Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will take a few minutes and comment on the upcoming debate on Medicare. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation and my respect for those who have worked on this issue for a great deal of time. I have nothing but the highest admiration for my colleagues, Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Breaux, Senator Kennedy, and others who have spent a great deal of time over the last number of months trying to put together a proposal to provide Americans with a comprehensive prescription drug benefit while not undermining the core program of Medicare which has served millions of Americans so well for the past 38 years. Whatever other views I may have on this proposal, it does not diminish my respect for the efforts they have made to put this bill together. I begin on that note.

Let me state the obvious. I don't know of many other programs that have enjoyed as widespread and as deep and profound a degree of support in our Nation's history as the Medicare Program. I cannot think of another program which has done as much for as many people as Medicare has over the past 38 years. When you look back at the statistics of the poor in America prior to 1965, without exception, the poorest group of Americans were older Americans, our senior citizens. That was, of course, because they had left the labor force and to what extent they had any coverage at all, it was usually lost upon their retirement. As happens when people age, health problems often emerge, people become sicker and require more help. America could only watch as parents and grandparents got sicker and poorer and faced great difficulty making ends meet.

Through a very extensive and elaborate and lengthy debate, our predecessor Congress, both in this body and

in the House of Representatives, under the leadership of Lyndon Baines Johnson, in 1964, giants in this body, crafted the Medicare Program. In fact, President Johnson went to Missouri, to the home of Harry Truman, who had been such a great advocate of universal health care, to sign that historic piece of legislation into law. There have been a lot of other things we have done over the years, such as Title I of elementary and secondary education, that might come close--certainly Social Security--I suspect if we had to pick two programs this Government has fashioned in the 20th century that have meant as much to such a critical part of our society, one would certainly have to identify Social Security and Medicare.

It is with that background that I rise this afternoon to express my deep concern and worry over what we may be doing in the next few hours in a rather hasty manner. That does not mean to suggest that the conferees and others who have worked a long time on this have acted in haste; although I disagree with their product, I respect the amount of time and effort they have put into this. The Presiding Officer and this Senator are the only two Members present at this moment, and our ability to go through this and to understand what is about to happen in the coming days is rather limited.

Sometime tomorrow, Sunday, or Monday, but certainly no later than that, we will be asked to vote up or down on a conference report that does something all Members have wanted to do for years--provide a prescription drug benefit for older Americans under the Medicare program. Knowing, as we all do, that had we been writing the Medicare bill in the year 2003 for the very first time, or several years ago, we would never have considered a Medicare proposal without the inclusion of a prescription drug benefit. But those who wrote the bill in 1964 were not confronted with the terribly high cost of prescribed medicines. At that time, there simply were not that many pharmaceutical products out there, so prescription drugs were not as major a factor as they are today. The idea of providing basic healthcare services was what originally drove Congress to enact the Medicare Program.

Obviously, the world has changed. So the need for a prescription drug benefit today, given the tremendous costs our elderly face every single day across this country, where they literally, without any exception at all, are forced to make choices about whether or not to take the drugs they have been prescribed, to have a meal, or to pare back on their prescriptions so as to spread them out over a longer period of time so they will not have to go back in and pay for the drugs which they cannot afford, in which case they are not getting the full benefit of the prescriptions because they are self-medicating themselves, and in many cases can do far more harm than not taking a drug at all, as any good doctor can tell you--that is the reality today fro millions of our senior citizens.

It is my belief that if we were solely dealing with the prescription drug benefit piece of this package, it would pass 98 to 2, maybe 100 to 0. There is no doubt in my mind that would be the case. If that were the only issue before the Senate, that would clearly be the outcome. Although I would quickly tell you there are parts of this prescription drug benefit that could be drawn far more wisely and far more fairly in many ways, I could not argue over the fact that a $400 billion appropriation over the next 10 years offered a good start.

But also just as quickly I would say to my colleagues, if we were dealing with the portion of this package dealing with the structural reform of Medicare, and they were standing alone just as I suggested a moment ago if the prescription drug benefit package were standing alone, the parts of this package instituting structural changes to Medicare would not get 10 votes. I don't know of many people who would support a Medicare package that had the sections this bill does that would so dramatically alter Medicare. The only reason it is getting any consideration at all is that we have lured people into this on the prescription drug benefit aspects of this conference agreement.

So if you set that aside for a minute and begin to look at the structural side of this, and understand how many years it originally took to put together the Medicare program, what a difference it has made in people's lives--when you consider the tremendous salvation this has been to people--and then recognize the direction in which we are about to go if this conference agreement is adopted--and I suspect it may be--then it will not take long, in my view, when you will find what we saw only a few years ago, with the Congress coming back in to reverse itself in 2006 or shortly thereafter when the provisions of this bill go into place.

The more you look at the structural side of this particular proposal, then the more people are going to be concerned about what they are doing. So I applaud those who have worked on the prescription drug side of this bill. But I have great concerns about what this conference report would do to the foundation of Medicare.

In June of this year, when S. 1 was before this Senate, I based my support for that measure on the belief that it offered a strong, though not complete, first step towards ensuring prescription drug coverage for America's seniors and strengthening the overall structure of the Medicare Program.

This conference report, I say with deep regret, can now be accurately characterized, in my view, as a misguided step down the wrong path. The agreement before us today will lead us down the path towards greater privatization of Medicare, towards a greater burden on our States trying to meet the needs of their own low-income senior citizens, and towards an overall weakening of the Medicare Program.

A very simple way to describe this, as we look at the great success the Medicare program has enjoyed over the past 38 years, is to remember that this is a universal program. This program says to everybody who reaches a certain age, regardless of how healthy you are, or how wealthy you are, or how poor you are, or how sick you are, you can qualify and be a part of this Medicare Program. We are about to do something now that is going to say to those who are wealthier and healthier, you can move off into private plans, in which case the only ones who will be left within traditional Medicare are those who are less wealthy and those who are most sick.

Now, you do not have to have a Ph.D. in mathematics to understand what the outcome will be if this conference report is adopted. If Medicare becomes a program of poor, sicker people because wealthier, healthier people have left, as I believe they will under this bill, then you have just forced either a reduction of benefits or increased costs for those under traditional Medicare--those who can least afford it.

There is no other outcome you can draw from that which we are about to do. That is the eventual outcome. It fundamentally changes and alters the basic concept that was part of the plan passed in 1965--its universality.

The underlying concept of wealthy, healthy people joining with poorer, sicker people--being together--has been the cornerstone of this tremendously successful program. When you begin to pick off those who are wealthier and healthier, for all the obvious reasons, into private plans, the sicker and poorer people will be left with either Medicare benefits getting cut or premium costs going up. That is the sadly predictable outcome of this legislation, Mr. President.

Medicare is first and foremost a program to protect our Nation's seniors from the often insurmountable costs associated with securing quality health care services. Prior to its inception in 1965, as I mentioned, many seniors--the overwhelming majority, in fact--faced abject poverty as a result of skyrocketing health care costs. The creation of the Medicare Program provided a critical safety net for those seniors and allowed them to retain both their access to quality health care, as well as their financial security.

Earlier this year, and prior to the Senate's consideration of the underlying legislation, I had the opportunity to convene a series of forums in my home State of Connecticut on health care issues in an attempt to frame the scope of this debate for them. At those forums, I heard from my constituents on many matters regarding health care. I heard from seniors who literally could not afford to fill prescriptions--and I know my colleagues have heard

the same stories--called for by their doctors. I heard from elderly Medicare beneficiaries forced to choose between purchasing groceries or filling their prescriptions. I heard from seniors who were forced to skip dosages of their medicines in an attempt to stretch their limited supplies of these needed medicines. I heard from Medicare beneficiaries requiring more than 10 prescribed medicines a day unable to afford even half of those prescriptions.

Clearly, what I heard from hundreds of my own constituents is their grave concern over the present lack of a prescription drug benefit under the Medicare Program.

When Medicare was first enacted, few could have envisioned the tremendous costs associated with prescription medicines. However, it is the great need for prescription drug coverage under Medicare that was firmly behind my initial support for S. 1. Sadly, however, the conference report before us simply does not go anywhere near far enough to provide sufficient coverage for prescription medicines for the great majority of Medicare beneficiaries. That said, we cannot turn our backs on what this bill would do for Medicare beneficiaries with severely limited incomes. This bill says, if you make under $13,470, representing 150 percent of the federal poverty level, then you will get real help under this bill. But if you make anything more than $13,470, which is what two-thirds of our seniors citizens do, then you are going to be offered little in the way of help under ths bill. That is why it is my belief the prescription drug benefit aspect of this bill should be greatly strengthened.

But I believe for most seniors that it is terribly unrealistic to suggest that someone making more than $13,470 can somehow manage to afford the cost of their prescription medicines, particularly if they have costs that would push their spending into the bill's gap in coverage, or donut hole, as it is often described. But, nonetheless, that is the direction we are going with this conference agreement.

The emerging bill contains a gap, as I mentioned, of more than $2,800, twice the size, by the way, contained in the Senate-passed legislation. Under this conference agreement, Medicare beneficiaries with costs within this so-called donut hole will be forced to pay for the full cost of their prescribed medicines as well as the monthly premium of an estimated $35--and I stress the word ``estimated''; I will get to that in a minute--and receive absolutely no financial assistance whatsoever.

Only 4 percent of seniors in the country make over $80,000 a year. Two-thirds of seniors make somewhere above $13,470. The idea that somehow people are going to have enough money, as a senior, trying to pay a home mortgage or pay whatever obligations they have, not to mention food and other things, and also be able to pick up as much as $2,800 a year for prescription drugs, is, I think, terribly unrealistic.

