated that anywhere between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized Americans die each year due to avoidable medical mistakes. However, only a fraction of these deaths and injuries are due to negligence. Most errors are caused by system failures. The IOM issued a comprehensive set of recommendations, including the establishment of a nationwide, mandatory reporting system; incorporation of patient safety standards in regulatory and accreditation programs; and the development of a non-punitive ``culture of safety'' in health care organizations. The report called for a 50-percent reduction in medical errors over 5 years.

After the report was issued, I held a series of three Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee hearings on medical errors: Dec. 13, 1999--to discuss the findings of the Institute of Medicine's report on medical errors; Jan. 25, 2000--a joint hearing with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to discuss a national error reporting system and the VA's national patient safety program; Feb. 22, 2000--a joint hearing with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to discuss the administration's strategy to reduce medical errors.

After hearing from Government witnesses and experts in the field on medical errors, I included $50 million in the fiscal year 2001 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education for a patient safety initiative. In the Senate report, I also directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to: one, develop guidelines on the collection of uniform error data; two, establish a competitive demonstration program to test ``best practices''; and three, research ways to improve provider training.

The committee also directed AHRQ to prepare an interim report to Congress concerning the results of the demonstration program within 2 years of the beginning of the projects. The fiscal year 2002 Senate report directed AHRQ to submit a report detailing the results of its initiative to reduce medical errors. HHS combined both reports into one, which it submitted to me earlier this year.

Since fiscal year 2001, the Labor/HHS Subcommittee has included within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funding for research into ways to reduce medical errors. The fiscal year 2002 appropriation was $55 million, in fiscal year 2003 another $55 million was provided, and in fiscal year 2004 the appropriation was increased to $79.5 million.

The bill seeks to assist development of private sector technology standards to reduce medical errors by examining information technology, providing grants, and coordinating implementation by private sector entities. This would help ensure that this Federal investment will help further the national health information infrastructure by sharing the information collected through these demonstration projects with other health facilities nationally. These efforts would help reduce medical errors and bring the Nation's health systems into the 21st century with a projected cost savings of $150 billion over 10 years.

Primary and Preventive Care Services: The bill includes provisions for the use of nonphysician providers such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists by increasing direct reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid without regard to the setting where services are provided. The services provided by non- physician providers would insure that patients would receive benefits and services to which they are entitled without compromising the high standards of medical care. The use of these health care professionals would provide a significant cost savings to health care systems.

The bill creates a medical student tutorial program providing grants to encourage students early on in their medical training to pursue a career in primary care and provides grant assistance to medical training programs to recruit such students. This program is advantageous for medical students by providing valuable primary care experience, while offering services at a lower cost to primary care facilities. The savings from this provision is estimated at $250 billion over a 10-year period.

I believe this bill can provide desperately needed access to inexpensive, effective prescription drugs for America's seniors. The time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge my colleagues to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Small Business Economic Stimulus Act of 2004. In recent months, there have been clear signs that America's economic downturn has ended and that we are entering a period of renewed growth and prosperity. Yet not all of the economic news has been good. As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many companies that they cannot afford to make needed investments in equipment or research at this time. As they postpone such investments, they also push off into the future the economic growth and opportunity that would flow from them. As a result, I continue to meet far too many Pennsylvanians who are out of work. Thus while the economy is improving, it is still incumbent upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to aid this recovery and grow jobs. There is more we can do.

The bill I introduce today, the Small Business Economic Stimulus Act of 2004, will help American companies take the steps they need to grow and hire. Since small businesses create approximately 75 percent of new jobs in America, my bill focuses on the needs of small business in particular. My bill has three parts. Part one renews and extends three tax provisions which are crucial to encouraging new investments in R&D and equipment. Part two provides greater resources to trade offices and trade promotion with a particular emphasis on programs that will enable America's small businesses to better compete in foreign markets. Part three creates a structure for association health plans which will enable small businesses to negotiate less expensive health plans for their employees, thereby saving money while continuing to provide coverage. Together, these provisions amount to a targeted, measured, yet crucial shot in the arm for American small business and the American economy.

The bill I introduce today will permanently extend the research and development tax credit. The R&D tax credit, which expired on June 30, has proven to be of enormous value to American business. We all understand the importance of research and development to the American economy. Most leading American companies owe their market dominance to the innovations coming from R&D labs. Yet R&D is expensive, and it is often among the

first items to be cut when budgets get tight. The R&D tax credit serves America by providing an economic incentive to companies to continue to invest in the R&D that will provide the growth and opportunities of the future.

Studies have shown that the R&D tax credit significantly increases research and development expenditures. The marginal effect of $1 of the research credit creates approximately $1 of additional private research and development spending in the short-run, and as much as $2 of extra R&D spending in the long run. This is good for the American economy and the American taxpayer. In fact, one study estimates that a permanent research credit would result in our gross domestic product increasing by $10 billion after 5 years and by $31 billion after 20 years.

In addition, the extension of the R&D tax credit will have benefits beyond the purely economic. For example, the research and development tax credit has proven to be critical to the U.S. biomedical research arena. The tax credit has contributed to many successes in U.S. scientific research and innovation, such as rapid progress in finding cures for life threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer and multiple sclerosis. Today's diseases--Alzheimer's, AIDS, heart, liver and kidney disease, prostate cancer and arthritis--are complex and are in the final stages for research breakthroughs. If we allow the incentives to invest in medical progress to lapse, the consequence may be irrevocable and society may rue that decision for years to come.

