A bill to include Idaho and Montana as affected areas for purposes of making claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to provide greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government and ensure greater accountability among public officials.

The legislation does a number of things. It provides for faster reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and their employers under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

It requires greater disclosure of the activities of lobbyists, including for the first time grassroots lobbying firms.

The bill also requires greater disclosure from both lobbyists and Members and employees of Congress about travel that is arranged or financed by a lobbyist or his client.

To understand more thoroughly the actions lobbyists take to influence elected officials, the bill requires lobbying firms, lobbyists, and their political action committees to disclose their campaign contributions to Federal candidates and officeholders, their political action committees and political party committees. It further mandates disclosure of fundraisers hosted, cohosted, or otherwise sponsored by these entities, and disclosure of contributions for other events involving legislative and executive branch officials.

To get behind anonymous coalitions and associations and discover who actually is seeking to influence Government, the bill requires registrants to list as clients those entities that contribute $10,000 or more to a coalition or association. The bill expressly keeps intact, however, existing law governing the disclosure of the identities of members and donors to organizations designated as 501(c) groups under the Internal Revenue Code.

To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and the private sector, the bill lengthens the period during which senior members of the executive, Members of Congress, and senior congressional staff are restricted from lobbying.

The bill also modifies the provision in current law that exempts from the revolving door laws former employees who go to work for Indian tribes by applying these laws to those employees retained by tribes as outside lobbyists and agents.

To ensure compliance with congressional restrictions on accepting gifts, the bill requires registrants under the Lobbying Disclosure Act to report gifts worth $20 or more. I repeat that: The person who gives the gift is now responsible for reporting a gift of $20 or more.

To accurately reflect the true value of benefits received, the bill also requires Members of Congress and staff to pay the fair market value for travel on private planes and the value of sports and entertainment tickets and skyboxes at the cost of the highest priced ticket in the arena. The legislation increases the penalty for violating the reporting requirements, and it contains other provisions on enforcement and oversight.

This bill is regrettably necessary. Over the past year and a half, the Committee on Indian affairs has unearthed a story of excess and abuse by former lobbyists of a few Indian tribes. The story is alarming in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing. It has spanned across the United States, sweeping up tribes throughout Indian country. It has taken us from tribal reservations across America to luxury skyboxes in town, from a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, DE, to a sniper workshop in Israel and beyond. It involves tens of millions of dollars that we know about and likely more that we do not.

Much of what the committee learned was extraordinary. Yet much of what we uncovered in the investigation was, unfortunately, the ordinary way of doing business in this town.

The bill I am introducing today seeks to address business as usual in the Nation's Capital. How these lobbyists sought to influence policy and opinionmakers is a case study in the ways lobbyists seek to curry favor with legislators and their aides. For example, they sought to ingratiate themselves with public servants with tickets to plush skyboxes at the MCI Center, FedEx Field, and Camden Yards for sports and entertainment events. They

arranged extravagant getaways to tropical islands, the famed golfing links of St. Andrews and elsewhere. They regularly treated people to meals and drinks. Fundraisers and contributions abounded. The bill casts some disinfectant on those practices by simply requiring greater disclosure. If there is nothing inherently wrong with such activities, then there is no good reason to hide them from public scrutiny. The American people deserve no less.

During its investigation, the committee also learned about unscrupulous tactics employed to lobby Members and to shape public opinion. We found a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, DE, established in part to disguise the true identity of clients. We saw phony Christian grassroots organizations consisting of a box of cell phones and a desk drawer.

I submit that in the great marketplace of ideas we call public discourse, truth is a premium that we cannot sacrifice. Through these practices, the lobbyists distorted the truth not only with false messages but also with fake messengers.

I hope by having for the first time disclosure of grassroots activities in the financial interests beyond misleading front groups that such a fraud on Members and voters can be avoided. Many cast blame only on the lobbying industry. But we should not forget that we as Members owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces rather than diminishes the public's faith and confidence in Congress.