This bill would require Medicare to move dangerously toward privatization, which is what I want to get back to, because it is the side of this bill calling for structural change to the Medicare program that causes me the greatest concern and greatest worry, and undermines this incredibly fine program. I can't tell you how disappointed I am in the AARP for endorsing this conference agreement. I truly wish that AARP's affiliates across the country had been heard on this issue before their national leadership decided that they would support this bill and disregard the 38 years of history when it comes to Medicare and the millions of people who have greatly benefitted from its coverage.

As one who has witnessed firsthand the tumult and confusion created by Medicare+Choice organizations entering and then quickly withdrawing from communities in my home State of Connecticut, I can say assuredly to my colleagues here today that this would establish a dangerous precedent that may very well lead to the devolution of the Medicare Program as we know it.

Also of great concern to me is the effect this legislation will have on employers that have already provided their retirees with prescription drug coverage. In my State of Connecticut, more than 225,000 Medicare beneficiaries, fully one-third of my State's senior citizens, receive coverage for their prescribed medicines from their former employers. Under this bill, about 40,000 of those elderly will lose this coverage as a result of employers dropping their prescription drug plans.

I don't know the numbers in every other State, but if 40,000 of my 225,000 beneficiaries presently with prescription drug plans from their former employers are going to be dropped from their prescription drug programs, how many in other States are going to be? Where do the States of other Senators fall in this category?

I additionally have another 74,000 people in my State--and I represent a small State with a little more than 3.5 million people--who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. These beneficiaries--and there are 6.4 million of them across the country that are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid--will face increased prescription drug costs under the underlying bill. There will be a significant cost increase for those people who fall within both Medicare and Medicaid if this conference report is adopted. So even before we start talking about what will happen in the year 2010 and down the road under this bill, Mr. President, we are going to witness significant numbers of people lose their present coverage or be forced to withstand both higher costs and diminished benefits.

Also very troubling to this Senator in the underlying conference agreement is its unqualified support for private for-profit insurers at the expense of traditional fee-for-service programs. Particularly disturbing are the provisions securing $12 billion to be solely reserved for these private insurers in order to entice them to enter the Medicare market. Twelve billion dollars is going to the private companies, just so they can compete against the traditional Medicare program. They are calling this competition. Back in the Roman Empire, they had a competition like that. You would go to the forum and on one side were the lions. Under this bill is a similar situation, private insurers will get $12 billion to compete, but Medicare will not get anything. Under this bill, we are going to cap Medicare spending and then say: Go out and compete against enriched private plans.

I was born at night, Mr. President, but not last night. I know and most other people know, without a great deal more knowledge about this, that if you provide $12 billion, as this bill does, to private companies to go out and compete against a company that doesn't get that kind of help, do you know who is going to win that competition? I wonder. I wonder what the outcome will be there. Yet that is what this bill does. Twelve billion dollars reserved for private insurers in order to entice them to enter the Medicare market. The inclusion of this provision truly represents a solution in need of a problem, Mr. President. Traditional Medicare already serves 89 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries and the addition of $12 billion to entice private plan participation is wholly unwarranted and unnecessary.

In fact, this bill will also prohibit the Medicare program from going out and forming a consortium to drive down the cost of prescription drugs. Under this bill, you are violating the law if you go out and do that. While we are going to provide $12 billion instead to others to allow them to compete with Medicare, we will not allow Medicare itself to go out and lobby or negotiate to lower the costs of prescription medicines. The traditional Medicare Program is a proven success and would be better served if this valuable funding of $12 billion were directed toward further strengthening its foundation.

Lastly, the conference agreement before us today establishes the dangerous precedent of instituting so-called cost containment measures that could directly lead to severe cuts in what Medicare covers and just as severe increases in the costs Medicare beneficiaries will be forced to bear. Very specifically, the conference report calls on the Congress and the administration to address Medicare's costs when general revenue spending on Medicare reaches 45 percent of the program's total cost.

Can anyone cite for me any other Federal agency where that kind of provision has been imposed? There is not one--not one. Yet this bill goes out and places this kind of a restraint on Medicare, and on no other part of our Government do we do it, only on Medicare.

It is my belief that the adoption of this purely arbitrary cap, which you will find nowhere else, will lead to almost certain erosion of critical programs, scope of coverage, and affordability.

Today, nearly 40 years after Medicare's inception, we find ourselves at a crossroads. I can truly say that I am somewhat stunned that we are about to make a decision on a program that has worked so well for so long within a matter of hours here, without any of us fully understanding--at least most don't seem to understand--the implications of what we are about to do. How could you take a program that has worked so well for so many people and, in the waning days of a session, with just a few hours remaining, get up and ask the Congress to do what we are about to do here? I don't understand how we could allow this to happen. We are on the cusp of fundamentally altering a program that has worked so well for this nation's elderly and most frail citizens.

Again, Mr. President, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The opportunity is before us to move Medicare toward the future without threatening its proven availability to provide for the health and well- being of our Nation's senior citizens. Sadly, however, this conference agreement before us represents an opportunity lost, an opportunity not only to add comprehensive coverage for prescribed medicines under the Medicare Program, which would have been a great success story, but also an opportunity to strengthen the Medicare Program for future generations.

So it is with great sadness that I find myself, only months after originally supporting the underlying legislation when it was first considered by the Senate earlier this year, now having to oppose this conference agreement in its current form. Under the guise of providing needed prescription drug coverage under the Medicare Program, this conference agreement falls far short of addressing this need for the great majority of our Nation's nearly 41 million Medicare beneficiaries.

Forty-one million Americans take note. Over the weekend, in the next 72 hours, a program that has served you for 40 years, serving more than 40 million people presently, is going to be fundamentally altered unless this body, and only this body, stands up and says: Stop. Go back. Let's rethink this before we go out and make the kind of changes that are being proposed in this legislation.

While there have been numerous articles and commentaries written about this plan over the last number of days, people trying to attract attention, numerous editorial comments that I have found tremendously compelling, I come back to the basic point that this is dangerous policy. I put my colleagues on notice; I tell you this will happen.

In the Senate passed bill, which, again, I supported, in order to receive prescription drug coverage, there had to be two drug-only providers available. However, this conference agreement calls for only one of these plans and an HMO. This is a fundamental change. Let me describe what this can mean in the clearest terms I have seen written about this.

Under the conference report, we have now learned that the Medicare guaranteed fallback is only triggered if a senior does not have a choice of two private plans, one of which can be an HMO. Again, that was not in the Senate bill and it is in the conference report before us.

In order to receive prescription drug coverage under this bill you have two choices: One, you can choose traditional Medicare and receive no prescription drug coverage. Two, you can choose to keep traditional Medicare and purchase a drug-only plan. The problem is that there is no limit on the monthly premiums these drug-only plans can charge. When you hear about the $35 cost of premiums for these plans, you must remember that this is only an estimate. If there is only one provider of the drug-only plan in your area--and that is all there has to be under this bill the monthly premium could be $100 or more. Nothing in this bill caps what the premium should be on a monthly basis for the drug coverage. That is what the offer is under this bill.

In other words, it will be permissible for only one insurer to offer the new Medicare drug benefit and charge whatever premium they desire, as long as there is also an HMO option in the area. This type of arrangement strategically avoids the protection of a traditional Medicare fallback benefit from being made available to seniors. As a result, seniors in these regions, many of which will be rural areas, will be financially forced into HMOs just to obtain an affordable drug benefit. In the meantime, they will lose their choice of doctors.

Does this sound familiar? Earlier this year, President Bush and his administration made clear that he wanted to reform Medicare by providing a prescription drug benefit, but only to those seniors who were willing to go into a private insurance plan and HMOs. This compromise has been designed to help achieve that goal.

So that it is further understood, it is important to note that the Senate required that there be at least two private stand-alone options for Medicare beneficiaries. This would have ensured that there would at least be competition for premiums for the new stand-alone drug benefit. Some have argued that the competition between the drug-only plan and an HMO or PPO will force down the premium of the drug-only plan. The fact is, drug-only plans cannot compete on an even playing field with PPOs or HMOs. This is because HMOs and PPOs are provided additional subsidies under this bill and, by definition, offer a wide variety of services that give these plans a competitive advantage over the stand- alone drug plans. Any losses on the drug side can be offset by gains on the medical side, in a sense.

This is yet another example of how all financial incentives are designed to advantage the private HMOs and PPOs over traditional Medicare. People need to understand the fundamental changes in this bill that will greatly alter the very structure of the Medicare program.

I have taken a lot of time this afternoon, Mr. President, and I apologize to my colleagues. But I feel very strongly about this critically important issue. Last week in this body we had a filibuster that went on for 4 days because people were upset over the nomination of 4 judges. I contend that perhaps there ought to be a filibuster on this legislation as nearly 41 million Medicare beneficiaries are going to be adversely affected if this legislation is adopted by this body.

Here we are toady, Mr. President, down to the waning few hours of the session, and we are about to consider fundamentally altering and setting back Medicare for years to come. When the roll is called on this, I will vote no. I will seek other options between now and then to see if there is a way to delay consideration of this until we have more time to examine more fully the implications of this bill. Under the guise of providing needed prescription drug coverage under Medicare, the conference agreement before us today offers far too little coverage for the great majority of Medicare beneficiaries, while at the same time institutes structural reforms to the underlying Medicare program that will significantly weaken its ability to provide for the health and well being of our nation's senior citizens. It should be soundly rejected. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is a truly historic day. After nearly three-quarters of a century of trying, a national museum dedicated to telling the story of the African American struggle and contribution to the founding and development of this country is about to be realized with passage of H.R. 3491, legislation to create a National Museum of African American History and Culture.

