A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of Congress, collectively, to the Tuskegee Airmen in recognition of their unique military record, which inspired revolutionary reform in the Armed Forces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk proceed with the reading of the resolution.

Mr. President, tonight this body will take an important and extraordinary step. The Senate will, belatedly but most sincerely, issue a formal apology to the victims of lynching and their families, some of whom are with us tonight in this Chamber, for its failure to pass antilynching legislation.

Without question, there have been other grave injustices committed in the noble exercise of establishing this great democracy. Some have already been acknowledged and addressed by this and previous Congresses, and our work continues. However, there may be no other injustice in American history for which the Senate so uniquely bears responsibility. In refusing to take up legislation passed by the House of Representatives on three separate occasions and requested by seven Presidents from William Henry Harrison to Harry Truman, the Senate engaged in a different kind of culpability.

Beginning in 1881, this tragic phenomenon of domestic terrorism was documented in large measure through the groundbreaking and heroic efforts of Ida B. Wells-Barnett and the independent newspapers and publications. From that year until 1964, 4,742 American citizens were lynched. These are the recorded numbers. Historians estimate the true number to be much higher.

An apology alone can never suffice to heal the harm that was done, and for many victims justice is out of reach. Yet I believe, and this resolution lays forth the principle, that a sincere and heartfelt apology is a necessary first step toward real healing.

It is important that the people of our country understand the true nature of this unprecedented rampage of terror. Many Americans have images from popular books and movies, like ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' that cloud their understanding of lynching. A group of angry White men take an accused and presumed guilty Black man deep into the woods and hang him. Those are the images, although accurate and tragic, but they delude us from the true nature of lynching in this dark period of American history.

The thought of a small, angry mob murdering Black prisoners in the dead of night ignores the reality of lynching in most respects. We are fortunate and grateful that a passionate and resolute independent scholar named James Allen saw something catalytic in the photographic evidence of lynching, and he began to collect these gruesome and horrific photographs. His work, ``Without Sanctuary,'' showed the real faces of lynching, and the images he unveiled began to change the way people viewed these tragic events and called to several of us in the Senate to issue this apology tonight. It is because of his work, this book, that the Committee for a Formal Apology and the families of the lynching victims--and some victims themselves who are here--are here today and that this important historic resolution is before the Senate.

I would like to show some of these photographs now. This is one of the hundreds--thousands of photographs of men, women, and children who were lynched in this Nation, lynching that occurred--a citizen of our Nation, lynched. As your eyes look at this picture, they are immediately drawn to the victim. These hangings were sometimes--in most instances--very brutal events. Sometimes the hanging itself came after hours of torture and just excruciating fear and humiliation.

After this book was published and these pictures came into more full view of the American public, what happens is your eyes leave the figure of the victim and move to the audience. This is part of the story that, in my mind, has not been completely told, and it needs to be told tonight and every day into the future.

As you can see, there are children gathered here. These are children looking up at this man hanging from a tree. History will record that some of these children were let out of Sunday schools to attend the lynchings. History will record that some businesses closed down so that the whole town could attend these lynchings. History will record that these lynchings did not occur mostly at night or in the back woods or across the levees--lynchings were a community event. In many instances, it was a form of public entertainment. It was mass violence, an open act of terrorism directed primarily against African Americans and others who sympathized with their cause.

If we are truly to understand the magnitude of this tragedy, we must study the stories behind this grim parade of death.

In March of 1892, three personal friends of Ida B. Wells opened the ``People's Grocery Company,'' a store located across the street from a White-owned grocery store that had previously been the only grocer in the area. Angered by the loss of business, a mob gathered to run the new grocers out of town. Forewarned about the attack on their store, the three owners armed themselves for protection, and in the riot that ensued, one of the businessmen injured a White man. All three were arrested and jailed. Days later, the mob kidnapped the men from jail and lynched them. This was the case that led Ida B. Wells to begin to speak out against this injustice.

Her great grandson is with us today. He has told this story through the halls of Congress to give testimony to her life and to her courage and to her historic efforts. Without the work of this extraordinarily brave journalist, this story never really could have been told in the way it is being told now, today, and talked about here on the Senate floor. To her, we owe a great deal of gratitude. She knew these men personally. She knew they were businessmen. They were not criminals. She knew they were successful salespeople, not common thugs. And she wrote and she spoke and she tried to gather pictures to tell a story to a nation that simply refused to believe.

Forty-two years and thousands of lynchings later is the case of Claude Neal of Marianna, FL. After 10 hours of torture, Claude Neal ``confessed'' to the murder of a girl with whom he was allegedly having an affair. For his safety, he was transferred to an Alabama prison. A mob took him from there. They cut off his body parts. They sliced his side and stomach. People would randomly cut off a finger here, a toe there. From time to time, they would tie a noose around him, throw the rope over a tree limb. The mob would keep him there in that position until he almost died then lower him again to begin the torment all over.

After several hours, and I guess the crowd exhausted themselves, they just decided to kill him. His body was then dragged by car back to Marianna, and 7,000 people from 11 States were there to see his body in the courthouse of the town square. Pictures were taken and sold for 50 cents a piece.

One might ask, how do we know all the grizzly details of Claude Neal's death? It is very simple. The newspapers in Florida had given advance notice. They recorded it one horrible moment after another. One of the members of the lynch mob proudly relayed all the details that reporters had missed in person. Yet, even with the public notice, 7,000 people in attendance, and people bragging about the activity, Federal authorities were impotent to stop this murder. State authorities seemed to condone it, and the Senate of the United States refused to act.

Time went on. In 1955, just 9 years before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, the world witnessed the brutal lynching of Emmett Till. Fourteen

years old, Emmett Till was excited about his trip from his home on Chicago's southside to the Mississippi Delta. Like many children during the summer, he was looking forward to visiting his relatives. Prior to his departure, his mother, Maimie Till Bradley, a teacher, had done her very best to advise him about how to behave while in Mississippi. With his mother's warning and wearing the ring that had belonged to his deceased father, on August 20, 1955, Till set off with his cousin, Curtis Jones, on a train to Mississippi.

Once there, he and some friends went to buy some candy at the general store. According to his accusers, this young 14-year-old whistled at a store clerk as he left. She happened to be a white woman.

Armed with pistols, the mob took Emmett from his uncle's home. His uncle is with us tonight. They took him in the middle of the night. Three days later his little body was discovered in the Tallahatchie River, weighed down by a 75-pound cotton gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire. His face was so mutilated when Wright identified the body he could only do so based on the ring that he had been wearing.

Coincidentally, through no asking of our own, but I guess it is appropriate, the trial of his accused murderer, Edgar Ray Killen, begins today in Mississippi.

While the details that led to the lynching are not always clear from just these few that I have described, there is little doubt what took place at the lynchings themselves. In most instances, prelynching newspaper notices, school closings to allow children to view the spectacle, special order trains to carry people to the event, are all part of a gruesome but true part of America's history.

Jazz legend Billy Holiday provided real texture in her story and song ``Strange Fruit.'' She defied her own record label and produced and published the song on her own, was threatened with her life because she continued to sing it. But like so many things, words can't always describe what is happening, even though speeches were given, words were written, newspapers were published.

The words to the song are as follows:

Southern trees bear a strange fruit

Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,

Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,

Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant South,

The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,

Scent of magnolias sweet and fresh,

And the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck,

For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,

For the sun to rot, for a tree to drop,

Here is a strange and a bitter crop.

Something in the way she sang this song, something in the pictures that described the event, must have touched the heart of Americans because they began to mobilize, and men and women, White and Black, people from different backgrounds, came to stand up and begin to speak. They spoke with loud voices and with moving speeches and with great marches.