The bill thus requires more accurate accounting of the benefits and privileges that sometimes come with public office. Requiring lobbyists to disclose all gifts over $20 will cause not only the lobbyist but also the recipient to more scrupulously adhere to existing gift limits. Fair evaluation of tickets to sporting and entertainment events and for air travel aboard private planes is another way of giving real effect to the gift rules of Congress.

I have read news reports that the Department of Justice is investigating job negotiations that some public officials may have had with lobbying firms while still in Government, negotiations that may have compromised their job performance. I have long been concerned with the revolving door between public service and the private sector, how that door is spun to personal gain, and the corrupting influences that can creep through that door into Government decisionmaking. To address the problem, I am proposing to expand the cooling off period to 2 years for Members of Congress and senior staff and certain executive branch officials. And to ensure a level playing field, I am seeking to close a loophole that has existed in Federal conflict-of-interest laws for those who represent Indian tribes.

Informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. The approach on this bill is thus one of greater disclosure of and transparency into the interactions of lobbyists with our public officials.

The bill is intended to balance the right of the public to know with its right to petition Government, the ability of lobbyists to advocate their clients' cause with a need for truthful public discourse, and the ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our Government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived.

We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence. That is why I would hope my colleagues would carefully examine this measure. I have had conversations with numerous other Members of this body, and I hope that both Republican and Democrat can join together on this issue.

I noted in today's--Friday, December 16--Congress Daily, there is a little chart in the corner, and it says: ``2005 Congressional Approval Ratings.'' I notice a very interesting trend. On February 1 of this year, approximately 40-some percent--about 44 percent--of the people approved, and about 43 percent disapproved. Those numbers have changed somewhat dramatically to a disapproval rating, in the last couple of days, of 64 percent, with a 26-percent approval rating. I repeat: 64 percent disapprove, 26 percent approve.

Now, I am not sure that is divided up between Democrats and Republicans. From my travels--and I have been traveling a lot lately in the last few weeks around the country--I find that disapproval is nonpartisan in nature. I think there are a number of reasons for that disapproval, and many of them I will not chronicle here. But one of them is that there is a deep perception that we do not act on the priorities of the American people, that special interests set our agenda here rather than the people's interest.

Now, I do not pretend that a lobbying reform bill will be the panacea for all the ills that I think beset this Capitol of ours, but I do believe it is part of an effort we all need to make--and seriously make--in order to try to turn these kinds of numbers around, not only for our individual well-being but for the well-being of the people of the United States because it will be more difficult to act effectively if we do not have at least a significant amount of support from the people whom we purport to represent.

I would like to say another word about lobbyists. Lobbying is an honorable profession. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with people working in order to bring the people's interests and agenda and priorities to the attention of Congress. Almost all of us who I know of rely on their input on various issues. Many supply us with policy papers, with data, et cetera.

But, Mr. President--Mr. President--when we have the behavior that we highlighted, what actually was brought to our attention during our Indian Affairs Committee hearings, it is not believable: luxury sports boxes, a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, a sniper workshop in Israel, the list goes on and on. And, of course, the way the Native Americans were treated was especially insulting.

Congress, according to the Constitution, has a special obligation in regard to Indian affairs. But I will tell you what, I greatly fear that these practices we have uncovered concerning Native Americans are far more widespread than just lobbying efforts on behalf of Native Americans--or exploitation of Native Americans is probably the better description.

I do not think there is any doubt that one of the reasons the American people mistrust us is they think there is wrongdoing, if not corruption, in this town. We have an obligation to fix this system as well as we can, and I believe that one of the measures that needs to be taken is to have a lobbying transparency and accountability that can give us confidence.

I note the presence of my friend from Connecticut on the floor whom I have had discussions with on this issue. I have had them with my colleague, Senator Feingold, and many others. I hope we can, over the recess, think about this issue and be prepared to address it as early as possible. We have a long way to go to restore accountability, transparency, and the confidence of the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help parents protect their children against violent and sexual media. In rising, I stand with the parents and children of New York and of the Nation, all of whom are being victimized by a culture of violence.