Many individuals are to be congratulated and thanked for their efforts to bring this dream to fruition. In the Senate, my distinguished colleague and author of legislation this Congress to authorize the African American Museum, Senator Sam Brownback, has been a champion of this effort for the past two Congresses. I was pleased to be his coauthor on this measure.

As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee last Congress, it was my great honor to work with him to produce legislation to create the Presidential Commission, whose report underpinned the legislation we introduced earlier this year. We would not be voting on this matter today but for the continuing efforts of Senator Brownback.

In the House, my good friend, Congressman Bob Ney, and my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Congressman John Larson, worked with us to find a compromise that could be supported in the House and shepherded this legislation to passage on the House suspension calendar on Wednesday by an overwhelming vote of 409 to 9. Their diligence and dedication to this effort was tireless.

But no one deserves more credit for helping to realize this dream than does my dear friend from Georgia, Congressman John Lewis. This bill is truly his dream, his inspiration, his vision, his mission.

For nearly 12 years John Lewis has made creation of this museum his personal crusade. It has been a labor of love and while the road has been long and filled with bumps, the victory today is his victory. I salute John Lewis for his courage and tireless dedication to this cause.

But the ultimate winner today is not just a handful of Members, it is our Nation as a whole. For today, Congress has acted to heal old wounds of the past and formally acknowledge that the stories and contributions of African Americans to the birth and growth of this great Nation must be told to complete our history.

Since 1929, efforts have been made to recognize the contributions and unique history of Americans of African descent. It is past time that we publicly acknowledge and incorporate the African American experience into our collective identity.

This legislation will help ensure that the compelling stories and invaluable contributions of African Americans to our national fabric will no longer be ignored, but shared with all Americans, indeed, all peoples of the world.

With the creation of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, Americans of all races, ethnic backgrounds, and personal histories can come together to celebrate the contributions of all Americans to the rich heritage and culture that is the American melting pot.

That is the essence of this legislation--the completion of the American story of our quest for freedom and truth through the public incorporation of the experiences and contributions of African Americans to that struggle. This Museum offers the promise and hope that all Americans can come to understand the full story of how this nation was formed.

The House bill before us is virtually identical to the bill Senator Brownback and I introduced in May of this year, S. 1157, which the Senate passed on June 23rd.

This legislation directs the Smithsonian Institution to establish a museum known as the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Within 12 months of enactment, the Smithsonian Board of Regents will choose a site for this Museum from among four sites listed in the bill.

With regard to the sites available for selection, the House bill deletes the Capitol grounds site contained in the Senate-passed bill and substitutes a fourth site, known as the ``Banneker Overlook site'' located on 10th Street Southwest at the foot of the L'Enfant Plaza promenade on axis with the Smithsonian Castle.

The bill directs that, prior to the selection of the site, the Board of Regents will consult with the chair of the National Capital Planning Commission and the chair of the Commission on Fine Arts, as well as the chairman of the Presidential Commission, Congressional oversight committees and others.

In the meantime, the Smithsonian Board of Regents will appoint a 19 member council, comprised of leaders within the African American community and others, to advise the Regents on the development, design and construction of the Museum.

With regard to the selection of these council members, I was disappointed that the House deleted a provision in the Senate-passed bill which would have required that at least 9 members of the council be of African American descent.

This important provision in the Senate-passed bill was modeled on provisions of the act which created the National Museum of the American Indian. As in the case of that Museum, this language was intended to ensure that the sensitivities and perspectives of those individuals whose stories this Museum will tell are properly considered and portrayed.

Although I regret that the House deleted this provision, the bill still requires that, in appointing 17 of the 19 members of the council, the Board of Regents take into consideration individuals recommended by organizations and entities that are committed to the advancement of knowledge of African American life, art, history, and culture.

Although this change weakens the Senate version of this bill some, the Smithsonian Institution can still ensure the integrity of the content of this museum by appointing members to the council in keeping with the Senate's original intent. As the ranking member of the Rules Committee which has oversight jurisdiction over the Smithsonian, I look forward to working with the Smithsonian to see that this happens.

This Museum will include exhibits and programs relating to all aspects of African American life, art, history, and culture from the time of slavery through present day and will provide leadership to other museums and will collaborate with historically Black colleges and universities and educational organizations to ensure the integrity of the exhibits and programming and to broaden the reach of its story and mission.

The House compromise also retains provisions of the Senate-passed bill which authorizes a grant program within the National Institute of Museum and Library Services. This program is intended to support organizations dedicated to expanding the knowledge of the African American experience and slavery by providing support for improving operations, care of collections, and intern and scholarship programs.

Equally important is a provision which will provide grants to nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is to promote the study of the African American diaspora. Such grants can be used to increase existing endowment funds for the purpose of enhancing education programs and maintaining and operating traveling exhibits.

In Connecticut, we are fortunate to have such an organization in Amistad America, Inc. Amistad America is a national, non-profit educational organization dedicated to promoting the legacies of the Amistad incident of 1839 through the traveling exhibit of the freedom schooner Amistad.

The Amistad is literally a floating classroom which celebrates and teaches the historic lessons of perseverance, leadership, cooperation, justice, and freedom inherent in the Amistad Incident. Although its home port is New Haven, CT, the freedom schooner Amistad travels to both national and international ports to bring the story of our collective history and the continuing struggle for equality and human rights to school children and adults around the globe.

It is through the efforts of such organizations as Amistad America, with the support of the new Museum of African American History and Culture and the National Institute of Museum and Library Services, that we can ensure that the lessons of the past are not lost on current or future generations.

In short, this legislation offers the hope that through knowledge and education, the history of the struggles for freedom and equality of some Americans becomes the interwoven history of all Americans and ensures that future generations will not have to repeat such struggles.

I was honored to be the lead Democratic sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, and I am honored to stand before the Senate today to urge my colleagues to adopt this compromise which the House has passed and send this measure to the President for his signature.

We would not be at this point today without the dedication and assistance of many people, including the staff who labor many hours and late into the night to facilitate the legislative process. At the risk of leaving someone off the list, I want to recognize those staff for their considerable contributions to this measure, including LaRochelle Young of Senator Brownback's staff; Michael Collins and Tammy Boyd of Congressman John Lewis's staff; Paul Vinovich and George Hagijski of Congressman Bob Ney's House Administration Committee staff; George Shevlin and Matt Pinkus of Congressman John Larson's House Administration Committee staff; Susan Brita of Congressman James Oberstar's House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff; Dan Mathews of Congressman Steven LaTourette's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff; Bill Johnson of Congressman Jack Kingston's staff; and Kennie Gill of my Rules Committee staff.

The action we take today is historic not only in its ability to unify this nation, but in its message to the world that we recognize and cherish the contributions of all Americans to the creation of this great democracy.

Mr. President, I know the hour is late, and I appreciate the indulgence of the staff on the floor of the Senate. It has been a long day for them in the Senate to listen to a lot of speeches predominantly about the Energy bill, although I gather there has been some discussion about the Medicare prescription drug bill as well. I apologize to those who have been around here a long time today to have to listen to yet one more Member of this institution express his views on the matter we will be voting on tomorrow morning at around 10:30 a.m.--and that is the Energy bill.

I listened with great interest to my good friend from Iowa, with whom I have served now in the institutions of the Senate and the House of Representatives for about 30 years. We have been through a lot of battles, both together and on opposite sides. I always find his remarks compelling, interesting, and admire him immensely. He has been a very effective Member of this body for a long time. I appreciate his work.

He has been through a lot in the last couple of years. He is chairman of the Finance Committee, and he has an awful lot of matters with which to deal. I appreciate his service. I regret on the matter before us we have a different point of view on the Energy bill. I care deeply about the subject matter. I know my colleague from Iowa does. Certainly, he raises some very significant issues as they pertain to renewable energy resources. Were this a bill about just that question, he would have my unyielding support.

Unfortunately, there is more to this bill--it is more than 1,100 pages. My Governor--a Republican Governor--of the State of Connecticut and most of the membership of the State legislature have taken a different view because of the adverse impacts on my State, just as it has positive impacts on the State of Iowa and the grain-producing States. That is a major reason many of our colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, are opposed to the bill.

They must understand, for those of us who come from other parts of the country, we have to evaluate a bill such as this and take a look at what it does to our economy, our environment, our energy needs, as well as the health of our people. For those reasons, on a bipartisan basis in my State, there have been strong expressions of opposition to this bill. I wish to take a few minutes to outline those reasons.

Tomorrow morning at 10:30 o'clock, there will be bipartisan opposition to invoking cloture. This is not a question where, on many issues, Democrats and Republicans line up very neatly on one side of the aisle or the other. There will be Democrats who will oppose cloture; there will be Democrats who will support cloture; there will be Republicans who oppose cloture; there will be Republicans who support cloture. This is a matter of people looking at legislation that evolved in the conference committee.

My respect for the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Pete Domenici, as he knows, is tremendous. I have great regard for him. I admire his leadership in the Senate. I have enjoyed working with him on numerous occasions. He has been a very fine Senator for many years. I know he put a lot of work into this bill. If I were to vote on this measure exclusively on the basis of friendship, I would be a strong supporter of this bill because I happen to like Pete Domenici a great deal. But I cannot, in all good conscience, vote for something that does such damage to my State, to my region, to my country.

This legislation would have been better crafted at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century than the beginning of the 21st century. This is a 20th century Energy bill, not a 21st century Energy bill. It is important, with the few hours remaining between tonight and tomorrow morning, to know what this bill may do to the country and the people of this country might express to their elected representatives their strong feelings about what is in this bill.

Like any other legislation in my 24 years here, there are good pieces to this. I am not going to stand here and suggest everything in this bill is wrong. It is not. The Senator from Iowa has already mentioned the idea of using some of our natural resources to provide a renewable source of energy.