Given the importance of the R&D tax credit, it makes little sense for Congress to continue to renew it for short terms. The investment of funds in research and development is not a temporary fix but something that should be consistently encouraged. Towards this end, my bill permanently extends the R&D tax credit. Such a permanent extension will send a strong signal to American companies that the value of R&D is recognized here in Washington. The permanent extension will also provide greater certainty to companies seeking to make plans years in advance.

My legislation will also renew two less well known but important tax provisions which encourage capital investments. My bill extends for another year a provision that allows companies to take an immediate 50- percent depreciation on purchases of qualified equipment and machinery. This accelerated depreciation is currently set to expire in December, 2004; equipment purchased thereafter would be subject to standard depreciation tables. My bill provides that necessary equipment purchased between December 2004 and December 2005 will continue to qualify for the accelerated depreciation.

The availability of accelerated depreciation--especially at the high rate of 50 percent--makes an enormous difference to companies contemplating large capital investments. Companies which simply could not afford these investments under standard depreciation face a dramatically altered balance sheet once the accelerated depreciation is factored in. Investments that did not previously make economic sense will now be economically advantageous. As these investments are made, companies will grow and hire. This change in the balance sheet will reap a concrete benefit in jobs and growth.

In addition, my legislation extends the section 179 exclusion at the current level of $100,000 through December 2007. This is another esoteric sounding provision that will produce very real economic benefits. Under this provision, companies can immediately expense, that is, recognize as an expense to be deducted from revenues for tax purposes, up to $100,000 invested in equipment and machinery. The standard section 179 deduction is only $25,000. Once again, this provision will have the effect of making investments economically advantageous when they otherwise would not be. The greater capital investment thereby fostered will lead to greater growth and job opportunities.

Beyond these tax incentives, my bill also seeks to help American business through our trade policy. My legislation focuses on two programs in particular which help small businesses find markets for their products abroad. My bill includes an increase in funding of $27 million for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, USTDA. The USTDA has proven to be critical to small businesses seeking to sell their products abroad. The USTDA helps American businesses study and identify opportunities in foreign markets so that they can determine which options will be profitable. To a small American business facing a very large global economy, the USTDA serves as an accessible and inexpensive international sales department.

USTDA's unique public-private partnership truly extends the effectiveness of taxpayers' dollars. Historically, $35 worth of exports are generated for every dollar invested by USTDA. As a result, $21 billion in U.S. exports have been shipped overseas in concert with USTDA's programs.

My legislation also includes $5 million in funding to promote the benefits available under the Export Trading Company Act of 1982. This legislation was enacted to stimulate U.S. exports by authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to issue export trade certificates of review to groups of small businesses. A certificate of review protects the holder and the members identified in the certificate from State and Federal Government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions.

Given the realities of international trade, these antitrust exemptions are crucial. In order to compete in a challenging foreign market such as China, for example, it is extremely advantageous to have a full-time sales representative on the ground there. Yet few small businesses can afford to hire full-time representatives and send them to China. The antitrust exemptions in the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 would enable a group of small businesses to band together to hire a sales representative, open an office, and pursue the other necessities of international trade.

The Export Trading Company Act is good legislation which solves a critical problem. Yet few American businesses exploring international trade are aware of the opportunities under this act, let alone take advantage of them. As a result, the enormous economic opportunities created by this law continue to go unrealized. I think that a minimal investment in marketing and promoting this act will pay for itself many times over in increased exports, growth and jobs.

Finally, my bill includes a provision that will enable small businesses to join together to negotiate more affordable health care plans for their employees. This provision will provide an enormous economic boost to America's businesses--with the saving they gain from better health insurance rates they can invest, grow and hire. Yet this provision also provides clear benefits beyond the purely economic. By making health insurance more affordable, this provision will help reverse the growth in the ranks of the uninsured.

According to a poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Americans worry more about rising health care costs than they do about terrorist attacks. There is a reason for such concern. More than 43 million Americans under age 65 lack health insurance coverage. The ranks of the uninsured consist primarily of working families with low and moderate incomes--not just the unemployed. Nearly 26 million individuals are employed and still are without health care coverage.

My bill will give small businesses the same market-based advantages when negotiating health insurance for their employees that large companies and unions currently enjoy. As independent entities, small businesses have little leverage when they negotiate with health insurance providers, and the situation they face is often one of take it or leave it. Even when small businesses band together in local purchasing pools, the group is often not large enough to attract new insurance companies with less expensive plans.

My act will allow small businesses to join together in large national pools under the auspices of bona fide associations and either purchase insurance from a provider or self-insure the same way that large employers and unions do. For example, the American Restaurant Association could negotiate a plan on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of employees who work for its member businesses. Once the plan is in place, each individual restaurant could

choose to participate in this plan at much better rates than they could ever have negotiated on their own.

I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership and hard work on this issue of association health plans. On March 6, 2003, Senator Snowe introduced S. 545, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. This long and very detailed bill addresses all of the issues needed to make association health plans a reality. I signed on as a cosponsor of S. 545 on June 9, 2003, and I have included the text of S. 545 in my bill.