As parents, we monitor the kind of people who interact with our children. We attend parent night at school. We meet our children's teachers. We look over their textbooks to make sure they are installing our values and attitudes in our children. We meet our children's friends and their parents to make sure they are a positive source of influence.

If somebody is exposing our children to material we find inappropriate, we remove our children from that person.

If you hired a babysitter who exposed your children to violence and sexual material that you thought was inappropriate, what would you do? If you are like me, you would fire that babysitter and never invite him or her to come back.

Yet our children spend more time consuming media than doing anything else but sleeping and attending school. Media culture is like having a stranger in your house, and it exerts a major influence over your children.

It is this attack on the sensibilities of our children that is the subject of the bill I introduce today. It is a bill that I consider to be of tremendous importance to our families.

This bill would take an important step towards helping parents protect their children against influences they often find to be inappropriate--violent and sexually explicit video games. Quite simply, the bill would put teeth into the video game industry's rating system, which specifies which video games are inappropriate for young people under 17. By fining retailers who do not abide by the ratings system, this bill sends a message that the ratings system is to be taken seriously.

I know many of my colleagues, myself included, don't play video games and aren't aware of exactly what is contained in these games. So, I hope you will listen as I describe a few scenes so we know what is at issue here today.

Consider the following scenario: You have been captured by a demented film-maker who drops you into a gang-infested slum. While the gangs think they are hunting you, they don't know the real plot: that you are hunting them, while the director records each act of murder on film. Since you are outnumbered and could easily be mobbed, you cannot just jump in and fight everyone. Rather, you must be silent and patient, tracking your prey so that you can strike from behind. You strangle a villain with a sharp wire, and a finely rendered mist of blood sprays from his severed carotid artery. . . .

This is just one scene from one game. It happens not to be a game that has gotten a tremendous amount of attention lately. Frankly, I don't know if it's one of the most popular games out

there or not. But I do know, if my daughter was still young, I wouldn't want her playing it.

Here is another one: Carl Johnson long ago escaped the hardships of street life in San Andreas. Now his mother is murdered, his old buddies are in trouble, and Carl must come home to clean up the mess--San Andreas style. That means spraying people with uzi bullets, blowing them up, or sniper shooting them from the top of buildings. It also means killing police officers and visiting prostitutes.

No one doubts that this material is inappropriate for children. The video game industry itself developed and implemented the ratings system that parents rely on today. They are responsible for developing the ``M'' for Mature or ``AO'' for Adults Only labels, which signal to parents that the content is too violent and/or sexually explicit for a child to play.

Unfortunately, enforcement has been lax and minors can purchase Mature-rated games with relative ease. A 2001 study by the Federal Trade Commission showed that 85 percent of unaccompanied minors, ages 13 to 16, could purchase games rated Mature. A study by the National Institute on Media and the Family found that nearly half of children, as young as age 9, succeed in buying Mature-rated games. And close to a quarter of retailers did not understand the ratings system and half did not provide any training to their employees.

This is a terrible problem that needs to be fixed. And this bill does just that.

I want to be clear--this bill is not an attack on video games. Video games are a fun part of the lives of millions of Americans, young and old alike. They can teach coordination and strategy. They can introduce children to computer technology. They can provide practice in learning to problem solve and they can help children hone their fine motor and spatial skills.

This bill is also not an attack on free and creative expression. Relying on the growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates a causal link between exposure to these games and antisocial behavior in our children, this bill was carefully drafted to pass constitutional strict scrutiny.

Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the production or sale of these games beyond current practice. If retailers are following the rules--established voluntarily by the video game industry--then this bill will have absolutely no impact on them.

And this bill does not overlook or undervalue the critical role parents play in protecting their children, and instilling in them, their own values. This bill is designed to buoy the efforts of parents, who too often feel like they are fighting an uphill battle against the violent and sexually explicit messages that are just a trip to the mall away.

The unfortunate truth is there is a darkside to some video games, which has lead to a universal agreement--among parents, advocates, policymakers, and the gaming industry--that some games are not suitable for children. What we are seeking to do today is to ensure that that value judgment is meaningful.