As a Senator from Connecticut, I tried to be very sympathetic and supportive of those kinds of issues. If this bill were exclusively about that, I would not have any real difficulties with it. But no Member ought to vote for a bill such as this for the simple reason that one provision of this bill is good for their State. You must take into consideration all the damage that can be done to the very people of that State if we adopt the measures included in this bill.

This is not, as I say, a 21st century energy policy. Let me quote the Orlando Sentinel of November 18. This is not a Connecticut newspaper, it is a Florida newspaper. Listen to what they say:

Start Over: The Energy bill before Congress is worse than

what exists.

They continue:

Two-thirds of the tax breaks would go to the oil, natural-

gas and coal industries, helping to perpetuate the country's

dependence on fossil fuels. Less than a quarter of the breaks

would promote the use and development of renewable energy

sources, and less than a tenth would reward energy efficiency

or conservation.

Tonight there are literally thousands of young Americans who are stationed in a place called Iraq. I don't believe they are there exclusively, as some do, because of the oil issue, because of the dependency that this Nation and the Western alliance has on the Middle East for its energy supplies. I also don't think it is not a reason. It is certainly part of the reason. I know there are others who believe it is the whole reason. I don't subscribe to that. If I did, I would never have supported the authorization of use of force by the President to go into Iraq, for which I voted. I believe it is part of the reason. I believe we are over there trying to protect the economic and energy interests of the United States in part because of our dependency on that part of the world.

Why at a moment such as this, when our country is at such risk, particularly over its future economic policy, would we pass an Energy bill such as this? Now more than ever, this bill ought to be doing everything in its power to support energy resources that are truly renewable, such as the Senator from Iowa suggested, balanced with other resources that have been supported by other Members of this Chamber. And it certainly should do more on conservation and efficiency.

As the Orlando Sentinel pointed out, as I mentioned a moment ago, less than a tenth of this bill would reward energy efficiency or conservation--less than one-tenth of this bill. Here we are in 2003, with all of the problems we face in the Middle East and elsewhere, and one-tenth of this bill is dedicated to energy conservation and efficiencies, and only a quarter of the tax breaks would be to promote the use and development of renewable energy sources. On that basis alone, this bill ought to be reconsidered before we go forward.

The Governor of my State, John Rowland, has served as the president of the Republican Governors Association during his tenure as Governor. John Rowland and I have significant differences on a lot of issues. But on this issue, he has written to all members of our delegation in response to what is in this bill. I want to read into the Record some of the comments of the Republican Governor of Connecticut, shared, I might add, by many Governors all across this country.

This is a bipartisan notion of caution about what we are about to do. He mentions five or six reasons why this bill ought to be reconsidered. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.

I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the attorney general of the State of Connecticut expressing other reasons to oppose this legislation also be printed in the Record.

I will not get into the introduction of the letter and so forth, but I will quote from the Governor of a New England State. First, the Governor says the bill undermines the delicate balance of Federal and States rights. Under this legislation, this bill gives unprecedented authority and standards of review exclusively to the Federal appeals court in the District of Columbia to review actions required for the construction of a natural gas pipeline. State environmental and siting laws would essentially be reduced to a process of rubberstamping the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificates of public convenience and necessity.

The letter goes on:

In addition, any delay, however well founded it may be,

such as considering ways to protect the State's natural

resources, may be grounds for an appeal and Federal override

of a State's ruling. State courts would be stripped of

jurisdiction over matters arising in the State that not only

affect the State, but also relate to the interpretation of

State statutes and regulations.

Now, I have historically opposed a State's right to veto important national efforts, and I include energy as one of them. So I know there have been efforts in the past to say States ought to be able to veto matters that come before them affecting energy policy, but as strongly as I have felt that States ought not to have exclusive veto power, I do not think the Federal Government ought to also have veto power when it comes to States needs and necessities.

I do not care where one lives in America, but they should pay attention to this provision. This is an incredible overreaching by the Federal Government. To come in and strip a State's ability to protect its own citizens when it comes to natural resources and the energy needs they may have, or a variety of other issues, and to shove those matters up to an appeals court in the District of Columbia, whether one is from Georgia, Connecticut, or anywhere else, I think would be highly offensive to most people in this country.

That is not to say we have it all right. We do not. Lord knows our States can make very parochial decisions, particularly when it comes to energy policy, but the idea that the Federal Government could go into any State in this country, regardless of our needs, our concerns, our well-being, and say, I am sorry, you lose, you have no rights at all in these matters. My Governor is right on that issue alone. This bill ought to be sent back to the conference.

We are about to adopt something that overreaches beyond what I think most of my colleagues would support in any other area of law, and yet they are going to do it here. If a precedent is set here, it will happen in other areas as well?

My Governor goes on to explain that there are other reasons:

The bill generally limits the time frame for development of

Coastal Zone Management consistency appeal records,

constraining the States and the Secretary of Commerce in

making informed decisions. In the same vein, this legislation

limits the record on consistency appeals addressing pipelines

to the record developed by the FERC. Historically, FERC's

record has been inadequate to evaluate and protect the

State's natural resources. The legislation deprives

Connecticut and other coastal States of the tools they need

to manage their coastal resources.

I mention this because the Presiding Officer--we share a lot of things in common, not the least of which we share is having an Atlantic coastline. All of the States on the eastern seaboard, the gulf, the west coast, if they care about coastal zone management--and I know how important that is all along the Atlantic coast--and wanting a say in determining how those very delicate and fragile resources will be managed, this bill makes it more difficult for our States to continue in that vein.

Reading from the letter:

The legislation authorizes the postponement of ozone

attainment standards across the country when the problems are

shown to have originated outside of the State. This not only

hinders Connecticut's progress towards improving our air

quality, but also likely has significant health

ramifications for Connecticut's residents. Contrary to

general practice, this language was added behind closed

doors, without meaningful opportunity for public debate.

It would be one thing if this bill were just about energy policy. To be able to now postpone the ozone attainment requirements written in law, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country who suffer from significant ailments affecting their respiratory functions. I know of what I speak. I have family members who suffer from asthma. To roll back the provisions of the ozone attainment standards in States such as mine and elsewhere is a major health setback for people.

I suspect that various health organizations around the country will have strong feelings about this. If no other provision to this bill moves one to reconsider whether or not we ought to be moving forward, the idea that we could do such great damage to the health of American citizens is enough. We know what causes these problems--and in my State of Connecticut we suffer because of the prevailing southwesterly winds for most of the year. So we get a lot of the poor air quality coming out of other States. So we have to live with the pollution that exists elsewhere. We are trying to stop that on a national level. This legislation will make it very difficult for that to happen in the future.

My Governor goes on and says:

The bill contains language that would permit a State's

siting process in areas of interstate congestion, if the FERC

were to find that the State delayed or denied a project.

State siting authorities may very well be justified, however,

in delaying approval or imposing condition for reasons such

as public safety or environmental protection. It may also be

that the more complex the project, the more time that may be

needed to review its complexities. In addition, the applicant

may need an extension of time in which to compile additional

information for submittal to the siting authority or to

negotiate with adverse parties. The existing language [in

this bill] fails to take those reasons into account.

Again, this goes right back to the first point I made earlier, where one can come in and basically shove these matters up to the Federal appeals court in Washington. Again, I am not suggesting that States ought to have outright veto power. But the idea that this legislation would say, as categorically as it does, that the FERC could come in if they find that a State denied a project or delayed a project to gather more information, and just roll right over you.

Listen to this. The Governor goes on to say:

The proposed legislation provides immunity, retroactive to

September 5, 2003, to the MTBE producers from defective

product liability arising from groundwater contamination of

MTBE. It also provides $2 billion in transition assistance to

producers, in preparation for an MTBE ban effective in 2014.

It

is precisely because of groundwater contamination caused by

MTBE that Connecticut has banned its use as a gasoline

additive effective January 1, 2004. MTBE has been proven to

be especially harmful; we likely do not yet know how much

damage it has done or perhaps will do [to people]. It may be

premature at this time to provide such immunity.

There is a growing body of evidence that this gasoline additive could have caused great damage to people and now we are going to reach back to September 5 of this year and provide immunity to the producers of this product to the great detriment of maybe millions of people in this country. What is that doing in this bill? We talk about tort reform, and here we are providing immunity.

The idea in this bill that we would provide immunity from recovery for people who get sick and suffer as a result of being exposed to MTBE, I think is outrageous.

I am confident my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, has spoken eloquently on this subject matter. I heard him address the matter the other day in a closed meeting of Senators, and I was moved by the evidence that he provided to us. I am confident he has or will lay it out again here. So I will not dwell on it.

It's bad enough we provide immunity, but now we are going to provide MTBE producers with $2 billion in assistance, in preparation for a ban effective 11 years from now.

Lastly, I mention a rather parochial matter and I don't want to make my opposition to this bill based on parochial issues. But my constituents are very concerned about a provision in this bill that was written into the bill in conference--never in the House bill, never in the Senate bill--and really tramples all over States rights. It would codify a Department of Energy order that resulted in the operation of the Cross Long Island Sound Cable that runs from New Haven, CT to Brookhaven.

This Cross Sound Cable was not operational before the August 14 blackout because the cable failed to meet the Federal and State permitting requirements concerning its depth. Section 1441 of the bill states:

The Department of Energy order No. 202-03-2, issued by the

Secretary of Energy on August 28, shall remain in effect

unless rescinded by Federal statute.

You may say, ``I am sorry that has happened to your State, Senator,'' but it could be yours next.

We didn't argue during the blackout about allowing that cable to be used, but its continued operation violates state and federal permitting requirements. But that emergency is over. Yet, written into statutory law, now it says, whether we like it or not, this temporary order is now permanent and it will require a Federal statute to overturn it. Not even FERC can overturn it. I have to pass a bill in the Senate to overturn it.