But the Senate of the United States, one of the most noble experiments in democracy, continued to pretend, to act like this was not happening in America and continued to fail to act.

It would be a mistake to look at this ugly chapter in our democracy's development with pity and hopelessness, however. The truth is, today's apology should be seen as a tribute to the endurance and the triumph of African-American families.

There is a particular family here, the Crawford family. I think there are over 150 of them. Earlier today I talked with some of the leaders of the family. I said: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. They nodded because that is exactly what happened to this family. The town tried to kill this family, to run them out, and, in fact, ran them out of the town, but this family just grew stronger, and with their love and lack of bitterness, but with a determination to find justice some way, they are here today. In fact, it was the progress of African Americans that spurred this terrible reaction to them in the first place.

As I stated earlier, the early lynchings were not of criminals. The early lynchings were of successful farmers, of successful businessmen, leaders in their communities because these lynchings were an act of terrorism to make American citizens feel they had no voice and no place.

W.E.B. Dubois summarized the motivation behind these slayings perfectly when he said:

. . . [T]he South feared more than Negro dishonesty,

ignorance and incompetency, Negro honesty, knowledge, and

efficiency.

With slavery abolished by the Civil War, a group of Americans had to mentally justify as inferior and subhuman those who suddenly were equals and competitors. Having lost the war throughout the South, watching the progress of former slaves was simply too much in that region and in other regions throughout the country, as well.

As a senior Senator from the State of Louisiana, I feel compelled to spend just a few moments, before I acknowledge my friend and cosponsor in the Senate, Senator George Allen, who has brought this resolution to the attention of our Senate colleagues.

Louisiana has a distinct history from much of the United States due to its long colonial ties with both France and Spain. One consequence of this history is that Louisiana had more free people of color than any other Southern State. Nearly 20,000 Louisianians who were largely concentrated in New Orleans formed a large and very prosperous African- American community in the 1860s. They enjoyed more rights than most free men of color. A large percentage spoke only French and educated their children in Europe. The community, the records show, owned more than $2 million worth of property, which was quite a large sum in those days, and dominated skilled labor areas such as masonry, carpentry, cigar making, and shoemaking.

That is why Louisiana's prominent role in lynchings is so bitter. It mars a long history of tolerance and integration that to this day distinguishes Louisiana from other places in the South.

Still the difficult fact remains that only three States have had a higher incidence than Louisiana of these occurrences. The NAACP, which was founded over the issue of lynchings, recorded 391 such murders in my State.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of all the Louisiana victims compiled by Professor Michael Pfeifer, author of ``Rough Justice, Lynching and American Society,'' be printed in the Record.

It is also true that members of the Senate delegation from Louisiana participated in the actions that led us to not act.

However, I am very proud to stand here with my colleague from Virginia and to note that the other Senator from Louisiana, a Republican, stands with me. We are united in our support of this resolution to offer the sincere apology to try to bring to light the facts about lynching, to encourage people to seek the truth.

I said earlier today people are entitled to their own opinions. But they are not entitled to their own facts. And the facts about this terrible domestic terrorism and rash of terrorism stand today and will not be pushed aside. It is with humility but with pride that I support and put forth before the Senate today, with the Senator from Virginia, this resolution.

The junior Senator from Louisiana is an original cosponsor of this resolution, as are a number of sons of the South. Furthermore, in Louisiana's legislature in Baton Rouge, a very similar resolution passed today. Thus, the people of Louisiana can truly say we are trying to open a dialogue, and bring closure to a bitter history.

This is a particularly important step for the South. For while lynchings occurred in 46 of the 50 States, and people of all races were affected, it would be a mischaracterization to suggest that this was not a weapon of terror most often employed in the South, and most often against African Americans. That is why I am so glad to be joined in this endeavor by the junior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen. He has been instrumental in getting us to this point of consideration, and I truly appreciate his hard work and dedication to our joint effort.

It is also important to acknowledge the bravery of those who took personal risks long before this day in opposition to lynching. First and foremost, we must acknowledge the pioneering journalism of Ida B. Wells. Though personally threatened with death, Ms. Wells continued to document these outrages before justice, so that future generations might know the history of this era. It should be noted that it was her example that led other women, such as Jane Adams, to join in her fight against lynching. In fact, women, generally, are viewed as having played a major role in the antilynching campaign.

There was tremendous political courage shown in Georgia. Georgia was the first State to adopt antilynching legislation in 1893. Yet, the State continued to experience a disproportionate share of lynching attacks. However, starting with Governor Northen in 1890, several of Georgia's Governors fought lynch violence in their State resolutely. In many cases it came at personal cost. Gov. William Atkinson, having left the Governor's mansion, personally challenged a lynch mob of 2,000 people in his home town. It is a record of political leadership upon which Georgia can now proudly reflect.

Another great voice in the antilynching crusade was Congressman George White of Tarboro, NC. He was the last former slave to serve in Congress--ending his congressional career in 1901. He introduced an anti-lynching bill to stem the rising tide of violence, with 107 attacks having occurred in 1899. While his bill was defeated in the House of Representatives, he initiated one of its first political considerations.

Finally, we cannot ignore the Senate's own passionate voices to end the practice of lynching. Senator Champ Clark of Missouri famously posted photos of a recent Mississippi lynching in the Democratic cloakroom with the caption: There have been no arrests, no indictments, and no convictions of any one of the lynchers. This is not a rape case. Regrettably, those photos and his convictions could not bring these terrible events to a close. We also salute the efforts of Senators Robert Wagner of New York and Edward Costigan of Colorado. The Wagner- Costigan bill was yet another noble effort to inject Federal resources into combating lynching. While it was again filibustered, it was another noble effort that demonstrated that people of good will remained the majority.

Because of the courage of these and other individuals, by the 1930s public opinion had turned against lynching. In 1938, a national survey showed that 70 percent of Americans supported the enactment of an antilynching statute. Even in the South, at least 65 percent of these surveyed favored its passage. In short, even if southern Senators had the political latitude to endorse Federal antilynching legislation, most seemed to be too mired in personal prejudice to accept that fact. Where these southern Senators were concerned, justice was mostly deaf, but never color blind.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge several members of my staff: Jason Matthews, Kathleen Strottman, Nash Molphus, Sally Richardson, and many others, who have helped, along with others, put this resolution before the Senate today.

I want to end with one of the most moving comments that I read in the book ``Without Sanctuary,'' as I have read excerpts from publications and magazines and newspapers about this situation, and have been reading them now for months on this issue. It is taken from McClure's Magazine, in 1905, by Ray Stannard Baker, who wrote about one of the lynchings--I think it was of a Mr. Curtis. I will submit that for the Record. He says:

So the mob came finally, and cracked the door of the jail

with a railroad rail. The jail is said to be the strongest in

Ohio, and having seen it, I can well believe the report is

true. But steel bars have never yet kept out a mob; it takes

something much stronger: human courage backed up by the

consciousness of being right.

Mr. President, the Senate was wrong not to act. It was wrong to not stand in the way of the mob. We lacked courage then. We perhaps do not have all the courage we need today to do everything we should do, but I know we can apologize today. We can be sincere in our apology to the families, to their loved ones, and perhaps now we can set some of these victims and their families free and, most of all, set our country free to be better than it is today. However great it is, we can most certainly improve.

I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Allen, from Virginia.

Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts in just a moment. He has been very patient. As a cosponsor of the resolution that just passed, it is a privilege and it is appropriate for Senator Kerry to be one of the first Senators to speak upon its passage.