Much of the public concern about the exposure of children to M-rated games focuses on sexually explicit content. Parents are rightly worried about this content and we should come together to take steps to keep these games out of the hands of our kids. But let's not discount the awful effect of violence in the media because, frankly, the evidence on this point is overwhelming and deserves more of our attention.

Consider the Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children from the Congressional Public Health Summit in July of 2000. I quote: ``Well over 1,000 studies--including reports from the Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations . . . point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children,'' states their report.

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated, in a report entitled Media Exposure Feeding Children's Violent Acts, ``Playing violent video games is to an adolescent's violent behavior what smoking tobacco is to lung cancer.'' I ask to have printed in the Record a resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association about the effect of violence in video games and interactive media.

In June, a groundbreaking study by researchers at the University of Indiana School of Medicine, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, concluded that adolescents exposed to high levels of violent media were less able to control and to direct their thoughts and behavior, to stay focused on a task, to plan, to screen out distractions, and to use experience to guide inhibitions.

A 2004 meta-analysis of over 35 research studies that included over 4,000 participants, found similar results. It concluded that playing violent video games significantly increases aggressive behavior, physiological arousal and feelings of anger and hostility, and significantly decreases pro-social helping behavior.

And according to testimony by Craig Andersen before the Commerce Committee in 2000, violent video games have been found to increase violent adolescent behavior by 13 to 22 percent. Eighty-six percent of African American females in the games are victims of violence. And, the most common role for women in video games is prostitutes.

Research also demonstrates the opposite--reducing exposure to violence reduces aggressive behavior. A 2001 study by Stanford University School of Medicine found that reducing TV and video violence consumption to under one hour per day reduces verbal aggression by 50 percent and physical aggression by 40 percent among 3rd and 4th grade children.

Now, if you don't find the scientists compelling, consider a child named Devon Thompson, who shot three police officers after being brought in under suspicion of driving a stolen car. He grabbed one of the officer's guns, shot three men and then jumped into a police car, a scene remarkably like one found in the game Grand Theft Auto. When Thompson was apprehended he said ``Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime.''

In the face of this mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence, the same company that developed Grand Theft Auto is coming out with a new game called Bully. In Bully, the player is a student who beats up other students in school.

Again, I am not here to argue that these games shouldn't be developed or made available. But, I am here to ask, can't we as a society do better by our kids? Can't we give parents the tools to make sure they know what may fall into the hands of their children?

That is what this bill is all about and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. President, joined by my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, I am today introducing the Protecting Children from Sexual Exploitation Act of 2005.

This bill will strengthen an important tool for protecting children from the exploitation of child pornography.

Pornography is devastating communities, families, and individual lives.

On November 10, the Senator from Kansas chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution titled ``Why the Government Should Care About Pornography.''

Witnesses at that hearing included authors and researchers documenting the devastation wrought by pornography.

Children are pornography's most vulnerable and most devastated victims.

Abusing children through early exposure to pornography has lifelong effects.

Even worse, however, is the actual use of children to make sexually explicit material.

This is perhaps the worst form of sexual exploitation because the abuse only begins with its production.

Children lack the maturity to choose participation in that activity and to accept its aftermath.

Everyone who intentionally copies, distributes, advertises, purchases, or consumes sexually explicit material involving children should be held responsible as part of the ongoing chain of exploitation.

For this compelling reason, Federal law prohibits using children to produce visual depictions of either actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct.

As an additional deterrent to this abhorrent practice, Federal law also requires those who produce sexually explicit material to keep records regarding the age of performers and to make those records available for inspection.

That recordkeeping statute is found in the United States Code in section 2257 of title 18.

Section 2257 is inadequate for its crucial task and the bill I introduce today strengthens it in four ways.

First, section 2257 defines actual sexually explicit conduct too narrowly, incorporating only four of the five. part definition found right next door in the definitional section 2256.

Our bill makes these definitions consistent.