I grant you it is a local issue, but you ought to be worried about it. That is what happens around here: The precedent gets set.

These are several of the reasons why I believe this bill deserves to be sent back.

It is November. We have another session of Congress coming up. Why can't we go back and do some work on this? I have to believe that most Members think that this bill is just too tilted in one direction. It is not in the best interest of our country to be adopting this type of energy policy.

As I mentioned earlier, knowing how important it is for our economy, for our energy self-sufficiency, for our environment, and for health reasons, this legislation deserves reconsideration. It is not balanced.

So I hope when the hour arrives tomorrow morning, our colleagues respond. This is the kind of bill we will spend a good part of the next decade undoing. When people discover what is really in this bill, they will want to make changes. I think a wiser course of action would be to go back and correct the legislation now and have a bill that would enjoy broad bipartisan support. Instead, there will be broad bipartisan opposition to invoking cloture tomorrow.

These new provisions giving extraordinary power to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are really stunning in their scope and breadth. I am rather amazed that there has not been more outspoken opposition to this, in more predictable quarters, when States rights are involved.

I mentioned earlier the issue of health. I pointed out that dirty air from outside our State impacts our air quality. It is a major cause of asthma and may play a role in the development of that disease.

An estimated 86,000 of Connecticut children have asthma that's 10.4 percent of the children in my state. And 7.3 percent of the adult population, approximately 180,000, have it as well. I represent a small State, about 3.5 million people. These are significant numbers.

The fact that this bill rolls back the provisions on air quality is going to mean that people in Connecticut are going to suffer. If for no other reason, this bill ought to be sent back.

We are going to debate Medicare in a few days and talk about how to keep down costs. Asthma doesn't go away. In fact, there is nothing worse than an adult onset of asthma. I know because my wife has it and she didn't have it as a kid. It is crippling. Anybody who has it or has a family member with it knows what I am talking about.

There is time left to do this bill right. I hope this institution would take a moment to do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague from Michigan for his comments. I intend to share some similar thoughts this evening.

First of all, let me begin by stating my own views about this process this evening and note--some have chosen to use the word anger--but I rise more in sadness.

We are gathered to engage in this--I do not know what it is properly called--I guess a filibuster. It is unique in that the majority is conducting a filibuster. Normally, a filibuster, for those who are interested in how this works, is conducted by a minority within a minority, but we find ourselves this evening a few short days away from the end of this particular session with a tremendous amount of unfinished business, and we are spending the next 30 hours--or 26 hours, whatever is left--on this particular debate and discussion, which I suppose has some value in the mind of some. As far as this Member is concerned, I regret in some ways even addressing the matters before us this evening. The better approach might have been to protect the rights of the minority but not to engage in this debate.

There may be four votes that will occur on Friday. Three of them involve individuals who are seeking appointment to the Federal judiciary. With all due respect to these particular nominees, putting aside one's views or whether they are for or against them, history will probably little note nor record for any great length of time who they were. That is not in any way to suggest they are not worthy individuals, but in the passage of time, these nominations will not register terribly significantly in the history of the debates of this great Chamber.

I arrived as an employee of the Senate about the age of 17 when I sat on these steps. Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader of the Senate. There was Everett Dirksen and Senator McClellan. It was a sea of giants who served in this body. I tried to imagine this evening whether or not they might proceed in a debate like we are having, but I cannot imagine them doing so, quite candidly.

I am afraid we are diminishing dramatically the incredible historic role of this institution by this process. When I think of all the matters that deserve our attention, when I think of all of the Herculean debates that have occurred in this Chamber throughout the 217-year history of our country, some of the great debates deciding who we were as a society--I sat on that step over there and listened to the all-night debates on civil rights in the early 1960s. I listened to southerners argue vehemently on behalf of their position regarding States rights. They were incredible debates. Never once in all of that process that I watched as a child sitting out there did I ever hear anyone suggest we ought to change the rules of the Senate.

Even among those who were outraged that there were those who were arguing about denying a substantial minority of citizens of this country the right to participate freely in the democratic institutions of America, never once did anyone suggest we ought to somehow curtail the right of a minority to be heard in debate, extended debate. Never once. Yet here we are tonight, having an extended debate over three or four judicial nominations. We may be asked on Friday to cast a ballot about amending the rules of the Senate to fundamentally change what has been a central ingredient of why this institution has been as celebrated and honored throughout the 217-year history of this country. That I find rather appalling, that we would gather at this hour with all of the other issues in front of us.

I spent 2 hours yesterday at Walter Reed Hospital. I took my 2-year- old daughter out to visit with the young men there, many of whom are missing limbs. I saw several of my colleagues out there, by the way. Sam Brownback was out there. I went to spend a quiet couple of hours to express to these young men my great admiration for what they had done for their country.

I would like to think they might think something larger of this institution other than that we would engage in a discussion and debate tonight about three or four judicial nominations. Other of my colleagues have made comments about the numbers that have been approved and not approved. I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee. I have heard my colleagues extol the virtues of these nominees. I have heard others excoriate them. I will leave that debate for others. The vote I am most worried about is the possible fourth vote that may occur on Friday, and that is whether we are going to change the nature of this institution because some of us are disappointed about some outcomes of votes. I would hope whatever else ensues or passes over these next 30 or 40 hours that when it comes to that vote, maybe there will be those who will get up and defend this institution.

It is inappropriate for me to do so, but I will note the fact that there are those watching this debate this evening in this Chamber who are of a younger generation. They are students, I suspect, in some way wanting to participate or witness what some have tried to describe as an historic event. I would hope they take note of the arguments in debate about what is important, why the Founders created this institution, why we are not a unicameral body, as some State legislatures--why

we are a bicameral body, why it is there is down this corridor a House of Representatives at that end of the building and a Senate at this end. What are the fundamental distinctions between these two branches of one House? Why are we different? Why do we exist? What did the Framers have in mind when they created this institution? It is this very debate that gives justice, gives rationale to the existence of the Senate.

One needs only to go back to the Federalist papers, and as I look around this Chamber there are the forebears of those who sit in these seats who made the most eloquent arguments on behalf of the notion, of the idea, of having extended debate and the right and power to amend. Those are the two central ingredients which make this institution so unique.

When we begin to erode those very powers, then the very justification for this institution begins to diminish. We end up creating nothing more, potentially, than a mere image of the body that is at the other end of this hall.

I gave some remarks going back a number of weeks ago in front of the Rules Committee. I am the ranking Democrat of the Rules Committee. As such, I bear a responsibility, along with my colleague from Mississippi, who is the chairman of the committee, to consider such matters. I have great respect for the majority leader, but I would hope as we discuss the idea of amending rule XXII, that we would keep in mind what the Framers had in mind when it came to nominations, particularly nominations of a life tenure.

It is one thing to be talking about nominations during the duration of a given administration, but with judicial nominations it is for life. Depending on how young that person may be, an Federal judicial appointment can go on for decades. And so the Framers, given the experience they had come through, with the tyranny of a king, desired to create a system whereby the third coequal branch of government would have powers delineated between the executive branch to appoint and the legislative branch to approve, to provide its advice and consent.

If the ability of this institution to thoroughly exercise that right of advice and consent is destroyed, then we run the risk of creating a judicial branch, a coequal, that becomes nothing more than the hand servant of the executive. That is what the Founders worried about. It is what Senator Rutledge of South Carolina argued for when he spoke eloquently about the importance of keeping an independent judiciary.

In fact, for many weeks, during the constitutional convention, they argued the President ought to have no rights when it came to judicial nominations, that that right ought to be exclusively contained in the Senate of the United States. As a result of compromise, it was ultimately decided that the power to nominate individuals should reside in the executive, and the power to approve should remain here, thus guaranteeing, to the extent possible, an independent judiciary.

What is being suggested by the fourth vote we may be asked to cast on Friday is that we undermine that very principle which has survived for 217 years. I would hope with a resounding vote, both Democrats and Republicans, whatever strong feelings there may be about these three or four nominees, or whatever the number is, that we would not allow this institution to be diminished, caught up in the passions of these nominations.

History will not record nor remember who these people are, but if we undermine this institution's ability to do what our Founders asked us to do, then history will record forever our shortsightedness.

I regret in a sense having to engage in this debate. I was stunned to learn that in addition to this 30 hours of ``circusry'' going on here, and the three votes that will occur on Friday, there may be a serious effort to vote on whether this institution should give up its right to be able to have extended debate on judicial nominations.

This institution and its history deserve more. The fact that the Senator from Michigan and I have to arise at 10 at night to argue about something as fundamental as a rule change in the Senate and to be asked to vote on it with maybe 5 minutes of deliberation before that ballot is cast on Friday is incredible to this Member. It is incredible we would have to do this.

Does not anyone care about being here? We are only temporary stewards. My colleagues and I are just guaranteed a short amount of time to be a part of this institution. We do not own this. We bear an historical responsibility to those who came before, but an even greater one to those who come afterward, to see to it we maintain the order and the ideals embodied in the creation of this institution. That we would relegate a fundamental change in the rules of the Senate to a debate occurring between 10 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 a.m. in the morning, with a vote to that may be cast on Friday without further deliberation, I find stunning in its dimensions.

This is a matter that deserves far more deliberation and thought, whatever one's views may be on these nominations. To find ourselves, with all of these other issues that are in front of us, to have to defend the Senate in the wee hours of the morning about a rule that has sustained us as an institution, is something I regret deeply.

I hope my colleagues, whatever their passions may be about Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Charles Pickering--I do not know these individuals. I presume they are good people, whatever differences we may have, as I am sure there have been people who have been nominated in previous administrations who are also good people who were rejected because the majority today disagreed with them. I am sorry that happens to people, but unfortunately, that is one of the aspects of a process such as we have, as imperfect as it is.