I wish to just mention very briefly, because I am not sure he is going to be able to stay with us much longer, Mr. James Cameron has been with us all day. Mr. Cameron is 91 years old. He lives in Marion, IN. In 1930, when he was 16 years old, a mob dragged him from a cell at Grant County Jail and put a rope around his neck. He was accused of a murder and a rape. He was nowhere around when it occurred. His associates, Abe Smith and Thomas Schipp, were both lynched that night. A man in the crowd spared him by proclaiming that he, in fact, was innocent and should be let go. He then went on to live an extraordinary life without bitterness, with a lot of love. He has been married for 67 years, has 4 children and multiple grandchildren. Senator Evan Bayh, who serves in this body--when he was Governor of Indiana, he pardoned Mr. Cameron. But he

is really the one who has forgiven us for what was done against him.

I yield the floor to Senator Kerry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here tonight on behalf of my colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen, and all of our colleagues who participated in the debate to close out this evening on this very important and historic resolution, S. Res. 39, which has apologized formally, officially, and with great sincerity to the thousands of victims of

lynching and to their descendants. It was, as was stated most eloquently and passionately on this floor, a very dark chapter, indeed, in American history, but a real mark against this Senate that, despite the repeated pleas of the victims and their families, thousands of Americans, the House of Representatives, and seven Presidents, of both parties, the Senate failed to act.

Tonight the Senate has admitted its mistake and has taken a very positive step in admitting failure so that we can have a brighter future. I know that many of these victims and their families-- ``survivors'' is really a better word--have triumphed against this evil. Many were African Americans, but they were people of all different races and religious backgrounds. Many of them were here tonight and have been with us all day today.

I know their names are part of the record, but again they were James Cameron, 91 years old, a victim of lynching who miraculously survived to tell his story; Doria Johnson, the great-granddaughter of Anthony Crawford--Grandpa Crawford, as he has been called--from Abbeville, SC-- what a story that family has to tell. Dan Distel, the great-grandson of Ida Wells. What a brave and historic journalist she was. In the face of literally constant threats to her life, she continued to write. What a role model for journalists everywhere of the courage of what it really takes to tell a story. And she did it.

We had many other family members and history professors with us today. There was a tremendous effort that enabled us to get to the floor tonight. As I wrap up, I want to again thank the staff. I thank my staff, including Jason Matthews, my deputy chief of staff; Kathleen Strottman, legislative director; Nash Molpus, who is with me on the floor. Our staff has been very helpful. Senator Allen's staff has also been remarkable and so many have contributed to this effort.

I had many quotes to choose from, Mr. President, to end tonight. Really, there were hundreds of them that would be appropriate. But one was especially appropriate, for the close of this debate because, while it ends one chapter, it begins many new chapters in the history of our Nation. The woman I will quote from is one I have admired my whole life. I have read much about her and have been taught a lot about her. I will read this quote from this particular woman because it took guts to say what she did, at a time when people in America didn't want to hear it. This came at a time when people didn't want to hear what women had to say, generally, about any subject, let alone the subject of injustice and intolerance not only in our Nation but the world.

The woman I will quote is Eleanor Roosevelt, who actually led a group of descendants into this Chamber in 1938 to urge the Senate, hopefully by their presence, to act--men and women who came with their own being, their own bodies to try to tell the Senate what you are reading about isn't true; these are innocent people. Eleanor Roosevelt escorted them to this Chamber and, of course, through all of their mighty efforts, actions were not taken, but not through any fault of hers. What I want to quote is what she wrote about universal human rights. I read this as a young legislator. Of course, we read lots of things, and some things stick and some don't. This particular quote is seared into my heart. I try to remember it every chance I get. I read it often, and I would like to read it tonight because it is very relevant to the debate that we have had. She wrote:

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small

places, close to home--so close and so small they cannot be

seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the

individual person, the neighborhood he lives in, the school

or college he attends, the factory, farm, or office where he

works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child

seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without

discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they

have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen

action to uphold them close at home, we shall look for them

in vain in the larger world.

We have heard stories today--hundreds of stories about these small places close to home--trees in a public square, river banks, levees, streets, alleys, open fields, behind school buildings, and in front of stores. This is where people want to experience dignity and justice. Some of these towns are so little they may still not be on any map of the United States. Maybe in some of these towns--because of what happened in the past--there are very few people who live there. And some of these places are quite large, where you can find them on the map. I think it is instructive for the Senate, as we make this sincere apology tonight, that we really take a breath and be very introspective to think about where these small places are in America, where these places of any size are in America, and recommit ourselves to be honest about our failings and our shortcomings, to be honest about the fact that we are not always as courageous as we should be.

But when we come to a point where we know we made the wrong decision, we didn't act in the best interests of our country or the American citizens who look to us for their protection and their support, we should at least be able to sincerely say we are sorry. That is what we did tonight. I thank Eleanor Roosevelt. I am forever grateful for her great leadership for the country and for thousands of Americans, people of all races, who advocated for justice and freedom at great expense to their own life--which is not what most of us experience today, gratefully--with great expense to their reputation, their livelihood. She was really not understood or appreciated in the world in which she lived.

There were many children in the Senate today, these children and great, great, great-grandchildren. Some of the victims and some of the journalists who have written about this in the past were here. Let's make sure they know the truth and they know that tonight we apologize.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, along with the Senator from Vermont who we will hear from shortly, that will help enhance the openness of the Federal Government. This bill is called the Open Government Act of 2005. It is a bipartisan effort to improve and update our public information laws--particularly the Freedom of Information Act.

The purpose of the bill is to arm the American people with the information they need to make certain that ours remains a government whose legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed. This legislation will significantly expand the accessibility, accountability, and openness of the Federal Government.

Open government, of course, is one of the most basic requirements of a healthy democracy. It allows taxpayers to see where their money is going. It permits the honest exchange of information that ensures government accountability, and it upholds the ideal that government never rules without the consent of the governed. As is so often the case, Abraham Lincoln said it best:

No man is good enough to govern another without that

person's consent.

But achieving the true consent of the governed requires something more than just holding elections every couple of years. What we need is informed consent. Informed consent is impossible without open and accessible government.

It has been nearly a decade since Congress has approved major reforms to the Freedom of Information Act. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not convened an oversight hearing to examine the Freedom of Information Act compliance issue since 1992. And at that time, I believe it is clear that the growth of technology and the Internet has created a real desire among the American people to achieve direct, efficient, and open access to government information.

I thank my colleague from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who has long been a champion of these issues, for his hard work on this bill. Together our offices have spent a good deal of time meeting with open government advocates. I am proud to say this bill is supported by a broad coalition across the ideological spectrum, because I believe this legislation should not be a partisan or special interest bill. Indeed, it is not.

I ask unanimous consent that these endorsement letters from dozens of watchdog groups across the political spectrum be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. President, as the Senator from Vermont said at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing:

I have always found that every administration, Republican

or Democrat, would love to keep a whole lot of things from

the public. They do something they are proud of, they will

send out a hundred press releases. Otherwise, they will hold

it back. We have the Freedom of Information Act, which is

a very good thing. It keeps both Democratic and Republican

administrations in line.

I agree with that. Essentially, we are talking about human nature. It is only natural that elected officials and Government leaders want recognition for their successes but not their failures. But we, as a healthy democracy, need to know the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The news media, of course, is the main way people get information about the Government. The media pushes Government entities and elected officials, bureaucrats, and agencies to release information that the people have the right to know, occasionally exposing waste, fraud, and abuse--and hopefully more often than that letting the American people know what a good job their public officials are doing.