Second, and more importantly, while Federal law prohibits using children to make depictions of either actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct, section 2257 applies only to those who produce depictions of actual conduct.

Our bill applies the same recordkeeping requirements to those who produce depictions of simulated conduct.

The purpose is obvious.

If you produce sexually explicit material, you have to keep age- related records.

Period.

Third, while section 2257 requires maintaining records and making them available for inspection, it only makes unlawful failure to maintain the records.

This implies that while making these important records available for inspection is a duty, refusing to do so is not a crime.

Our bill corrects that error by explicitly stating that refusal to permit inspection of these records is also a crime.

Eliminating such ambiguity is very important.

Maintaining records is necessary, but not sufficient, to ensure that children are not being exploited.

Because inspection of those records makes the circle of protection complete, we must make crystal clear that refusal to permit inspections is a crime.

Fourth, the definition in section 2257 of what it means to produce sexually explicit material is inadequate.

That definition must be guided by the nature of the harm that flows from this kind of sexual exploitation.

Filming or taking a picture of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct is certainly sexual exploitation by itself.

But the abuse does not end there.

Those whose actions constitute links in the chain of exploitation must be covered by this recordkeeping statute if it is to be an effective tool to protect children.

My friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, graciously allowed me to participate in the latest hearing in his subcommittee on the effects of pornography.

Witnesses highlighted how new technology can magnify those effects.

While the Internet can be a powerful tool for good, it can also be an insidious tool for evil.

It can compound the sexual exploitation of children by disseminating and commercializing child pornography.

And while we all know how difficult it is for sound public policy to keep pace with developing and changing technology, failing to do so in this area leaves children even more exposed to ongoing victimization and exploitation.

For that reason, our bill provides both a substantive definition of that important term, ``produces,'' and lists five targeted exceptions, five specific categories of those who are not included in this definition.

The definition includes obvious activities such as filming or photographing someone but also activities such as duplicating or reissuing images for commercial distribution.

It also includes managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site.

At the same time, our bill does not include in the definition of the term ``produces'' activities that do not involve the hiring, managing, or arranging for the performers' participation.

It exempts provision of Web-hosting services when the provider does not manage sexually explicit content.

In strengthening section 2257, the bill we are introducing today meets three important objectives.

First and foremost, this bill will make the recordkeeping statute a more effective tool for protecting children from sexual exploitation.

Second, our bill strengthens the recordkeeping statute while minimizing unintended consequences.

I mentioned the care with which our bill defines key terms such as ``produces.''

Our bill also places the extension of recordkeeping requirements regarding depictions of simulated material in a separate section 2257A.

This step responded to a legitimate concern by the motion picture industry.

Third, our bill strengthens the recordkeeping statute in ways that make it a more workable and practical tool for the prosecutors who have to use it.

I believe that as the Congress deals with this difficult issue, we must keep all three of these objectives in mind.

Some might want to create a draconian statute that sweeps too broadly.

Others may want to water down the statute in ways that create obstacles for prosecutors and make the statute ineffective.

My bill strengthens this important tool for protecting children without sweeping too broadly and without needlessly hobbling prosecutors.

Finally, let me say just a few things about the process leading up to introduction of this bill today.

Two versions of this bill have been introduced in the other body, most recently last week as title VI of H.R.4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005.

Representatives of the motion picture industry and Internet companies have been working with us to refine this legislation.

I also commend my colleagues in the House, Representative Mike Pence and Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, for their leadership on this issue.

In addition, the Department of Justice has provided valuable input in this

process. I applaud Attorney General Gonzales for making the prosecution of obscenity, child pornography, and other forms of child exploitation a real priority.

I understand that the Attorney General today announced arrests in several States as part of its Innocence Lost initiative against child prostitution.

I want to be very clear here.

Those who produce either actual or simulated sexually explicit material are breaking the law if that material depicts children.

The primary goal of protecting those children from such exploitation requires that all producers of sexually explicit material must keep age-related records, make those records available for inspection, and face criminal penalties if they refuse.