It is my sincere hope that the economic recovery will continue and will pick up steam in the months to come. There is great reason for optimism. But our optimism must not blind us to the continuing problems that Americans face. There are measures that Congress can take--today-- which will help our businesses to grow, hire new employees, and provide health insurance to these employees at a more affordable rate. These measures will, in the long run, more than pay for themselves. We must take these steps and do our part. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Economic Stimulus Act of 2004.

Mr. President, every year, I spend time driving across the State of South Dakota, and every year, I hear unbelievable stories from my constituents about the growing health care crisis in South Dakota and across America. One issue that comes up repeatedly in my travels is South Dakota's dental shortage.

The statistics speak for themselves. Almost one-third of my State's 66 counties have been designated Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas. In total, over 97,000 South Dakotans live in a county that does not have enough dentists to meet the needs of the population. Nationally, 25 million Americans reside in such shortage areas.

South Dakota has only one dentist for every 250 square miles, which means that many South Dakotans must travel more than 100 miles to visit a dentist. To see a pediatric dentist, parents often have to travel up to 400 miles. I've heard stories of families driving clear across the State so that their children can receive urgent dental care. Comparatively, Minnesota's rate is 28 square miles per dentist. Massachusetts's rate is less than 2 square miles per dentist, and here in Washington, DC, the rate is 0.1 square miles per dentist.

In addition, the dentists my State does have are getting older. A study conducted in South Dakota found that roughly half of the dentists currently practicing there are over 50 years old, and that 30 percent plan to retire within 10 years. Nationally, more than 20 percent of dentists will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace them.

The problem in Indian country is even worse. Indian pre-school children have 5 times the rate of dental decay experienced by other children in their age group. Despite this great need, the Indian Health Services estimates that one-third of its dental positions are vacant.

A report by the Government Accounting Office in 2000 found that, while several factors contribute to the low use of dental services among low-income individuals, the most important factor was the inability to find a

dentist to treat them. That is simply unacceptable.

Another report by Oral Health America in 2003 found that the United States does poorly in several areas that measure access to dental care. In fact, in the report's assessment of dentist availability, the majority of States received a grade of C or lower. The report card also found that those with the greatest need have the hardest time finding care; 18 states received a failing grade for the availability of dentists who provide significant services under Medicaid, contributing to an alarming D grade for the entire nation.

In an effort to address this urgent problem, I have been working with representatives from the South Dakota Oral Health Coalition to develop a legislative remedy at the Federal level. The culmination of that effort is the bill I am introducing today, the Dental Health Provider Shortage Act. Together with Senator Collins--herself a longtime supporter of expanding access to dental care--I am proud to introduce this bill, which would help to expand the number of dentists and dental hygienists, both nationwide and in rural and underserved areas.

Specifically, the Dental Heath Provider Shortage Act would work to increase the overall number of dentists and dental hygienists by providing faculty loan repayment programs for dentists who agree to teach, especially in general and pediatric training programs. It would also provide incentives for dentists and dental hygienists to work in rural and underserved areas by expanding both the National Health Service Corps and the Indian Health Service; providing support to Community Health Centers, which play a critical role in the delivery of dental care; and helping these centers and other providers that work in underserved areas to expand their practices. Finally, to encourage participation in State Medicaid programs, the bill would provide funding for states to simplify the Medicaid enrollment and payment process.

In this day and age, people should not be forced to travel great distances--let alone more than 100 miles--just to see a dentist. We can and must do better. The Surgeon General's report, ``Oral Health in America,'' reinforced that oral health is essential to the general health and well-being of all Americans. In its ``Call to Action,'' the report challenged the Nation to build a health infrastructure that can effectively meet the oral health needs of all Americans. By passing the bipartisan Dental Health Provider Shortage Act, we can begin to do just that.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act. For many years now, I have met and worked with people whose lives have been profoundly affected by the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. Prenatal exposure to alcohol can cause a wide range of serious, life-long problems known as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorders. Individuals with FASD can have a low IQ, behavioral impairments, growth retardation, facial abnormalities, and birth defects. About 40,000 children are born with FASD each year.

A great deal of progress has been made in raising awareness of the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy, but much more needs to be done. The bill I am introducing today addresses the need for more research, better screening systems to identify children with FASD, effective prevention programs, and enhanced access to treatment and support services. It is my sincere hope that this bill--when combined with the tireless efforts of parents, health professionals, teachers, and countless others--will help prevent FASD and support the children and families who are living with its consequences. I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet containing a description of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, 8 months ago, the Republican leadership pushed through Congress a lemon of a Medicare prescription drug bill that has been breaking down part by part since the day it was passed.

First, we learned drug companies were raising the prices of many drugs, erasing what little discounts the administration's drug card program might have offered.

Next, we learned the administration concealed its cost estimates, misled Congress, and threatened the Medicare actuary with termination for trying to respond to Congressional requests for information.

Then, we heard that some seniors who enrolled in the program were going to see reductions in other benefits, such as food stamps.

Later, days after the Drug Card program began, seniors from across the country began to report that it was too confusing and studies revealed there were lower prices available from major online pharmacies.

Finally, we learned that the HHS website established to help seniors navigate their way through the labyrinth of the myriad cards was riddled with false information.

The most recent discovery, however, is the most troubling of all, because what we're talking about is not policy breakdown, but policy sabotage.