But we have also seen in recent years an expansion of other outlets for sharing information outside of the mainstream media to online communities, discussion groups, and blogs. I believe all these outlets can and do contribute to the health of our political democracy.

Let me make this clear. This is not just a bill for the media, lest anybody be confused. This is a bill that will benefit every man, woman, and child in the United States of America who cares about the Federal Government, cares about how the Federal Government operates, and ultimately cares about the success of this great democracy.

By reforming our information policies in order to guarantee true access by all citizens to Government records, we will revitalize the informed consent that keeps America free. The Open Government Act contains over a dozen substantive provisions, designed to achieve the following four objectives:

First, it will strengthen the Freedom of Information Act and close loopholes.

Secondly, it will help Freedom of Information Act requesters obtain timely responses to their requests.

Third, it will ensure that agencies have strong incentives to comply with the law in a timely fashion.

Fourth, it will provide Freedom of Information Act officials; that is, people within Government agencies, with all the tools, including the education, they need in order to ensure that our Government remains open and accessible.

This legislation is not just pro-openness, pro-accountability and pro-accessibility; it is also pro-Internet. It contains important congressional findings to reiterate the presumption of openness. It includes a provision for a hotline that enables citizens to track the requests and even allows tracking of those requests via the Internet. As a whole, the Open Government Act reiterates the principle that our Government is based not on the need to know but rather on the right to know.

We all recognize that America's security should never take a back seat. But nor should the claim, without justification, of national security be used as a barrier against allowing taxpayers to know how their money is being spent.

There is a broad consensus across the aisle, the political spectrum, that we currently overclassify Government documents, and that many documents and much information is placed beyond the public view without any real justification. I believe we need a system of classification that strikes the right balance between the need to classify documents in the interest of our national security and our national values of open government.

Our default position of the U.S. Government must be one of openness. If records can be open, they should be open. If there is a good reason to keep something closed, it is the Government that should bear the burden, not the other way around.

Open government is fundamentally an American issue. It is literally necessary to preserve our way of life as a self-governing people. Ensuring the accessibility, accountability, and openness of the Federal Government is a cause worthy of preservation, and I call on my colleagues to join the Senator from Vermont and I today in taking a meaningful step toward that goal.

Finally, before I yield the floor to the Senator from Vermont, let me again express my appreciation to him and his staff. They have worked very closely with my staff. This is one of those good Government initiatives that knows no party affiliation, no ideological affiliation, but is really one that is essential to the preservation of our way of life as a self-governing democracy.

Exhibit 1

Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2005

Led by U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Patrick Leahy, the

OPEN Government Act of 2005 is a bipartisan effort to achieve

meaningful reforms to federal government information laws--

including most notably the Freedom of Information Act of 1966

(``FOIA''). If enacted, the legislation would substantially

enhance and expand the accessibility, accountability, and

openness of the federal government. It has been nearly a

decade since Congress has approved major reforms to FOIA.

Moreover, the Senate Judiciary Committee has not convened an

oversight hearing to examine FOIA compliance issues since

April 30, 1992. (The Senate Homeland Security and

Governmental Affairs Committee, which shares jurisdiction

over federal government information laws with the Judiciary

Committee, has not held a FOIA oversight hearing since 1980.)

This legislation is the culmination of months of extensive

discussions between the offices of Senators Cornyn and Leahy

and various members of the requestor community. The bill is

supported by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and a broad

coalition of organizations across the ideological spectrum,

including:

American Association of Law Libraries

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

American Society of Newspaper Editors

Associated Press Managing Editors

Association of Health Care Journalists

Center for Democracy & Technology

Coalition of Journalists for Open Government

Committee of Concerned Journalists

Education Writers Association

Electronic Privacy Information Center

Federation of American Scientists/Project on Government

Secrecy

Free Congress Foundation/Center for Privacy & Technology

Policy

Freedom of Information Center, University of Missouri

The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas

The Heritage Foundation/Center for Media and Public Policy

Information Trust

National Conference of Editorial Writers

National Freedom of Information Coalition

National Newspaper Association

National Security Archive/George Washington University

Newspaper Association of America

People for the American Way

Project on Government Oversight

Radio-Television News Directors Association

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Society of Environmental Journalists

The Act contains important Congressional findings to

reiterate and reinforce the view that the Freedom of

Information Act establishes a presumption of openness, and

that our government is based not on the need to know, but

upon the fundamental right to know. The Act also contains

over a dozen substantive provisions, designed to achieve the

following four objectives:

(1) Strengthen FOIA and close loopholes

(2) Help FOIA requestors obtain timely responses to their

requests

(3) Ensure that agencies-have strong incentives to act on

FOIA requests in a timely fashion

(4) Provide FOIA officials with all of the tools they need to

ensure that our government remains open and accessible

strengthen foia and close loopholes

Ensure that FOIA applies when agency recordkeeping

functions are outsourced

Establish a new open government impact statement, by

requiring that any future Congressional attempt to create a

new FOIA exemption be expressly stated within the text of the

legislation

Impose annual reporting requirement on usage of the DHS

disclosure exemption for critical infrastructure information

Protect access to FOIA fee waivers for legitimate

journalists, regardless of institutional association--

including bloggers and other Internet-based journalists

Provide reliable reporting of FOIA performance, by

requiring agencies to distinguish between first person

requests for personal information and other kinds of requests

help foia requestors obtain timely responses

Establish FOIA hotline services, either by telephone or on

the Internet, to enable requestors to track the status of

their requests

Create a new FOIA ombudsman, located at the Administrative

Conference of the United States, to review agency FOIA

compliance and provide alternatives to litigation

Authorize reasonable recovery of attorney fees when

litigation is inevitable

ensure that agencies have strong incentives to act on foia requests in

timely fashion

Restore meaningful deadlines for agency action by ensuring

that the 20-day statutory clock runs immediately upon the

receipt of the request

Impose real consequences on federal agencies for missing

statutory deadlines

Enhance authority of the Office of Special Counsel to take

disciplinary action against government officials who

arbitrarily and capriciously deny disclosure

Strengthen reporting requirements on FOIA compliance to

identify agencies plagued by excessive delay, and to identify

excessive delays in fee status determinations

provide foia officials with the tools they need to ensure that our

government remains open and accessible

Improve personnel policies for FOIA officials to enhance

agency FOIA performance

Examine the need for FOIA awareness training for federal

employees

Determine appropriate funding levels needed to ensure

agency FOIA compliance

Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2005

Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec. 1. Short Title. The Open Government Act of 2005.

Sec. 2. Findings. The findings reiterate the intent of

Congress upon enacting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),

5 D.S.C. 552 as amended, and restate FOIA's presumption in

favor of disclosure.

Sec. 3. Protection of Fee Status for News Media. This

section amends 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) to make clear that

independent journalists are not barred from obtaining fee

waivers solely because they lack an institutional affiliation

with a recognized news media entity. In determining whether

to grant a fee waiver, an agency shall consider the prior

publication history of the requestor. If the requestor has no

prior publication history and no current affiliation with a

news organization, the agency shall review the requestor's

plans for disseminating the requested material and whether

those plans include distributing the material to a reasonably

broad audience.

Sec. 4. Recovery of Attorney Fees and Litigation Costs.

This section, the so-called Buckhannon fix, amends 5 U.S.C.

552(a)(4)(E) to clarify that a complainant has substantially

prevailed in a FOIA lawsuit, and is eligible to recover

attorney fees, if the complainant has obtained a substantial

part of his requested relief through a judicial or

administrative order or if the pursuit of a claim was the

catalyst for the voluntary or unilateral change in position

by the opposing party. The section responds to the Supreme

Court's ruling in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v.