We have taken several concrete steps to respond to legitimate concerns from the motion picture industry and Internet companies.

We have already modified our bill several times and in several ways as a response to our meetings with the Department of Justice and affected parties.

We remain open to making further refinements in this language if it will strengthen the bill.

But that process of compromise must stop if it undermines the primary objective of protecting children from sexual exploitation or begins to make the statute unenforceable or feckless.

I hope that those who are affected by this legislation and have participated in helping us craft this bill will demonstrate their concern for protecting children by supporting this straighforward and commonsense bill.

Again, I want to thank my friend from Kansas for joining me in cosponsoring this bill and for his efforts in this area.

I hope all my colleagues will join us in strengthening this tool for protecting children.

Mr. President, I rise to in support of the End Racial Profiling Act a bill being introduced today by Senators Feingold, Obama and myself. This bill addresses an issue that is critical to the people of my home State of New Jersey and to all Americans.

I start by recognizing two of my colleagues with whom I have been working to address the problem of racial profiling. Senator Russ Feingold has been a tremendous leader on this issue he held the first Senate hearings on racial profiling in 2001, and he and his staff have worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue as a matter of civil rights. I also want to recognize Senator Obama he has been a constant champion of efforts to combat racial profiling. Senator Obama took the lead in writing one of the Nation's most innovative pieces of legislation on the collection of racial profiling data when he was in the Illinois State Senate, and he has been equally committed to the issue since joining the U.S. Senate. Both Senators Feingold and Obama have worked tirelessly to make the bill we are introducing today a reality.

Racial profiling is anathema to the principles on which our Nation was founded, sowing division within our communities and striking at the heart of our democratic values.

Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders because of the color of their skin is simply wrong, and it is incompatible with the fundamental American belief in fairness, justice, and equal protection under the law.

Every American is entitled to equal protection under the law. Our Constitution tolerates nothing less, and we should demand nothing less.

There is no equal protection there is no equal justice if law enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after minorities on the hunch that they are more likely to be criminals.

Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is simply not an effective law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping people of color adds up to catching the ``bad guys.''

In fact, empirical evidence shows that singling out Black motorists or Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher percentage of arrests because minority motorists are no more likely to break the law than white motorists.

What is more, the practice of racial profiling actually undermines public

safety, by contributing to the perception in minority neighborhoods that the criminal justice system is unfair, and eroding the trust between communities and the police that is so essential to effective law enforcement.

Nonetheless, racial profiling persists.

Unfortunately, the practice is real and widespread throughout the Nation.

A 2005 report of the Department of Justice found that Blacks and Hispanics throughout the Nation were much more likely to be handcuffed and have their cars searched by law enforcement during traffic stops, even though they were less likely to be harboring contraband.

A Government Accountability Office report on the U.S. Customs Service released in March 2000 found that Black, Asian, and Hispanic women were four to nine times more likely than White women to be subjected to xrays after being frisked or patted down.

But on the basis of the xray results, Black women were less than half as likely as White women to be found carrying contraband.

This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants. No probable cause.

And what is the hunch based on?

Race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion plain and simple. And that is plain wrong.

Now--we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some from my home state, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have taken steps to combat it. I commend them for their efforts.

That said, it is clear that this is a national problem that requires a Federal response applicable to all.

Our legislation is a strong but measured response to the destructive problem of racial profiling.

First, it defines racial profiling and bans it.

Racial profiling is defined in the bill to include routine or spontaneous investigatory stops based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. This conduct is wrong and must be stopped. The President and the Attorney General have said just that. The legislation would be the first Federal statute to prohibit this practice at the Federal, State, and local level.

To guarantee that the statute does not impede legitimate and responsible policing, the statute is careful to exclude from the ban on racial profiling those cases where there is trustworthy information that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to a particular crime.

Our bill also gives the ban on racial profiling teeth by allowing the Department of Justice or an individual harmed by racial profiling to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief from a court if the Government does not take steps to end racial profiling.