Let me explain: Every senior has his or her Medicare Part B premium withdrawn from their Social Security check. But when the increase in health care inflation began to outpace seniors' Social Security cost of living adjustments, Congress protected seniors by making it impossible for a senior's Medicare premiums to go up more than the value of his or her Social Security COLA. It's called the ``hold harmless'' protection, and it makes a simple promise to seniors: The cost of health care will not come at the expense of the cost of living.

We have now learned that behind closed doors and in the dark of night, Republican leaders undermined this promise. Like Part B premiums, the new prescription drug premiums will come out of a senior's Social Security check. But unlike in traditional Medicare, the new drug bill does not protect seniors with a ``hold harmless'' provision.

It was never mentioned in the debate and no one has stepped forward to take responsibility in the months since. But if we don't fix the problem, it will eventually result in the decimation of seniors' Social Security annual cost of living adjustment.

Never have these protections been more important. In the past several years, the consumer price index, on

which Social Security COLAs are pegged, has remained very low. At the same time, the cost of health care has been skyrocketing by double- digit percentages. In the 4 years of this administration, the cumulative increase in the Medicare monthly premiums will be at least $26, nearly twice as much as in the prior eight years under the Clinton administration. In addition, the Medicare Part B premium increase for 2005 is projected to be $114, the largest ever.

For seniors on a fixed income, every dollar counts. The hold harmless protection is the only thing standing in the way of lower and lower Social Security checks.

But the Republican leadership chose not to protect seniors in this drug bill, despite the fact that the cost of pharmaceuticals is increasing even faster than the cost of health care overall. Medicare Part D premiums are expected to rise 7.5 percent per year. The result will be a steady erosion of Social Security checks, and real damage to seniors' ability to pay their bills and keep up with inflation.

According to a new report by the Joint Economic Committee, one in four seniors will lose a quarter of their COLA just on Medicare premium increases by 2007. In 2014, nearly two in three seniors will see the same level of loss. And those most vulnerable will be the ones most severely harmed. For an elderly woman with a monthly benefit of $500, the increase in Medicare premiums will take an average of 60 percent of her COLA from 2007 to 2010, and an average of 66 percent from 2011 to 2014.

Let's not mince words. This is the worst kind of bait and switch. We cannot stand by and allow seniors to be cheated out of their cost of living increases in exchange for a confusing drug benefit that fails to bring down the cost of drugs.

Today, I am introducing the Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004 to make sure that senior citizens continue to receive a COLA that helps them keep pace with inflation. This bill would restore seniors' protections and ensure that no more than 25 percent of their annual COLAs could be taken away by increases in Medicare premiums. The remaining 75 percent would be secure. For a senior citizen receiving a $600 monthly benefit, this bill would protect more than $2,200 over the next 10 years. That's money seniors will need to cover increases in clothing, food, housing and energy prices.

We're not talking about adding an extra benefit to Social Security. We're talking about protecting seniors' existing benefit from a drug plan that appears now to be little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing.

This wasn't the prescription drug bill seniors were promised. Upon the passage of this bill, President Bush said, ``Some older Americans spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications. . . . Elderly Americans should not have to live with those kinds of fears and hard choices. This new law will ease the burden on seniors and will give them the extra help they need.''

As we have seen so often, there has been a gap between what this administration promised, and what it delivered. In the guise of easing one burden on seniors, the administration has added yet another.

I wish the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress had listened more closely to some of the voices of seniors during the debate last Fall. One man from Nashville, Tennessee looked at the details of this bill and asked, ``Do you think anybody in Washington has any idea what people on a limited income have to do to live?''

If the authors of the prescription drug bill truly understood what seniors on fixed incomes must go through, they never would have passed it.

Democrats are fighting to make things right again. We do understand the struggles of America's seniors and the burden drug costs put on their finances. Seniors were promised a real prescription drug benefit for Medicare. The Republicans' prescription drug bill has proven to be tragically inadequate. The COLA protection bill we are introducing today represents an important step in repairing the damage, and Democrats will keep fighting until seniors get the help they were promised and the benefit they deserve.

I want to thank the Joint Economic Committee Democrats for their efforts to identify and highlight this problem. Senator Jack Reed is the senior Democratic Senator on the Committee, and the lead cosponsor of the COLA protection bill. Senator Patty Murray joined us in highlighting the problem yesterday. She is also a cosponsor, along with five other Senate Democrats.

This is truly a bicameral effort. My South Dakota colleague, Stephanie Herseth, is sponsoring the House bill. This is the first bill she is introducing in Congress, and I am proud that she is helping lead this fight for seniors in South Dakota and across the country. Many other House Democrats are joining her in this effort.

Senator Reed will be inserting the JEC report into the Record. I encourage my colleagues to read it. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a fact sheet on the bill that was prepared by Representative Pelosi's office, as well as a document prepared by the House Ways and Means Committee staff that provides several illustrative examples of how the bill would work, how much retirees would save if it becomes law, and what percentage of Medicare enrollees will benefit. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

We will continue our effort to protect America's seniors and address the problems created by last year's prescription drug bill when Congress returns in the fall.

Mr. President, recent media reports indicate that at least two companies are actively considering plans to import Brazilian ethanol into the United States duty-free through the Caribbean Basin. These reports have generated understandable anxiety within the farm community.