West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S.

598 (2001), which eliminated the ``catalyst theory'' of

attorney fee recovery under certain Federal civil rights

laws. FOIA requestors have raised concerns that the holding

in Buckhannon could be extended to FOIA cases. This section

preserves the ``catalyst theory'' in FOIA litigation.

Sec. 5. Disciplinary Actions for Arbitrary and Capricious

Rejections of Requests. FOIA currently requires that when a

court finds that agency personnel have acted arbitrarily or

capriciously with respect to withholding documents, the

Office of Special Counsel

shall determine whether disciplinary action against the

involved personnel is warranted. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(F).

This section of the bill amends FOIA to require the Attorney

General to notify the Office of Special Counsel of any such

court finding and to report the same to Congress. It further

requires the Office of Special Counsel to report annually to

Congress on any actions taken by the Special Counsel to

investigate cases of this type.

Sec. 6. Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests. The

section clarifies that the 20-day time limit on responding to

a FOIA request commences on the date on which the request is

first received by the agency. Further, the section states

that if the agency fails to respond within the 20-day limit,

the agency may not then assert any FOIA exemption under 5

U.S.C. 552(b), except under limited circumstances such as

endangerment to national security or disclosure of personal

private information protected by the Privacy Act of 1974,

unless the agency can demonstrate, by clear and convincing

evidence, good cause for failure to comply with the time

limits.

Sec. 7. Individualized Tracking Numbers for Requests and

Status Information. Requires agencies to establish tracking

systems by assigning a tracking number to each FOIA

request: notifying a requestor of the tracking number

within ten days of receiving a request; and establishing a

telephone or Internet tracking system to allow requestors

to easily obtain information on the status of their

individual requests, including an estimated date on which

the agency will complete action on the request.

Sec. 8. Specific Citations in Exemptions. 5 U.S.C.

552(b)(3) states that records specifically exempted from

disclosure by statute are exempt from FOIA. This section of

the bill provides that Congress may not create new statutory

exemptions under this provision of FOIA unless it does so

explicitly. Accordingly, for any new statutory exemption to

have effect, the statute must cite directly to 5 U.S.C.

552(b)(3), thereby conveying congressional intent to create a

new (b)(3) exemption.

Sec. 9. Reporting Requirements. This section adds to

current reporting requirements by mandating disclosure of

data on the 10 oldest active requests pending at each agency,

including the amount of time elapsed since each request was

originally filed. This section further requires agencies to

calculate and report on the average response times and range

of response times of FOIA requests. (Current requirements

mandate reporting on the median response time.) Finally, this

section requires reports on the number of fee status requests

that are granted and denied and the average number of days

for adjudicating fee status determinations by individual

agencies.

Sec. 10. Openness of Agency Records Maintained by a Private

Entity. This section clarifies that agency records kept by

private contractors licensed by the government to undertake

recordkeeping functions remain subject to FOIA just as if

those records were maintained by the relevant government

agency.

Sec. 11. Office of Government Services. This section

establishes an Office of Government Information Services

within the Administrative Conference of the U.S. Within that

office will be appointed a FOIA ombudsman to review agency

policies and procedures, audit agency performance, recommend

policy changes, and mediate disputes between FOIA requestors

and agencies. The establishment of an ombudsman will not

impact the ability of requestors to litigate FOIA claims, but

rather will serve to alleviate the need for litigation

whenever possible.

Sec. 12. Accessibility of Critical Infrastructure

Information. This section requires reports on the

implementation of the Critical Infrastructure Information Act

of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 133. Reports shall be issued from the

Comptroller General to the Congress on the number of private

sector, state, and local agency submissions of CII data to

the Department of Homeland Security and the number of

requests for access to records. The Comptroller General will

also be required to report on whether the nondisclosure of

CII material has led to increased protection of critical

infrastructure.

Sec. 13. Report on Personnel Policies Related to FOIA. This

section requires the Office of Personnel Management to

examine how FOIA can be better implemented at the agency

level, including an assessment of whether FOIA performance

should be considered as a factor in personnel performance

reviews, whether a job classification series specific to FOIA

and the Privacy Act should be considered, and whether FOIA

awareness training should be provided to federal employees.

Exhibit 2

February 15, 2005.

Hon. John Cornyn,

Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the

Constitution, Civil Rights & Property Rights, Washington

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the resolution of apology that Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and I have submitted. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her leadership on this matter. It has been a pleasure to work with her on this and other matters, but this is undoubtedly the most historic.

I got involved in this because I received a letter from Dick Gregory. I know Members of the Senate received thousands of letters and e-mails and phone calls. He asked me to join with Senator Landrieu last year on this. He was signing this letter on behalf of Dr. E. Faye Williams, Martin Luther King III, Dr. C. DeLores Tucker, and others. But he asked me. He said:

I respectfully ask you to serve as an original cosponsor of

the Landrieu resolution. . . . We realize life will go on and

your world will not be affected if you choose to do nothing.

That struck me as: Well, I am going to choose to do something. He asked me to sponsor this on the Republican side ``because it is the right thing to do.''

That says it all, really, when we see an affront to the basic principles that were enunciated in the spirit of this country in the Declaration of Independence. When we seceded from Britain, we talked about freedom, liberty, and justice, trying to constitute that here in this country, fighting for so many years to free ourselves from the monarch to construct a free and just society, with freedom of religion, freedom of expression, due process of law, equal protection, as well as the rule of law.

In so many of those key pillars of a free and just society, when one looks at what happened with the lynchings, the torchings, the whippings to death of people because of their race, because of their religion, because of their ethnicity, the cold-hearted hatred of it, and the countenance of it--and the fact that this wonderful Senate, with these historic desks where you can pull out drawers and see some of the great minds, the great orators of our history who had argued magnificently and inspiringly things on this Senate floor--you see there were times in our history when Senators ended up looking the other way. They did not take a stand. They turned their eyes, they turned their heads when something positive could have been done to disapprove, deplore, and obviously pass a law to make lynching a Federal crime.

This Chamber is part of our representative democracy. We are to represent the ``Will of the People.'' We are also to represent those foundational principles of our country. Unfortunately, that has not always occurred.

Daniel Webster, standing in the Old Senate Chamber, told his colleagues in 1834 that a ``representative of the people is a sentinel on the watchtower of liberty.'' Indeed, the Senate has been a great watchtower of liberty. Many individuals have been outstanding orators, brilliant men and women in the world's greatest deliberative body. Unfortunately, this August body has a stain on its history, and that stain is lynching. Americans died from hangings, from whippings, from a torch, from evil hearts outside of this Chamber.

Three-fourths of the victims of these injustices--and these have been documented and researched by the respected archives of the Tuskegee Institute--were perpetrated against African Americans. Mr. President, 4,749 Americans died by lynching, whipping, torturing, and mutilation, starting in 1882. Many times these lynchings were not lone acts by a few white men. Rather, they were angry gangs, as Senator Landrieu talked about. They were occasions, they were events, mobs who were whipped into frenzies by the skewed mentalities of what is right and what is wrong.

These cruel and unjust acts are so contrary to the rule of law, due process, and equal protection that we pride ourselves on in the United States. Again, three-quarters of the victims were African Americans. But this hatred also was perpetrated against those who are Asian, primarily Chinese; against American Indians; against Latinos; against Italians; and against people who are Jewish; and others who found themselves unprotected.