Next, the statute will require the collection of statistical data to measure whether progress is being made. By collecting this data we will get a fair and honest picture of law enforcement at work. And we will provide law enforcement agencies with the information they need to detect problems early on.

Our bill directs the Attorney General to develop standards for data collection and instructs the Attorney General to consult with law enforcement and other stakeholders in developing those standards. It also specifically directs the Attorney General to establish standards for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be measured so that no data is taken out of context, as some in law enforcement rightly fear. Finally, we will require the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Department of Justice to analyze these statistics on an annual basis so that the Nation can gauge the success of its efforts to combat this corrosive practice.

Finally, we will encourage a change in law enforcement culture through the use of the carrot and the stick.

First, the carrot: We recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be expected to do this alone. So this bill says that if you do the job right fairly and equitably you are eligible to receive development grants to help pay for the following: Advanced training programs; computer technology to help collect data and statistics; video cameras and recorders for patrol cars; establishing or improving systems for handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling; and establishing management systems to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the conduct of subordinates.

Further, we will direct the Attorney General to conduct a demonstration project that will give grants to police departments to help them collect racial profiling data and then work with an institution of higher learning to analyze the collect data.

But if law enforcement agencies don't do the job right, there is also the stick. Our bill will require law enforcement agencies to put in place procedures to receive and investigate complaints alleging racial profiling. The bill gives the law enforcement agencies the flexibility and the options to adopt the procedures that best fit the needs of their local communities. Further, the bill permits localities to cooperate with other communities and with the State in which they are located to develop shared procedures to invest racial profiling problems in the community.

If State and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss of Federal law enforcement funds.

Let me be clear this bill is not about blaming law enforcement. Most law enforcement officers discharge their duties responsibly. But stopping people based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion will be outlawed.

We have introduced two bills in the last 5 years to eliminate racial profiling. The President of the United States has condemned racial profiling in his State of the Union address. There is a broad and bipartisan consensus that it is an unfair and destructive practice. And yet we have failed to act.

In the meantime, racial profiling has continued to breed humiliation, anger, resentment, and cynicism throughout this country.

It has weakened respect for the law by everyone, not just those offended.

Simply put it is wrong and we must finally end it. Today we pledge to do just that to define it, to ban it, and to enforce this ban.

Mr. President, the massive devastation inflicted upon our southern States by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma reminded all Americans how important it is that the Federal Government be able to respond quickly and effectively when disaster strikes. We also learned from those tragedies that we must assist in ways few of us had imagined--for example, to meet the needs of evacuees who were dispersed far from the disaster.

Other events of the past few years, both here at home and abroad, have taught us that we must prepare for more than just natural disasters. Accidents, acts of terrorism, and pandemic illnesses also threaten us with death, injury, and destruction. And while we work to minimize the threats, we must assume that such disasters will really happen.

I have concluded that the President's current statuary authority to respond to disasters is not sufficient to meet the threats that we all now recognize as real, though once they were unimaginable. Today, I am introducing the Disaster Relief Act 2005 to modernize our disaster response capability for the 21st century.

One of the principal authorities we have given the President for disaster management is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This is the law that authorizes the President, at the request of a Governor, to declare an ``Emergency'' or a ``Major Disaster,'' which then enables various types of Federal assistance. Emergency is the lower level declaration. The President is given great latitude in the types of events that can be declared emergencies, but relief is generally limited to $5 million per declaration. A major disaster declaration allows much greater assistance, but can be made only for natural disasters or, from any cause, fire, flood, or explosion.

The Department of Homeland Security uses 15 disaster scenarios to guide planning for the types of catastrophes it has concluded threaten our country. Besides natural disasters, the list includes various types of terrorist attacks--chemical, biological, radiological, cyber--as well as major health disasters. Though the President could respond to any of these scenarios by issuing an Emergency declaration, only seven of the fifteen would currently qualify under the Stafford Act to be declared a major disaster.