The idea that our passions are so wrapped up in these individuals that we are willing to squander the rules of the Senate is disturbing. We should always know that it may only be a short time before roles may be reversed. This party in the minority may be the party of the majority in the future. And in the future, the party of the President may, of course, be different. I would hope we would never suggest changing the rules of the Senate because we are momentarily disappointed that certain individuals, whatever contributions they may have made in their lives and to their communities, are so deserving that they warrant changing the rules of the Senate because they are not getting a position they seek. I hope we have not come to that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Michigan not only for her work today but her tremendous contribution in the relatively short time she has been a Member of this body. We thank her immensely for her very balanced and deliberate approach. I thank her particularly for raising the issue she has today.

While the subject matter defined by the majority is the question of judicial nominations, I think the point she has raised, that there are an awful lot of people all across this country who are--while they may be interested from an intellectual standpoint, even some maybe on a more passionate level on the question of judicial nominations, there are a significant number, the overwhelming majority, I think, of people, if asked how they would like to see the Senate of the United States allocate its time and resources, the Senator from Michigan has identified a subject matter that is of far more compelling interest to a larger number of people in this country, the issue of putting people back to work; what has happened to the closure of so many small manufacturing firms all across the United States that have seen their products no longer marketable in this country and elsewhere because of the onslaught of foreign products that have come in through misguided and failed

trading agreements we have reached, particularly with the People's Republic of China and elsewhere.

So I thank her. I suspect there are an awful lot of people across this country who appreciated the fact that she took 15 or 20 minutes to talk about the 3 million people who over the last 29 months have lost their jobs in this country and who are sitting there today wondering whether or not they are going to be able to keep that home, whether or not they are going to be able to afford their children going on to college, whether or not if they get sick they will be able to pay for that illness, if they had a job that provided health insurance for them.

So I thank her and I suspect there are an awful lot of people across this country who appreciate immensely her determination to see that those jobs, not just the jobs of some people who were unable to have a vote on the Senate floor to confirm them for a judicial nomination, will be the consideration of this institution.

I must say as well, I appreciate my colleague's kind comments about my efforts as a legislator. I try to take some pride in that. I think my colleagues on the other side know this. I work very hard to maintain my relationships with every Member. Regardless of what battle may ensue today, tomorrow is a new day and I always reach across the aisle wherever I can because I have never seen an issue in my 24 years here that had any value and merit be accomplished without it being bipartisan, ever. I defy any Member to mention a single issue of any significance that was ever adopted by this body that was not bipartisan in nature.

When we lose our ability to do that, we not only suffer as an institution but the people we seek to represent suffer terribly. So it is critically important that we make those efforts.

I have spent a lot of time over this last number of weeks trying to get something done on asbestos reform. My colleague from Michigan and my colleague from Oregon know of the efforts we made in this regard. It is terribly worrying to me that we are about to end this session. We have 700,000 lawsuits that have been filed for people who were exposed or could get ill from exposure to asbestos. Seventy thousand cases are being filed a year. There are major companies that have gone bankrupt because of the problems with exposure and the liabilities as a result of the asbestos issue. I would have hoped, maybe vainly, that we might spend some time on an issue such as that, candidly. I noticed to my colleagues the other day that while I voted against cloture on the class action reform issue, I immediately took the floor to say I am very interested in a class action reform bill and I am prepared to support one. There were issues that needed to be worked out.

I know there are businesses all across this country that would like very much to see us address the issue of class action reform. There is nothing like 30 hours' worth of debate on class action reform. There will be no 30 hours of debate on asbestos issues here, unfortunately.

So I say with all due respect--and I do respect my colleagues, all of them--that it is a reflection to some degree of what your sense of priorities is. There are a lot of issues that deserve attention, but I would ask any average American to identify for me, when given the choices to debate, whether or not we ought to do something about class action reform, something about asbestos legislation, something about joblessness, something about Medicare reform, prescription drug benefits. I have seen nothing even remotely close to 30 hours of debate in this Chamber on any of those issues at all--none, absolutely none.

So while we in the minority cannot set the agenda, the power of the majority is the power to be recognized, and the power to be recognized means you set the agenda. Even though our ranks are only separated by two Members, the division of two Members makes it possible for the majority to decide what this Chamber will do, what this institution does, on a daily basis, on an hourly basis.

The majority, in their judgment, have decided that this issue, the issue involving four judicial nominations, is far more important than anything else on which this Congress, this session, with hours away from terminating it, should spend its time and efforts.

I do not disagree that this is an important issue. I think it is an important issue, particularly where we may be asked to vote on changing the rules of the Senate to either eliminate or virtually eliminate the right to filibuster judicial nominations. That is a profound question, and I just regret that it ends up being debated at 2, 3, 4, and 5 o'clock in the morning and not something that ought to consume a serious debate in this Chamber as to the wisdom of such a potential move. I am not sure that amendment is going to be offered, or that idea will be suggested to us by tomorrow, but I have been told it will. I will come to that in a minute.

I do think it is important that people wonder whether or not this body, or politics or Congress, ever gets it. One of the questions we all face from time to time when we conduct our town meetings is: Do you have any idea, Senator, what it is like to raise a family today, with all the pressures we are under? Do any of you in Congress--I do not care whether you are Democrats or Republicans--do you have any idea what we are going through out here?

When we conduct 30 hours of debate about four judicial nominations, I sometimes think that question has a lot of merit, unfortunately.

So I wish we were spending some more time on some of these other issues. Maybe we will get to them. Hope springs eternal, and I will keep trying to work on it. I have been asked to come and spend some time to protect our interests on the floor and so I will utilize some time, as I did last night, to talk about the issue at hand.

I am terribly disappointed that we are spending the time of this institution on something such as this when we need to be spending our time, what little time we have, on so many other questions, that so many people in this country want to see us address and try to come up with some answer for. They know it is difficult.

Look, what we love about this institution is also what galls us the most about it. The beauty of the Senate is not only the manner in which we do things but also the frustrations that are evoked as a result of how we do things. Had the Founders of this great Republic sought efficiencies, they never ever would have set up this system. The last system you would ever set up, if you were trying to get the job done expeditiously, is the one we have lived with for 217 years. This is a terribly frustrating system. It will drive you to madness watching it happen, particularly this institution of the Senate.

When the Framers were debating the existence of a legislative branch--in fact, the idea was pretty much to have a unicameral system I think in the early discussions: One house, simple majority rules. I sit in the seat of a man by the name of Roger Sherman, from the State of Connecticut, who was one of those Framers of the Constitution, the only one of the Framers, by the way, to ever have signed all four of the cornerstone documents of the United States. He signed the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. I am very proud to sit in his seat in the Senate, after 217 years.

In that Constitutional Convention, it was Roger Sherman, my forbearer in this job, who suggested, along with Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut as well, the creation of a separate body in the Congress of the United States that we have come to know as the Senate.

The argument was about small States and large States. The fear was, for people who came from smaller States, that in the House of Representatives, since it would be determined by population, large States by population would so dominate the Congress of the United States that those who lived in smaller States would be overwhelmed. They were about to vote against the Constitution when Sherman and Ellsworth came up with the idea of a Senate, where every State, regardless of size, would have equal representation--two Senators from every State.

My colleague from New Hampshire and I from Connecticut, small States, we have two Senators; my colleague from Michigan, a large State, and from California, two Senators. It is a rather beautiful system in a way. They went beyond the idea of just small States

and large States. The seed of the notion that there ought to be a place where the rights of a minority get protected was also included in this concept.

In the House of Representatives, in which I had the privilege of serving for 6 years before coming to this body 24 years ago, the majority rules. If you are in the minority in the House--I do not know if my colleague from New Hampshire ever served in the minority in the House, but I certainly did not; I was always in the majority there-- being in the minority in the House is painful because it can roll right through you. What the majority wants to do happens. That is it.

In this body, the idea was to create a place where the minority interests, including a minority of one, would have rights that you would never get in the House of Representatives. Hence the right of one Senator, if they stand up and can stand long enough and do not leave the floor, to have the right not to be interrupted, extended debate; the right to amend. It has been a wonderful balance. The rights of a majority are down the hall. The rights of a minority are here in this Chamber. We have tried over the years to see to it that those unique rights give us a sense of balance, what one of the Framers called the saucer--the Senate--in which the passions would cool, because the tyranny of a majority can be overwhelming. So the Senate was a place to say let's stop, let's take a look, let's think again about whether or not this is the right way to go.

Now, if we go back and look at the genesis of the thought process that was involved in the creation of the Constitution in this Republic, a unique event in the history of mankind, certainly they had been through an experience where a king had been overbearing. Remember, two- thirds of the population of this country in 1776 was not terribly enthusiastic about a revolution. Only about a third of the population thought that was necessary. As the tyranny of a king grew larger and people's rights were being deprived, taxations levied without their ability to be heard, they decided: We need to move away from that.

So as this system evolved and a discussion of what it would look like, the last thing the Founders wanted to do was create an executive without some checks and balances on it, an unlimited tyranny of an executive. In fact, as I pointed out last night, there is ample evidence, of course, that when it came to judicial nominations, the Framers did not want to give the right to nominate to the President. It was only an afterthought that said, on judicial nominations, they ought to go to the President, and then the Senate would provide its advice and consent.

I carry with me every day a copy of the U.S. Constitution. It was given to me by my seatmate Robert C. Byrd many years ago. It is a rather worn-out copy of this wonderful document, but I carry it with me 7 days a week. I read it constantly. As I get older, my appreciation for the wisdom of these people grows deeper.