Mr. President, Senator Landrieu and I, as well as my colleagues who are joining us right now in the Chamber--Senator Kerry and Senator Pryor--are rising this evening to make history, to try to right history. We are standing to give our heartfelt and formal apology, not for what anybody here presently in the Senate had done, but what this body, this continuous body, failed to do in the past. And it is an apology to all the victims and descendants of those who were lynched, who were whipped to death, who were torched to death, who were mutilated to death.

Many of the victims' descendants are currently watching in our gallery. This is a somber, not happy time but also one of reflection. It is one of the failures of the Senate to take action when action was most needed. It was a time where we were trying to make sure all Americans had equal opportunity. However, that clearly was not the case.

Senator Landrieu showed those photographs. These were vile killings. They captivated front-page headlines. They drew crowds with morbid curiosity and left thousands and thousands, mostly African Americans, hanging from trees or bleeding to death from the lashing of whips. By not acting, this body failed to protect the liberty of which Daniel Webster spoke.

One of those who suffered this awful fate was an African American named Zachariah Walker, from Coatsville, VA. In 1911, Walker was dragged from a hospital bed where he was recovering from a gunshot wound. Accused of killing a white man--which he had claimed was in self-defense--Walker was burned alive at the stake without trial.

Such horrendous acts were not just a regional phenomenon of the South. States such as Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and even the Washington, DC area experienced this sort of mob violence and injustice. Lynching was not just a regional problem; it was a crime throughout our Nation, which occurred in 46 States of our country. It was because of the national scope of these atrocities that the Senate should act.

The Senate, of course, failed to pass any of the nearly 200 antilynching bills introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century. Three bills passed the House of Representatives, but they were filibustered on the Senate floor. In addition, seven Presidents had asked that such laws be passed.

One might ask: What impact would such a Federal law have had? Would that have saved all 4,749 people who were lynched, torched, mutilated, or whipped to death? Probably not in all cases because some had occurred before such bills were passed.

However, it would have sent a message, as it was read in newspapers across the land--whether in small towns, big cities, or in the country--that as a nation, we must stop such horrendous injustices being perpetrated on people, that we stand for the rule of law and equal protection and due process. By the Senate not acting, guess what message was sent. It sent the message that there are some people who may not think this is a good idea, that the Senate apparently condones it because they failed to act, notwithstanding the request of Presidents and the passage of such bills in the House of Representatives.

Why was Federal legislation needed? Because out of these 4,749 injustices of lynching, torching, and whipping, only 1 percent were prosecuted. In many cases, local authorities were complicit and involved in these cruel acts of injustice. Virginia was one of the States that actually passed an antilynching law which means that while there were 100 such lynchings, torchings, and burnings--and 100 is too many--compared to other States in the South, that was less. I have learned a lot since we introduced this bill. North Carolina's Governors, in the early 1900s, protested against such mob violence in their State and, therefore, they had less than in other States.

Another reason I got involved is to carry on the tradition of a man named Champ Clark, a Senator from Missouri whose son was actually one of my mentors when I first became involved in organized politics. He moved to the Charlottesville area when I was Governor, and I appointed him to the University of Virginia Board of Visitors. Sadly, he died a few years ago.

I found that his father, Senator Champ Clark of Missouri, posted photos--similar to those Senator Landrieu had--in our cloakrooms, of mutilated bodies. I will read from a document entitled, ``The U.S. Senate Filibusters Against Federal Anti-Lynching Legislation: The Case For A Formal Apology.'' It states:

Unlike in 1935, when senators killed anti-lynching

legislation in just six days, the 1937-38 filibuster took six

weeks. One reason: in April 1937, a Mississippi mob, in

collusion with local law enforcement, removed two African

Americans from their jail cells, whipped them with chains,

gouged out their eyes with ice picks, and put them to death

with acetylene blowtorches. Senator Champ Clark of Missouri

posted photos of these victims' mutilated bodies in the

Senate cloakroom with a caption, ``There have been No

arrests, No indictments and No convictions for any one of the

lynchers. This is NOT a rape case.

One month later, a mob in Georgia, consisting partly of

women and teenage girls, forced its way into a funeral home

and seized the body of a lynched twenty-four-year-old African

American. After dumping the body into the trunk of a car and

carrying it through town in a horn-blowing motorcade, the mob

took it to a baseball field and burned it.

Horror-struck by these incidents, Senators sought to invoke

cloture. If nothing else, they recognized that not only were

African Americans in high lynch states at risk, but their own

constituents were unprotected if they were black and

traveling through these areas. Sadly, after courageously

battling on the Senate floor for six weeks, they abandoned

their effort to obtain cloture.

Six weeks with all this and no action. Historians will no doubt disagree as to a single reason why Senators blocked antilynching legislation in the 1920s through the 1940s. My desire is not to get into motivations. Regardless of their reasoning, one reason that I can see from all this is that there is no reason. There is no rationale. They were clearly wrong. They turned their eyes. They turned their heads. That is why it is so important that we set aside these hours to apologize for this lack of action by the Senate--because there was no reason. There was no tolerance. There was an acceptance and a condonation of vile, hate-filled activity.

Thankfully, justice in our Nation has moved forward and left such despicable acts history. In ignoring the protections of our Founding Fathers, that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, the Senate turned its back on our foundational principles of justice and freedom.

I look around the Chamber and note that all of us serve with a great deal of honor and integrity, and many have throughout our history.

As Ephesians teaches us: All things that are reproved are made manifest by light. This apology has been a long time in coming.

I thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu, for her tireless efforts in getting this resolution agreed to. I thank also leader Frist for making the legislation a priority and taking time on the Senate schedule to recognize the significance of the moment.

I thank the cosponsors. We have nearly 80 cosponsors and will most likely have more by the end of the day. They recognized the importance of a resolution and knew that the Senate owed an apology to the victims of lynching, their families and descendants. I also thank James Allen, as Senator Landrieu has, for his authorship of ``Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America,'' for bringing to us these horrendous, but important, issues and making us react, recognizing how violent and hate-filled they were.

I also thank Janet Langhart Cohen and Mark Planning for their spirited leadership and teamwork in getting support for this resolution. I want to share with my colleagues some excerpts from Ms. Cohen's comments.

While some members of the Senate question why so many of us

have been seeking the passage of this official expression of

apology at this time, the real question is why the Senate

action was not forthcoming decades ago.

This is important for us to understand the meaning for those who are descendants of victims of lynching and torture and whipping.

She continues:

Consider the scope and depth of the crimes committed

against humanity: more than four thousand men and women were

hung from trees, many of them disembowled, their limbs and

organs amputated, and then set on fire. These heinous acts .

. . were designed to terrify African American citizens,

remind them that they have fewer rights and protections than

animals, and drive them from their land--all while serving as

entertainment for white society.

The point is, this was to intimidate people.

Ms. Cohen says that she comes to the Senate today--she is in the gallery with many other descendants--for many reasons. She writes:

As a Black woman, as the spouse of a former Senator, and as

one who had a family member lynched, I need to bear witness

to an act of decency that has been deferred, indeed

filibustered, for far too long.

We know she is here with many others and recognize that it has been filibustered far too long.

She also states that:

It's important to remind the American people about the evil

chapters in our history. It is the reason we construct

museums in Washington and beyond, to hold up for all to see

how capable we are of descending into the heart of darkness.

It's important for us to look back into the past so that we

can pledge never again to allow racial hatred to consume our

ideals or humanity.

President Bush, in his second inaugural address, stated:

Our country must abandon all habits of racism because we

cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of

bigotry at the same time.