Cargill, the Minnesota-based agri-business giant, has confirmed that it is considering importing 63 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol into the United States each year. And it has been reported that Chevron-Texaco, one of the largest oil companies in the United States, is planning construction of a plant that will enable it to import 50 million to 100 million gallons of ethanol.

Farmers in South Dakota and throughout the Midwest are concerned that such import schemes could threaten the growth of the domestic ethanol industry and undermine our effort to establish ethanol as a major domestic energy source. They should be concerned. These import plans would establish a dangerous precedent for other importers and dramatically undercut the ability of the pending Renewable Fuels Standard to enhance our national energy security and boost farm income.

The key to the next growth spurt in the domestic ethanol industry is bipartisan legislation I wrote with Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) that would set mandatory annual production targets for ethanol for the next 10 years. Senator Lugar and I proposed the Renewable Fuels Standard, or RFS, 4 years ago as a means to grow the domestic ethanol industry in a way that both encourages investment in new community-sized ethanol facilities and expands markets for farmers. We remain hopeful that this proposal will clear Congress before adjournment this year.

Under our proposed RFS, domestic ethanol demand would grow from 3 billion gallons per year in 2004 to more than 5 billion gallons in 2012, providing ethanol plants and farmers with a steady growth schedule that encourages investment in this domestic industry. This RFS would create over 214,000 jobs, increase farm income by $1.3 billion annually, and save the U.S. $4 billion in imported oil each year.

Plans to import ethanol threaten these benefits by injecting an element of market uncertainty into the RFS discussion that could dampen investment in community-sized ethanol facilities. Ethanol importation would put the producers of Brazilian sugarcane in direct competition with American corn growers. That is why today Senators Lugar, Hagel, Nelson, and I are introducing legislation to clarify that ethanol imports will not count toward the RFS targets. This bill will ensure that farmers and domestic ethanol investors will get the full benefit of the RFS, and it tells Cargill and Chevron accountants not to count on the new demand created by the Renewable Fuels Standard to justify any scheme to import ethanol.

I understand that corporate executives feel an obligation to their shareholders. My obligation is to South Dakota farmers, ethanol producers, and motorists who view increased ethanol demand as a means to establish greater control over their economic and energy future.

I have fought my entire public career against outright opposition and indifference from the giant corporate interests whose balance sheets don't consider the value-added contribution of local economic development. This situation is no different. As a result of our efforts, Chevron won't get to import as much oil and refine and sell as much high-priced gasoline as they may like, and Cargill won't get to import ethanol and compete against South Dakota producers.

The RFS program is designed to stimulate domestic production and enhance U.S. energy security, not to create a market opportunity for foreign ethanol. The bill I am introducing today will help make sure that rural communities are able to attract investment capital to produce clean burning energy, create quality jobs for their kids, and expand local tax bases to accommodate better schools and community services.

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

Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as we all painfully know, the United States has broken its word to Indian people, disregarded its treaty obligations, and breached its fiduciary trust responsibility. Litigation has been filed, and administrations of both political parties say the right thing, but then do not follow through to redress legitimate grievances. The concepts of sovereignty and government-to- government dialog are acknowledged, only later all too frequently to be ignored.

This sad history was elevated to a new level of concern this spring by the resignation of Mr. Alan Balaran as Special Master in the Cobell class action against the Department of the Interior. On April 5, 2004, Mr. Balaran made some very serious charges against the Department of the Interior in his official letter of resignation. He alleged that energy companies, abetted by the Department of the Interior, routinely pay Indian people less than they pay others for oil and gas easements. He further alleged that Interior officials regularly put the interests of private companies ahead of the Department's fiduciary responsibility to Indian people.

These are disturbing charges leveled by an individual knowledgeable about the long history of trust mismanagement. Congress must get to the bottom of this situation to fully satisfy our own fiduciary responsibility to Indian people.

It is clear that neither the executive branch nor the Congress's hands are clean on the trust management issue. And this not a partisan failure. It is a governmentwide failure that requires independent review.

I am, therefore, today introducing legislation to create a National Commission on American Indian Trust Holdings. This Commission will be unique in several respects. First, it will be composed of 10 prominent U.S. citizens. Two individuals will each be appointed by the President, Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader, Speaker of the House, and House minority leader to place the Commission beyond politics. Second, it will have the resources to hire the technical expertise needed. Professionals with expertise in land and resources management, accounting, Federal Indian policy, and trust law, among other disciplines will be included.

The Commission will build upon past efforts without duplicating past efforts.

Finally, the Commission will be charged with the responsibility of reporting to the President and the Congress within 1 year on: One, how to recoup, if possible, any damages that have resulted from the breach of fiduciary responsibility; and, two, how to prevent any such breaches in the future. We are looking for specific recommendations on how to fairly account for past mistakes, how to find closure on the trust issue, and how to prevent those mistakes from again happening in the future.

The overall goal of the Commission is to fully and completely examine the very serious charges made by Mr. Balaran, as outlined in his letter to Judge Lamberth. The Commission would also be authorized to examine other breaches of trust and to report back to the Congress and such executive departments as may seem appropriate.