It is very clear article III of the Constitution lays out judicial power, the judicial part of it. It says that people are appointed to the courts, supreme and inferior courts, and they will serve for life, during good behavior for life. It is unique. It is the only office in the country where one gets a lifetime appointment. The President does not. Members of Congress do not. A Federal judge gets a lifetime appointment. If you are appointed when you are 35 years of age and you live to be 85--50 years--unless you do something terribly wrong, you are there; you are not going anywhere.

Of course, in article II, they lay out in section 2: He--speaking of the President--shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, to make treaties, and so forth. It goes on. And by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and so forth, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States.

Does anyone really believe for a single moment that the Framers of this unique document intended that the President, the executive branch, would appoint and that it was then the duty of this body to just rubberstamp that choice? Of course not. In fact, they did not even want to give him the power to appoint to begin with because they were uneasy about someone having too much power in their own hands.

I suspect our predecessors probably had in mind what some of the more recent predecessors did with postmasterships.

I remember my father talking about the postmastership appointment. He used to say that this was a dreadful idea, to give Senators the right to appoint postmasters, because he said inevitably you would have about 100 applicants for the job. Of course, once they were confirmed, they could never get involved in politics again. So he used to say you would end up with 99 enemies who did not get the job and 1 ingrate who did who could never talk to you again.

I suspect that may have been true as well about Federal judgeships, that our colleagues in the Senate, in the earliest days, probably said: Look, we do not want the business of having to nominate these guys because inevitably we are going to pick someone and the other guys are people who are going to be upset with us. So why do we not give that to the President, let him appoint them, and then we will decide whether or not they deserve to be confirmed.

The notion somehow that one has a constitutional right to a vote--I have read this document; I read it every day--there is nowhere in this document one gets a constitutional right to a vote on anything, any more than the American people have a right to a constitutional vote on the minimum wage or on Medicare reform or any other matter I want to bring up. There is no constitutional right to that. There is certainly no constitutional right that if one gets nominated to be a judge, they have a constitutional right to be voted on. Nowhere does the Constitution give someone that, in any area whatsoever.

The idea somehow that we would only apply a filibuster to legislative matters and not judicial nominations, so one can filibuster a sense-of- the-Senate resolution----

I thank the Chair very much. I apologize to my colleagues for going a little bit. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr. President, the majority has indicated that as part of this debate to invoke cloture on these three nominees to the Federal judiciary, they may move to consider S. Res. 138, a resolution introduced by the majority leader, Senator Frist, which would amend the Senate rules to treat debate on Executive Calendar items differently than matters on the Legislative Calendar.

Nothing is more fundamental to the ability of the Senate to fully exercise its constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent to the President's executive nominees than to subject such nominees to full and deliberative debate. And any move to amend the Senate rules to place additional limitations on that debate is tantamount to a ceding of legislative branch powers to the executive. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the issue of proposed changes to Senate rule XXII.

The filibuster is widely viewed as one of the Senate's most characteristic procedural rules. I believe we can all agree that the best way to consider a change to Senate rules is to do so in accordance with existing Senate rules. I believe this 30-hour debate will follow Senate rules and precedent.

Any attempt to change Senate rules, particularly cloture rule XXII, should be in keeping with the deliberative rules, precedents and practices that have been the hallmark of this institution since it was conceived during a steamy summer in Philadelphia over 217 years ago.

Senate rules have endured the age-old test of time, people, places, and events. Senate rules delineate the constitutional responsibilities of the body and define the character of the institution. Making changes to the rules and the precedent of the Senate is not an action that should be taken lightly or for partisan purposes.

In the history of the institution, the rules of the Senate have been through general revision just seven times: 1806, 1820, 1828, 1868, 1877, 1884, and 1979. The architecture of our Senate rules and precedents is built on the foundation of the right to debate and amend, the two basic principles that make the Senate the upper House in all of the legislative bodies of the world. If you chip and change this keystone, then you chip and change the Senate as an institution.

Herein lies the central paradox and towering majesty of the Senate. What makes this institution so revered and unique is what can simultaneously gall us the most: the practice of extended debate.

But the Founders insulated the Senate from sanction for debate and explicitly left it to ``determine the rules of its proceedings.''

The rules of the Senate reflect the intent of the Framers that the Senate be the ``saucer into which the nation's passions may be poured to cool.'' The ability to fully examine and debate any matter of national importance is the hallmark of the Senate. Nowhere more than in the advice and consent responsibility of the Senate do we see the Framer's intent to balance the fear of a resulting tyranny of a majority against the principle of majority rule.

As Alexis de Tocqueville observed: ``. . . the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States. . . . [arises from] the very inadequate securities against tyranny. . . . if ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majorities, which at some future time may urge the minorities to desperation. . . .''

The President nominates, but his power is balanced, and checked, by the power of the Senate to provide advice and consent. Neither can act alone. And in the case of the judiciary, the creation of the third, separate and equal, branch of Government, the powers are deliberately counterposed.

This is not the first controversy over Senate rules, precedents and practices of the right to extended debate. Through our history, the right of extended debate has never been seriously questioned as other than a vital foundation of our Republic. This right has been a catalyst for achieving the most remarkable feature of our civilization: the degree to which we have been able to provide our citizens with, at one and the same time, both great freedom and great stability.

As Robert Caro, author of ``The Master of the Senate,'' for which he was awarded his second Pulitzer prize, has observed, and I quote him, ``in creating the new nation, its founding fathers, the framers of its constitution, gave its legislature not only its own powers specified and sweeping, but also powers designed to make the Congress independent of the President, and to restrain and to act as a check on his authority, including power to approve his appointments, even the appointments he made within his own administration. And the most potent of these restraining powers the framers gave to the Senate.''

The power to approve Presidential appointments was given to the Senate alone. A President could nominate and appoint Ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and other officers of the United States, but only with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. This is the American way and it must remain the American way. While the Founding Fathers recognized the inherent dangers in granting a minority of Senators a veto over the will of the majority, the Constitution did just that.

But proposals to limit debate would change that.

S. Res. 138, a proposal by Majority Leader Frist, would amend Senate rule XXII to provide for a declining number of votes required to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar items, such as judicial nominations.

I have deep reservations about Majority Leader Frist's resolution to amend Senate rule XXII. I fully appreciate the majority leader's desire to expedite the business of the Senate. I fully understand the frustration with respect to the deep desire to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar items, including executive nominations such as judicial nominations.

But there is simply no crisis facing our judiciary today that necessitates the damage to the very fiber of this institution that such a rules change would render. The vacancy for the Federal judiciary is at its lowest level in 13 years.

Since President Bush came into office, the Senate has confirmed 168 of his nominees and has decided not to proceed with only 4. That is a 98 percent success rate for the President. In my view, this is a great success rate.

The Senate must not act to change its rules. To do so now would amount to a ``hijacking'' of the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to the President's nomination authority. The supermajority requirement is consistent with the intent, spirit and language of the Constitution.

S. Res. 138 presents the question of whether rule XXII should be revised to accommodate a targeted remedy for filibusters of judicial nominations. The real question should be whether S. Res. 138 strikes the most appropriate balance between existing Senate rules and the advice and consent duties of the Senate. In the view of this Senator, it does not.

The cloture rule exists by virtue of the longstanding rules of the Senate enacted pursuant to authority under the Constitution, article I, section 5.

The Constitution expressly authorizes such procedural rules and sets no standard to limit the Senate's discretion in formulating such rules. Further, the Constitution does not compel the Senate to take any action, much less a final vote, on any matter, legislative or executive.

There is no argument to the fact that the Senate has plenary authority to devise its own rules. Nor is there any argument to the fact that there is no right to mandatory majority rule. Most importantly, the Senate tradition on filibuster offends no constitutional edict. In the words of Chief Justice Burger, ``there is nothing in the language of the Constitution or history or our cases that require a majority always prevail on every issue.''

At its most fundamental core, the Senate is a testament to the coexisting rights of the majority and the minority. Small states have an equal say in the Senate's tradition, and rules protect debate no matter whether it is a principled stand of one Senator or a chorus of the convinced. The Senate rules balance majority rule with minority right.

As a Senator in this body, I recall watching the Senate as a very determined minority insisted on their right to be heard on the issue of civil rights. Their position on civil rights was unfair, unpopular, and illegal. Yet the majority of Senators did not question the right of the minority Senators to assert their right under Senate rules and precedent to debate, delay, diminish or defeat civil rights legislation. And, the minority did so for years.

Ultimately, both the noble principles of racial equality and extended debate prevailed in the Senate. But the Senate rule that had been long thwarted was left essentially unchanged.

Prior to 1917, there was only a century old rule that required unanimous consent to cut off debate. This means that for 111 years, the Senate practice of extended debate was absolute in its scope. All Senators had to consent in order to bring consideration of a matter to a close. For the subsequent period of 58 years, two-thirds of the Senate were required to end debate. Currently, three-fifths are required. Until 1949, there was no procedure for limiting debate on nominations in the Senate. For the past 212 years, there has never been a Senate rule that permits a simple majority to force a vote on any matter up for consideration, including judicial nominations.

In this historical context, S. Res. 138 would be without precedent to require a simple majority to invoke cloture, in my view. S. Res. 138 would reduce to a majority vote that Senate procedural rule which girds the independence of the coequal judicial branch.

There is an irony to S. Res. 138 that cannot go unstated or unexamined. It would reform the cloture process only for nominations and leave cloture for the remainder of the Senate debate as it is. Arguably, it is precisely in the area of nominations, particularly judicial nominations, that the Framers intended these powers to be utilized.

S. Res. 138 would fundamentally alter the nature of the Senate and the balance of powers created by the Framers of the Constitution. It would undermine the Senate's role in our constitutional democracy, cede enormous power to the Executive and upset the deliberate system of checks and balances intended by the Framers.