She concludes with these statements:

An apology, I concede, will do nothing for the thousands of

people who perished during what has been called ``the Black

Holocaust.'' It cannot repair the battered souls of their

survivors. It is, after all, only a symbolic act. Our

symbols, however, the Eagle, Old Glory, Lady Liberty, to

mention but a few, are but short hand narratives of who we

are as Americans.

It is through an acknowledgment of the Senate's abdication

of its duty to protect and defend the rights of all American

citizens that, perhaps, we can begin to understand the pain

and anger that still lingers in

the hearts and minds of so many who have been deprived of the

equality promised in our Constitution.

My friend and mentor, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once

said that ``the arc of history bends toward justice.''

Today, as the Senate Members cast their historic votes,

that arc dips closer to its destination.

Signed, Janet Langhart Cohen.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud that this resolution will pass tonight. The Senate is going to be on record condemning the brutal atrocities that plagued our great Nation for over a century.

I will close with the words of our resolution:

Whereas, an apology offered in the spirit of true

repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and

may become central to a new understanding, on which improved

racial relations can be forged. Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure

of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation;

(2) expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn

regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of

lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human

dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all

citizens of the United States; and

(3) remembers the history of lynching, to ensure that these

tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated.

My colleagues, I ask you to join all of us in examining our history, learn from history, never again sit quietly, and never again turn one's head away when the ugly specter of racism, antisemitism, hate, and intolerance rises again. It is our responsibility to stand strong for freedom and justice.

In the future, I am confident that this Senate will perform better than it has in the past. We will protect the God-given blessings of all people to life and liberty, regardless of their race, their ethnicity, or their religious beliefs. The Senate can do better; we have done better tonight. But the real measure of what we have learned when such acts occur in the future is, will this Senate rise and condemn it to protect those God-given liberties? I know that Senator Landrieu and I believe the Senate will rise appropriately.

Mr. President, with that, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous agreement, the Senate now proceed to the vote on the pending resolution; I further ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding adoption of the resolution, the remaining time under the previous agreement remain available for Senators who wish to make statements, provided that any statements relating to the resolution appear prior to its adoption in the Congressional Record.

I thank the Chair.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Coleman again this year to re-introduce the Ryan Haight Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation will protect the safety of Americans who choose to purchase their prescription drugs legally over the Internet.

This legislation is necessary because of a growing problem of illegal prescription drug diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Coupled with the ease of access to the Internet, it has led to an environment where illegitimate pharmacy websites can bypass traditional regulations and established safeguards for the sale of prescription drugs. Internet websites that allow consumers to obtain prescriptions drugs without the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship pose an immediate threat to public health and safety.

To address this problem, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act makes several critical steps, to ensure safety and to assist regulatory authorities in shutting down ``rogue'' Internet pharmacies.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits the dispensing or sale of a prescription drug based solely on communications via the Internet such as the completion of an online medical questionnaire.

Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

Under this bill, for a domestic Web site to sell prescription drugs legally, the web site would have to display identifying information such as the names, addresses, and medical licensing information for pharmacists and physicians associated with the Web site.

In addition, if a person wants to use the Internet to purchase their prescription drugs he or she will not be prohibited from doing so under this bill but, in order to do so, must already have a prescription for the drug that is valid in the United States prior to making the Internet purchase.

Reliance on the Internet for public health purposes and the expansion of telemedicine, particularly in rural areas, make it essential that there be at the very least a minimum standard for what qualifies as an acceptable medical relationship between patients and their physicians.

According to the American Medical Association, a health care practitioner who offers a prescription for a patient he or she has never seen before, based solely on an online questionnaire, generally does not meet the appropriate medical standard of care.

Let me illustrate the situation facing our country today. If a physician's office prescribed and dispensed prescription drugs the same way Internet pharmacies currently can do, it would look something like this: a physician opens a physical office, asks a patient to fill out a medical history questionnaire in the lobby and give his or her credit card information to the office manager. There is no nurse, and therefore no one to take the patients' height, weight, blood pressure, verify his or her medical history, and so forth and no one to answer the patient's questions regarding their health.

The questionnaire is then slipped through a hole in the window; the office manager takes it to the physician, or person acting as the physician, who then writes the prescription and hands it to the pharmacist, or person acting as the pharmacist, in the next room. Once the patient signs his credit card, he is on his way out the door, drugs in hand.

No examination is performed, no questions asked, and no verification or clarification of the answers provided on the medical history questionnaire.

This illustration is not an exaggeration. It occurs everyday all across the United States. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates that there are around 500 identifiable rogue pharmacy Web sites operating on the Internet.

According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, 31 States and the District of Columbia either have laws or medical board initiatives addressing Internet medical practice.

Many States have already enacted laws defining acceptable practices for qualifying medical relationships between doctors and patients and this bill would not affect any existing State laws.

For example, California law was changed in 2000 to say: ``no person or entity may prescribe, dispense, or furnish, or cause to be prescribed, dispensed, or furnished dangerous drugs or dangerous devices [defined as any drug or device unsafe for self-use] on the Internet for delivery to any person in this state, without a good faith prior examination and medical indication . . .''

I believe California's law is a perfect example of why this legislation is needed. The law only applies to persons living in California. As we all know, however, the Internet is not bound by State or even country borders.

This legislation makes a critical step forward by providing additional authority for State Attorneys General to file an injunction in Federal court to shut down an Internet site operating in another State that violates the provisions in the bill.

Under current law, in order to close down an Internet website selling prescription drugs prosecutors must take enforcement actions in every State where the Internet pharmacy operates, requiring a tremendous amount of resources in an environment where the location of the website is difficult, if not impossible, to determine or keep track of.

This bill will allow a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of the law in every jurisdiction where the pharmacy is operating.

While this legislation pertains to domestic Internet pharmacies, the practice of international pharmacies selling low-cost drugs to U.S. consumers who have valid prescriptions from their doctors deserves to be discussed and debated on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate will act this year on prescription drug importation legislation.

In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, California in whose memory this bill is named.

Ryan was an 18-year old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001.

His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-State pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story and others like it force us to ask why anyone in the U.S. would be able to access such highly addictive and dangerous drugs over the Internet with such ease?

Why was there no physician or pharmacist on the other end of this teenager's computer verifying his age, his medical history and that there was a valid prescription?

That is why I support this legislation. It makes sensible requirements of Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

With simple disclosure requirements for Internet sites such as names, addresses and medical or pharmacy licensing information, patients will be better off and State medica1 and pharmacy boards can ensure that pharmacists and doctors are properly licensed.

Lastly, this bill will give State attorneys general the authority they need to shut down rogue Internet pharmacies operating in other states.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a resolution with Senators Snowe, McCain, Chafee, Murray, Jeffords, Durbin, Lieberman, Leahy, Lautenberg, Boxer, Cantwell, Akaka and Reed that urges the Administration to participate in international negotiations and actively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol goes into effect today. More than 140 nations, including all 25 members of the European Union, Russia and China, have ratified the agreement to reduce man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

The United States, which accounts for about one-fourth of the greenhouse gases believed responsible for global warming, has refused to ratify the treaty.

Thirty-five of the world's thirty-eight industrialized countries-- except for the United States, Australia, and Monaco--have ratified this important treaty.

This means that industrialized nations are bound to cut their combined greenhouse gases by 5 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

The United States is missing an important opportunity to protect our planet's environment by not ratifying the Protocol.

I believe this is a huge mistake.

There is emerging consensus that global warming is real.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``Since the 1900s global average temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration have increased dramatically, particularly compared to their levels in the 900 preceding years.''