Many words have been spoken over many years about trust responsibility and the breach of trust and fiduciary obligations, but very little concrete action has resulted from these words. Mr. Balaran's charges should be a wake-up call to all civic-minded Americans to demand that fairness be restored to the administration of Indian trust accounts. I sincerely hope that, given the track record of the past 10 years, an independent panel of distinguished Americans will be given an opportunity to succeed where the executive and legislative branches have fallen short. Their review will at least get to the bottom of Mr. Balaran's charges. And perhaps we can use the results of this examination to generate momentum for exploring the larger trust issues.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Balaran's letter of resignation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Akaka, Leahy, Durbin and Dayton today in introducing the Federal Employees Protection of Disclosures Act. Our bill strengthens the law protecting employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal programs.

Whistleblowers play a crucial role in ensuring that Congress and the public are aware of serious cases of waste,

fraud, and mismanagement in government. Whistleblowing is never more important than when our national security is at stake. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, courageous individuals have stepped forward to blow the whistle on significant lapses in our efforts to protect the United States against potential future attacks. Most notably, FBI Agent Coleen Rowley alerted Congress to serious institutional problems at the FBI and their impact on the agency's ability to effectively investigate and prevent terrorism.

In another example, two Border Patrol agents from my State of Michigan, Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann, risked their careers when they blew the whistle on Border Patrol and INS policies that were compromising security on the Northern Border. Their disclosure led to my holding a hearing at the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in November 2001, that exposed serious deficiencies in the way Border Patrol and INS were dealing with aliens who were arrested while trying to enter the country illegally. Since the hearing, some of the most troublesome policies have been changed, improving the security situation and validating the two agents' concerns. Despite the fact that their concerns proved to be dead on, shortly after they blew the whistle, disciplinary action was proposed against the two agents. Fortunately in this case, whistleblower protections worked. The Office of Special Counsel conducted an investigation and the decision to discipline the agents was reversed. However, that disciplinary action was proposed in the first place is a troubling reminder of how important it is for us to both strengthen protections for whistleblowers and empower the Office of Special Counsel to discipline managers who seek to muzzle employees.

Agent Rowley, Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann are simply the latest in a long line of Federal employees who have taken great personal risks in blowing the whistle on government waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Congress has long recognized the obligation we have to protect a Federal employee when he or she discloses evidence of wrongdoing in a federal program. If an employee reasonably believes that a fraud or mismanagement is occurring, and that employee has the courage and the sense of responsibility to make that fraud or mismanagement known, it is our duty to protect the employee from any reprisal. We want federal employees to identify problems so we can fix them, and if they fear reprisal for doing so, then we are not only failing to protect the whistleblower, but we are also failing to protect the taxpayer.

I sponsored the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 which strengthened and clarified whistleblower rights, as well as the bill passed by Congress to strengthen the law further in 1994. Unfortunately, however, repeated holdings by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have corrupted the intent of Congress, with the result that additional clarifying language is sorely needed. The case of LaChance versus White represents perhaps the most notable example of the Federal Circuit's misinterpretation of the whistleblower law.

In LaChance, decided on May 14, 1999, the court imposed an unfounded and virtually unattainable standard on Federal employee whistleblowers in proving their cases. In that case, John E. White was an education specialist for the Air Force who spoke out against a new educational system that purported to mandate quality standards for schools contracting with the Air Force bases. White criticized the new system as counterproductive because it was too burdensome and seriously reduced the education opportunities available on base. After making these criticisms, local agency officials reassigned White, relieving him of his duties and allegedly isolating him. However, after an independent management review supported White's concerns, the Air Force canceled the program White had criticized. White appealed the reassignment in 1992 and the case has been in litigation ever since.

The administrative judge initially dismissed White's case, finding that his disclosures were not protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. The MSPB, however, reversed the administrative judge's decision and remanded the case back to the administrative judge, holding that since White disclosed information he reasonably believed evidenced gross mismanagement, this disclosure was protected under the Act. On remand, the administrative judge found that the Air Force had violated the Whistleblower Protection Act and ordered the Air Force to return White to his prior status; the MSPB affirmed the decision of the administrative judge. OPM petitioned the Federal Circuit for a review of the board's decision. The Federal Circuit subsequently reversed the MSPB's decision, holding that there was not adequate evidence to support a violation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Federal Circuit held that the evidence that White was a specialist on the subject at issue and aware of the alleged improper activities and that his belief was shared by other employees was not sufficient to meet the ``reasonable belief'' test in the law. The court held that ``the board must look for evidence that it was reasonable to believe that the disclosures revealed misbehavior'' by the Air Force. The court went on to say: ``In this case, review of the Air Force's policy and implementation via the QES standards might well show them to be entirely appropriate, even if not the best option. Indeed, this review would start out with a presumption that public officers perform their duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with the law and governing regulations. . . . And this presumption stands unless there is ``irrefragable proof to the contrary'.''

It was appropriate for the Federal Circuit to remand the case to the MSPB to have it reconsider whether it was reasonable for White to believe that what the Air Force did in this case involved gross mismanagement. However, the Federal Circuit went on to impose a clearly erroneous and excessive standard for him to demonstrate his ``reasonable belief''--requiring him to provide ``irrefragable'' proof that the Air Force had engaged in gross mismanagement.

Irrefragable means ``undeniable, incontestable, incontrovertible, incapable of being overthrown.'' How can a Federal employee meet a standard of ``irrefragable'' in proving gross mismanagement? It is a virtually impossible standard of proof to meet. Moreover, there is nothing in the law or legislative history that even suggests such a standard applies to the Whistleblower Protection Act. The intent of the law is not for a Federal employee to act as an investigator and compile ``irrefragable'' proof that the Federal Government, in fact, committed fraud, waste or abuse. Rather, under the clear language of the statute, the employee needs only to have ``a reasonable belief'' that there is fraud, waste or abuse occurring in order to make a protected disclosure.