This bill will modify the definition of a major disaster in the Stafford Act to direct the President to focus on the impacts of an event in determining whether to issue a declaration. It is indeed the suffering--deaths, injuries, destruction--and not the cause of that suffering, which should determine our response. Catastrophic events, foreseeable and yet unimagined, will be covered if the suffering exceeds the capacity of the State to respond.

Furthermore, under the Stafford Act it is not clear whether States affected indirectly by a disaster occurring elsewhere--for example, by receiving evacuees or by the spread of nuclear, toxic, or infectious agents--could receive a major disaster declaration. It became clear in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that meeting the needs of evacuees can be a difficult challenge. Four States received major disaster declarations following Katrina. Forty-four others received emergency declarations to assist evacuees, but not even Texas, which hosted over 200,000 evacuees, received a major disaster declaration to assist them. Even if it were possible to declare a major disaster in a State receiving evacuees, assistance to meet some of their needs--education, healthcare, long-term housing and resettlement--is not adequately authorized under the Stafford Act.

Being able to meet the needs of evacuees is an important issue for West Virginia. We hosted several hundred evacuees from Hurricane Katrina, just enough to understand the special needs of people who have lost their homes and livelihoods, have been moved to unfamiliar places without resources, have been separated from their families, and suffered in many other ways. A disaster in the Washington-Baltimore region, or in Pennsylvania or Ohio, could bring far more evacuees to West Virginia than we could assist with presently available resources.

This bill acknowledges the fact that the impacts of a major disaster can extend far beyond the location of the event, and enables the President to make major disaster declarations in affected States, wherever they may be located. Additional forms of assistance to evacuees, found necessary after hurricane Katrina--for education, healthcare, long-term housing, and resettlement--will be made available.

Several other aspects of the Stafford Act require our attention, and are addressed in the bill. Authorization for Predisaster Hazard Mitigation under Title II, set to expire at the end of this year, will be extended to 2010. The modest levels of direct assistance to individuals, though indexed to inflation, will be increased because of rapid increases in housing costs in recent years. The duration of assistance that can be provided by the Department of Defense, for the preservation of life and property, will be increased from 10 to 30 days, to meet needs following extreme disasters. It will be clarified that events occurring within the waters surrounding the United States are eligible for emergency and major disaster declarations, Efforts to recover costs of assistance when emergencies or major disasters are caused by gross negligence will be authorized. The process for appropriating funds for disaster relief will be improved. And other minor improvements will be made.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me to pass this bill and improve our preparedness for disasters in the 21st century.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Earned Income Tax Credit Simplification Act. This legislation will greatly improve one of our Nation's most important antipoverty programs and streamline one of the most complicated sections of our income tax code. And I am extremely pleased that my good friend from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I look forward to working with her, as members of the Senate Finance Committee, to enact this important tax simplification proposal.

In 2003, almost 21 million hard-working Americans benefited from the earned income tax credit, including 141,707 in my own State of West Virginia. Many of those serving in our Armed Forces benefit from the EITC. The EITC rewards hard work and helps these families make ends meet. However, the eligibility criteria for claiming the credit are so complicated that many people legitimately entitled to benefit from the credit do not even realize it. And unfortunately, too many erroneous claims occur. The tax credit should not be so complicated that cash- strapped families need the help of an accountant to file their taxes.

The Earned Income Tax Credit Simplification Act would make four important changes to the eligibility requirements of the credit. First, it would simplify the ``abandoned spouse'' rule so that custodial parents who are separated but not divorced would be able to claim the credit. Second, it would allow a taxpayer living in the same house with a qualifying child but not claiming that child for the EITC benefit to qualify for EITC benefits available to taxpayers without children. Third, the bill would eliminate the qualifying investment income test for EITC claimants. Finally, the bill would make sure that only immigrants who comply with all of the immigration rules would qualify for the EITC, preventing people who are not allowed to

work in the United States from claiming the credit.

These are commonsense reforms based on recommendations in the budget submitted to Congress by the Bush administration. I hope that they can be enacted quickly so that taxpayers whom Congress intended to help with the EITC will be able to claim the benefits without unnecessary and intimidating paperwork. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.