Scientists now agree on three main Facts about global warming.

Fact 1: The Earth is warming.

Fact 2: The primary cause of this warming is man-made activities, especially fossil fuel consumption.

Fact 3: If we don't act now to reduce emissions, the problem will only get worse.

We have already begun to see the impacts of climate change: four hurricanes of significant force pounded the state of Florida in a six week period last fall. The storms formed over an area of the ocean where surface temperatures have increased an average of 17 degrees over the past decade.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are beginning to disappear in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the Park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

In California, water supplies are threatened by smaller snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada. Record snowfalls this winter have provided hope for this summer but the region still could face drought or floods unless temperatures stay cold enough to maintain the snowpack and average snowfall continues for the rest of the precipitation season.

If we take strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there will be 27 percent snowpack remaining in the Sierras at the end of the century.

However, if we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, there will only be 11 percent snowpack left in the Sierras at the end of the century.

The San Diego based Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a preeminent center for marine science research, will release a study later this week showing that global warming will likely have serious ramifications in the very near future, including: a water crisis in the western United States in the next 20 years due to smaller snowpacks.

The disappearance of the glaciers in the Andes in Peru in as little as 10 years, leaving the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The melting of two-thirds of the glaciers in western China by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants.

Further, the UN Comprehensive Assessment of Freshwater Resources of the World estimates that by 2025, around 5 billion people, out of a total

world population of 8 billion, will not have access to adequate water supplies.

And concern about the effects of climate change is mounting around the world.

Scientists fear that an ``ecological catastrophe'' is developing in Tibet with the melting of the region's glaciers as a result of global warming.

Glaciers in West Antarctica are thinning twice as fast as they did in the 1990s

The mean air temperature has risen 4-5 degrees in Alaska in the past three decades causing glaciers to melt and the coastline to recede.

Peru's Quelccaya ice cap, the largest in the tropics, could be gone by 2100 if it continues to melt at its current rate--contracting more than 600 feet a year in some places.

In addition, according to National Geographic, ``the famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80 percent since 1912. Glaciers in the Garhwal Himalaya in India are retreating so fast that researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035. Arctic sea ice has thinned significantly over the past half century, and its extent has declined by about 10 percent in the past 30 years. Greenland's ice sheet is shrinking.''

The Pew Center for Climate Change reports strong evidence of global warming in the United States. The findings included: the red fox has shifted its habitat northward, where it is encroaching on the Arctic fox's range.

Southern, warm-water fish have begun to infiltrate waters off Monterey, California, which were previously dominated by colder-water species.

The Alaskan tundra, which has for thousands of years been a depository for carbon dioxide, has begun to release more of the gas into the air than it removes because warmer winters are causing stored plant matter to decompose.

There have been documented trends in which the natural timing of animal or insect life cycles changed and the plants on which they depended did not. Many Southern species of butterflies have disappeared entirely over the past century as their range contracted.

According to the International Climate Change Taskforce, of which Senator Snowe is a Co-Chair, if the earth's average temperature increases by more than 2 degres Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the world could face substantial agricultural losses, countless people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts such as malaria.

Even more critically, if the temperature rises more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, we could be at risk for catastrophic/weather events. For instance, we would risk losing the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which could raise sea levels, shut down the Gulf Stream, and destroy the world's forests.

Climate change is real. Its impacts are already being felt. If emissions keep growing at projected levels, greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will reach levels unknown since the time of the dinosaurs during the lifetimes of children born today.

That is why my colleagues and I have introduced this resolution that: Urges the Administration to engage in international discussions on post-Kyoto greenhouse gas reductions.

Calls upon the Administration to take action NOW to reduce emissions domestically.

Encourages the United States to keep global average temperatures from increasing more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial levels.

As the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is the responsibility of the United States to lead by example. By not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, we have sent a harsh message to the world that the largest emitter and contributor to global warming refuses to participate in a worldwide program aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

But fortunately, even though the federal government has refused to acknowledge global warming, many States have recognized that in spite of the federal government's inaction, action must be taken.

Nearly 40 States have developed their own climate plans.

A emission trading system is emerging in the Northeast that will require large power plants from Maine to Delaware to reduce their carbon emissions.

Eighteen States and Washington, DC have enacted renewable portfolio standards. They include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.

California has enacted legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle tailpipes--it is expected that the Northeastern States and Canada will also follow California's lead.

Yet without concerted Federal action, the United States will not be able to achieve real, significant greenhouse gas reductions.

As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, we must act now to reduce the impacts of climate change and save the environment for future generations.

The Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. Though the Protocol ends, the United States needs to lead and move to negotiate a post-Kyoto framework. There are many things we can do. For example, we can: use our forests and our farmland as a depository for carbon to prevent it from being released into the atmosphere; develop new technologies such as clean coal, renewable energy, and hydrogen vehicles; make better use of existing technologies such as hybrid vehicles and energy efficient buildings, appliances, and power generation; and use market-based programs, such as cap and trade, to reduce emissions with the least harm to economy.

Being a responsible steward of the climate is more than just taking steps to pollute less. It also requires participating in international negotiations on the policies the world will need to achieve significant, long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the second in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Yesterday, I submitted S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing effort to find ways to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad.

The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. This is an important law but, regrettably, it contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign- made goods.

My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing act by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the Act and buy foreign goods. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, nearly 80,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my state since 2000. And the country has lost more than two-and-one-half million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, including more than 25,000 jobs last month alone. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows no signs of stopping. Congress should do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods.

There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill addresses four of them The first of these waivers allows an agency head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a procurement up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal contract.

The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United States, such as in a time of war. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining articles that are used on regular basis outside the U.S., or that are not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source--including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the company that will do the work overseas.

The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such a waiver, determine whether domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available domestically.

My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, and Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act--a requirement that we have imposed on executive agencies.

Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content standard qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American- made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a minimum of 75 percent.

In addition, my bill would make permanent the expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was extended as part of the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending bill. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign- and domestic-made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and accountability in the waiver process.

The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to include the following information: the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet.

My bill also seeks to prevent dual-use technologies from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries of concern by prohibiting the awarding of overseas contracts or sub-contracts that would require the transfer of information relating to any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the Export Administration Act process. It only makes sense that we would not award contracts that require the transfer of sensitive technology without following our own export licensing process. It is possible that this technology could later be used by some countries to make their own products to sell to countries that cannot obtain such goods from the United States. This loophole in our export control laws should be closed.

Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would require to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all federal agencies.

I am pleased that my legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups. The groups are committed to ensuring that we have a strong domestic manufacturing base that provides good-paying, stable jobs for American workers, and they include Save American Manufacturing, the national and Wisconsin AFL-CIO, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, and the United Auto Workers.

In addition to strengthening the Buy American Act, Congress should support trade agreements that do not undermine it. As I have repeatedly stated on this floor, Congress and Administrations of both parties have a dismal record of promoting trade agreements that send American jobs overseas. And many of those same flawed trade agreements have repeatedly weakened the Buy American Act and other domestic preference laws.

Last year, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Lieberman, and I asked the GAO to study the effect of trade agreements on domestic source requirements such as those contained in the Buy American Act. That study found that the United States government is required to give

favorable treatment to certain goods from a total of 45 countries as a result of trade agreements and reciprocal defense procurement agreements. The report notes that the United States is a party to seven trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement, that prevents the U.S. from applying domestic preference laws fully. The report also identifies 21 Department of Defense (DoD) Memoranda of Understanding that allow DoD to procure goods and services from foreign countries.

The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws.

By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem, I believe that one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act.

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