LaChance is only one example of the Federal Circuit misinterpreting the law. Our bill corrects LaChance and as well as several other Federal Circuit holdings. In addition, the bill strengthens the Office of Special Counsel and creates additional protections for federal employees who are retaliated against for blowing the whistle.

One of the most important issues addressed in the bill is to clarify again that the law is intended to protect a broad range of whistleblower disclosures. The legislative history supporting the 1994 Whistleblower Protection Act amendments emphasized: ``[I]t also is not possible to further clarify the clear language in section 2302(b)(8) that protection for ``any'' whistleblowing disclosure truly means ``any.'' A protected disclosure may be made as part of an employee's job duties, may concern policy or individual misconduct, and may be oral or written and to any audience inside or outside the agency, without restriction to time, place, motive or content.''

Despite this clear Congressional intent that was clearly articulated in 1994, the Federal Circuit has acted to push a number of whistleblower disclosures outside the protections of the whistleblower law. For example, in Horton versus the Department of the Navy, the Federal Circuit ruled that a whistleblower's disclosures to co-workers, or to the wrong-doer, or to a supervisor were not protected by the WPA. In Willis versus the Department of Agriculture, the court ruled that a whistleblower's disclosures to officials in

the agency chain of command or those made in the course of normal job duties were not protected. In Huffman versus Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed Horton and Willis. And in Meuwissen versus Department of Interior, the Federal Circuit held that a whistleblower's disclosures of previously known information do not qualify as ``disclosures'' under the WPA. All of these rulings violate clear Congressional intent to afford broad protection to whistleblower disclosures.

In order to make it clear that any lawful disclosure that an employee or job applicant reasonably believes is evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or gross mismanagement is covered by the WPA, the bill codifies previous statements of Congressional intent. Using the 1994 legislative history, it amends the whistleblower statute to cover any disclosure of information without restriction to time, place, form, motive or context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is credible evidence of any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified in the whistleblower law. I want to emphasize here that, other than the explicitly listed exceptions identified in the statute, we intend for there to be no exceptions, inferred or otherwise, as to what is a protected disclosure. And the prohibition on inferred exceptions is intended to apply to all protected speech categories in section 2302(b)(8) of the law. The intent here, again, is to make it clear that when the WPA speaks of protecting disclosures by federal employees ``any'' means ``any.''

The bill also addresses the clearly erroneous standard established by the Federal Circuit's LaChance decision I mentioned earlier. Rather than needing ``irrefragable proof'' to overcome the presumption that a public officer performed his or her duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with the law and regulations, the bill makes it clear that the whistleblower can rebut this presumption with ``substantial evidence.'' This burden of proof is a far more reasonable and appropriate standard for whistleblowing cases.

In the 1994 WPA amendments, Congress attempted to expand relief for whistleblowers by replacing ``compensatory'' damages with all direct or indirect ``consequential'' damages. Again, despite clear Congressional intent, the Federal Circuit has narrowed the scope of relief available to whistleblowers who have been hurt by adverse personnel actions. Our legislation would clarify the law to provide whistleblowers with relief for ``compensatory or consequential damages.''

The Federal Circuit's repeated misinterpretations of the whistleblower law are unacceptable and demand Congressional action. In response to the court's inexplicable and inappropriate rulings, our bill would suspend for five years the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction over whistleblower appeals. It would instead allow a whistleblower to file a petition to review a final order or final decision of the MSPB in the Federal Circuit or in any other United States appellate court of competent jurisdiction as defined under 5 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2). In most cases, using another court would mean going to the federal circuit where the contested personnel action took place. This five year period would allow Congress to evaluate whether other appellate courts would issue whistleblower decisions which are consistent with the Federal Circuit's interpretation of WPA protections and guide Congressional efforts to clarify the law if necessary.

In addition to addressing jurisdictional issues and troublesome Federal Circuit precedents, our bill would also make important additions to the list of protected disclosures. First, it would subject certain disclosures of classified information to whistleblower protections. However, in order for a disclosure of classified information to be protected, the employee would have to possess a reasonable belief that the disclosure was direct and specific evidence of a violation of law, rule or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a false statement to Congress on an issue of material fact. A whistleblower must also limit the disclosure to a member of Congress or staff of the executive or legislative branch holding the appropriate security clearance and authorized to receive the information disclosed. Federal agencies covered by the WPA would be required to establish a process to provide confidential advice to employees on how to lawfully make a protected disclosure of classified information to Congress.

Current law permits Federal employees to file a case at the MSPB when they feel that a manager has taken a personnel action against them in retaliation for blowing the whistle. The legislation would add three new personnel actions to the list of adverse actions that cannot be taken against whistleblowers for engaging in protected activity. These actions would include enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form or agreement against a whistleblower for making a protected disclosure; the suspension, revocation, or other determination relating to a whistleblower's security clearance; and an investigation of an employee or applicant for employment if taken due to their participation in whistleblowing activity.

It is important to note that, if it is demonstrated that a security clearance was suspended or revoked in retaliation for whistleblowing, the legislation limits the relief that the MSPB and reviewing court can order. The bill specifies that the MSPB or reviewing court may issue declaratory and other appropriate relief but may not direct a security clearance to be restored. Appropriate relief may include back pay, an order to reassign the employee, attorney fees, or any other relief the Board or court is authorized to provide for other prohibited personnel practices. In addition, if the Board finds an action on a security clearance to have been illegal, it may bar the agency from directly or indirectly taking any other personnel action based on that illegal security clearance action. Our legislation would also require the agency to review and provide a report to Congress detailing the circumstances of the agency's security clearance decision, and authorizes expedited MSPB review of whistleblower cases where a security clearance was revoked or suspended. The latter is important because a person whose clearance has been suspended or revoked and whose job responsibilities require clearance may be unable to work while their case is being considered.

Our bill would also add two prohibited personnel practices to the whistleblower law. First, it would codify the ``anti-gag'' provision that has been in force since 1988, by virtue of its inclusion in appropriations bills. Second, it would prohibit a manager from initiating an investigation of an employee or applicant for employment because they engaged in a protected activity, including whistleblowing.

Another issue addressed in the bill involves certain employees who are excluded from the WPA. Among these are employees who hold ``confidential policy-making positions.'' In 1994, Congress amended the WPA to keep agencies from designating employees confidential policymakers after the employees filed whistleblower complaints. The WPA also allows the President to exclude from WPA jurisdiction any agency whose principal function is the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities. Our legislation maintains this authority but makes it clear that a decision to exclude an agency from WPA protections must also be made prior to a personnel action being taken against a whistleblower from that agency. This provision is necessary to ensure that agencies cannot argue that employees are exempt from whistleblower protections after an employee files a claim that they were retaliated against.

Another key section of the bill would strengthen the Office of Special Counsel. OSC is the independent federal agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting federal employee complaints of whistleblower retaliation. Current law, however, limits OSC's ability to effectively enforce and defend whistleblower laws. For example, the law provides the OSC with no authority to request the Merit Systems Protection Board to reconsider one of its decisions or to seek appellate review of an MSPB decision. Even when

another party petitions for a review of a MSPB decision, OSC is typically denied the right to participate in the proceedings.

Our bill would provide explicit authority for the Office of Special Counsel to appear in any civil action brought in connection with the whistleblower law. In addition, it would authorize OSC to obtain circuit court review of any MSPB order in a whistleblowing case if the OSC determines the Board erred and the case would have a substantial impact on the enforcement of the whistleblower statute. In a letter to me addressing these provisions, Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan said, ``I believe that these changes are necessary, not only to ensure OSC's effectiveness, but to address continuing concerns about the whittling away of the WPA's protections by narrow judicial interpretations of the law.'' I ask unanimous consent that the OSC letter be printed in the Record.

OSC currently has the authority to pursue disciplinary action against managers who retaliate against whistleblowers. However, Federal Circuit decisions, like LaChance, have undermined the agency's ability to successfully pursue such cases. The Special Counsel has said that ``change is necessary in order to ensure that the burden of proof in these cases is not so onerous as to make it virtually impossible to secure disciplinary action against retaliators.'' In addition to it being difficult to win, if the OSC loses a disciplinary case, it has to pay the legal fees of those against whom OSC initiates disciplinary action. In its letter, OSC said that ``the specter of having to pay large attorney fee awards . . . is a significant obstacle to our ability to use this important authority to hold managers accountable.'' Our bill addresses these problems by establishing a reasonable burden of proof for disciplinary actions and requiring the employing agency, not the OSC, to reimburse the prevailing party for attorney fees in a disciplinary proceeding.

Finally, the bill addresses a new issue that has arisen in connection

with the recent enactment of the Homeland Security Act or HSA. To evaluate the vulnerability to terrorist attack of certain critical infrastructure such as chemical plants, computer networks and other key facilities, the HSA asks private companies that own these facilities to submit unclassified information about them to the government. In doing so, the law also created some ambiguity on the question of whether federal employee whistleblowers would be protected by the WPA if they should disclose information that has been independently obtained by the whistleblower about such facilities but which may also have been disclosed to the government as under the critical infrastructure information program.

While I believe it was Congress' intent to extend whistleblower protections to federal employees who disclose such independently obtained information, the law's ambiguities are troublesome in the context of the tendency of the Federal Circuit to narrowly construe the scope of protections afforded by the WPA. Our bill would thus clarify that whistleblower protections do extend to federal employees who disclose independently obtained information that may also have been disclosed to the government as part of the critical infrastructure information program.

We need to encourage federal employees to blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse in federal government agencies and programs. These people take great risks and often face enormous obstacles in doing what they believe is right. The Congress and the country owe a particular debt of gratitude to those whistleblowers who put their careers on the line to protect national security. Since September 11, 2001, we have seen a number of examples of how crucial people like Coleen Rowley, Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann are to keeping our country safe. I request unanimous consent to print a letter from Agent Rowley in the Record. In the letter she says that when she blew the whistle, she was lucky enough to garner the support of many of her colleagues and members of Congress. However, her letter warns that for every Coleen Rowley, ``there are many more who do not benefit from the relative safety of public notoriety.'' It is to protect those responsible, courageous many that we offer this legislation. We need more like them.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section- by-section explanation of the bill.