S. Res. 138 would fundamentally diminish the Senate's power in relation to that of the Executive. And if the Senate cedes such power to the Executive, then I do not think the Senate will ever get that power back. Of all the issues that the Senate faces now and in future Congresses--such as war, the economy, health, education, election reform, jobs--none is more important than this one on Senate rule changes. Why? Because how we resolve this issue will, in many respects, determine how we resolve all others.

S. Res. 138 proffers change that is historically significant. However, S. Res. 138 does not proffer filibuster reform that will permit ample debate while rejecting delay in perpetuity. Nor does S. Res. 138 fit squarely within Senate tradition of balancing the right to debate with the responsibility to conclude the people's business.

Instead, S. Res. 138 would shift the balance of power on advise and consent to the executive branch. To accommodate this proposal means a profound change in the Senate as an institution and the character of the Senate as a body itself.

It reduces the constitutional advice and consent authority, indeed duty, to a mere rubber stamp of the President's prerogatives. We must always attempt to find the right checks and balances between a rubber stamp and a deliberative body on both legislation and nominations. This is what makes the Senate, as an institution, so powerful, so special, so unique.

We must remember that during the Constitutional Convention, only after lengthy debate, was the power to appoint judges committed to the President as well as to the Senate. Why? John Rutledge of South Carolina said

it best: ``the people will think we are leaning too much toward monarchy'' if the President is given free rein to appoint judges.

The final compromise was characterized by Governor Morris of Pennsylvania as giving the Senate the power to appoint judges nominated to them by the President. In Federalist 76, Hamilton explained, ``the Senate's review would prevent the President from appointing justices to be the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.''

Against this backdrop, I find it quite troubling that Majority Leader Frist now suggests that we narrow deliberation, debate, and the rights of the minority with respect to the nomination process and thereby enhance the ability of the majority to turn the Senate into a rubber stamp of a President's nominee.

What is at stake in this debate is nothing less than the integrity of the Senate and the independence of the judicial branch--the deliberate intention of the Framers to ensure against the excess of the Executive.

In describing the role of the Senate to provide advice and consent to executive nominations, Roger Sherman noted: ``the Convention, who formed this Constitution, thought it would tend to secure the liberties of the people, if they prohibited the President from the sole appointment of all officers. They knew that the crown of Great Britain, by having that prerogative has been enabled to swallow up the whole administration . . . but this government is different, and intended by the people to be different.''

The real problem here is not constitutional, but rather it is institutional. Senators must think of themselves as part of an institution, held together by a common respect for its rules and traditions. We have a responsibility to the President, the people, and to the institution.

This is a moment for Senators, as Senators, to stand up for the Senate.

Those of us fortunate to serve in this body are but its temporary custodians. We are stewards of an institution governed by rules and practices that have withstood the test of more than two centuries of time. Now is not the time to retool the rules to achieve goals that are, in essence, transient and partisan in nature, no matter how deeply felt.

When in history has the will of a minority--through extended debate been able to stop anything that this Nation desired or that had the broad support of its people? The Senate works its will, extended debate and all, as it was intended to work--in the words of James Madison--`` . . . to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.''

The disagreements that we have over judicial appointments, and over some legislation, will likely be long forgotten, and of limited consequence, in years to come. But to change the rules and practices of the U.S. Senate in the manner that is here proposed, in my view, would do permanent and lasting damage, not only to this institution but to our democracy that has served us so long and so well.

I hope that cooler heads will prevail and that the majority leader will not bring up S. Res. 138 to amend the rules of the Senate.

But if that happens, I urge my colleagues, as Senators, to uphold the unique authority of the Senate to give equal voice to all States, indeed to all people, and to forego the political expedience of the moment in order to ensure the integrity of the Senate, and the functioning of this Republic, for generations to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my strong support for S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003. I would like to commend both Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes on this legislation and the thoroughness of the hearings which preceded this legislation. I applaud their deep commitment and thank them for their strong leadership on this issue.

This legislation is not perfect. It is not the bill that I would have written. Nor do I believe that this legislation represents a perfect bill from the perspective of the chairman or ranking member. However, I believe that it is a bipartisan bill that does a lot of very good things, and was put together in a very balanced manner.

The Banking Committee, both during the hearing process and the mark- up of this legislation examined the numerous issues surrounding the Fair Credit Reporting Act: accuracy, privacy, security, financial literacy, among others.

We learned some critical information during this process. I believe that the hearing process shed significant light on the positives of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and gave us insight on how to enhance its effectiveness. The consumer credit system is critically important to our nation's economy, and this legislation attempts to balance the greater access to credit for consumers, more efficiency in the credit granting process and the needs of consumers to have greater accuracy and privacy protections.

Numerous witnesses testified to the need to improve accuracy in the credit reporting process. Concerns were raised that currently the critical information that is used in the credit granting process is not as timely and accurate as is necessary. Accurate credit reporting is essential to the proper functioning of our credit system and to the financial security of American consumers. Also, consumers must have a clearly articulated remedy for correcting errors when they do occur.

Additionally, consumers must be given greater knowledge and control over their personal financial information. The hearing on affiliate sharing shed light on current practices and the positives and negatives associated with those practices.

The committee heard from numerous witnesses that consumers were not provided with the tools necessary to fully understand the credit reporting process and become adept to using it to their maximum advantage. Financial literacy is not a one time event--it is a long process--educating more and more Americans as they become consumers.

Of special concern, we learned about the epidemic of identity theft. Identity theft is a growing problem affecting millions of Americans and that we must devote our full attention to increasing the security of financial information. We heard from a witness named John Harrison, a retired Army Captain from Connecticut who was the victim of identity theft. His credit reports clearly contained false information-- misinformation that was planted there by a criminal--but Captain Harrison has had--and continues to have--enormous difficulty restoring his credit worthiness.

These are just some of the lessons regarding the current operation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

This legislation addresses many, if not all, of the concerns raised throughout the six hearings conducted by the committee.

This legislation strengthens consumers' ability to control both their personal financial and medical information. I have long supported the need to improve the privacy rights of consumers with respect to genetic, medical, and financial information. I am a cosponsor of legislation which would

provide greater choices for consumers to prevent sharing of information between affiliates and unaffiliated third parties. While this legislation does not go far enough to completely protect consumers, I believe it is an important step in the right direction.

This legislation provides consumers with the ability to prohibit affiliates from using their personal financial information for solicitations and other marketing purposes. In addition, an important amendment was adopted on the floor to provide consumers with additional protections against the misuse of sensitive medical information. It also contains important provisions that will significantly enhance consumer protections against the growing problem of identify theft.

Additionally, it grants consumers with access to one free credit report per year from the credit reporting bureaus. This access will allow consumers to monitor the accuracy of the information contained in their credit files and ensure that information resulting from identity theft does not end up destroying their financial reputation.

And by providing consumers with a free credit report, and access to the information used by creditors to judge their creditworthiness, this bill equips consumers with the tools to competitively shop for sources of financing and will lead consumers to make better informed and more judicious, credit-related decisions.

I believe that we can do more to give consumers better control over their personal information and how financial institutions share their information with their affiliates, for marketing as well as other purposes. This legislation is an important step in the right direction.

Irrespective of any changes that I, or others, may wish to raise with regard to S. 1753, there is no doubt that this legislation significantly improves the current privacy and accuracy standards of our consumer credit reporting system.

Again, I would like to thank Senators Sarbanes and Shelby and their staffs for their hard work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1753.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of Pfc. Anthony D'Agostino, of Waterbury, CT, who was killed in Iraq this past Sunday. He was just 4 days short of his 21st birthday.

Private D'Agostino was part of the U.S. Army's 16th Signal Brigade, based in Fort Hood, TX. He was one of 15 soldiers killed when a missile struck a Chinook helicopter that was carrying American troops to Baghdad International Airport for a trip home to spend 2 weeks with family and friends. I join all of America in mourning each and every one of these brave soldiers, and in praying for the recovery of the 20 soldiers who were injured in the attack.

It's a sad fact of war that as the death toll mounts, the daily casualty reports can become almost routine. But each time I read the story of a Connecticut soldier who has perished overseas and this is the sixth such story in this war I'm reminded of how many lives are touched by every single man or woman who makes the ultimate sacrifice so that all of us can live in peace, freedom, and security.

Anthony was a true Connecticut son, spending virtually his entire life in our State. He grew up in Middlebury, attending Middlebury Elementary School and Memorial Middle School, and in 2001, he graduated from the W.F. Kaynor Regional Vocational-Technical High School, specializing in electricity. After graduating, he lived in Waterbury until he enlisted in the Army 2 years ago.

Men and women across America who make the decision to join our Armed Forces do so for a variety of reasons. For Anthony D'Agostino, it was a decision that was forged in the fire of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like so many Americans, in the aftermath of those terrible attacks, Anthony decided that he wanted to contribute something to his country. Tragically, he and his family would ultimately make the most painful contribution of all.

Joining the Army was a homecoming of sorts for Anthony. He was born in Georgia while his father Steven was stationed at Fort Benning. And when it was time for Anthony to enter basic training 19 years later, he returned to the same base where his father once served.

Those who knew Anthony say he had a tremendous work ethic, whether that meant giving his all on high school sports teams, or mowing his grandparents' lawn with a stand-up mower. Even while he was in Iraq, he asked his family to send over Spanish books so he could use what little spare time he had to better himself. He had dreams of returning home and attending the U.S. Military Academy in West Point.

Anthony D'Agostino knew he was facing serious danger when he left for Iraq 8 months ago. But it was a danger he was prepared and proud to accept as a soldier in the United States Army.

Anthony had a sense of responsibility, dedication, and commitment well beyond his years. And Connecticut will never forget him.

My heart goes out to Anthony's father Steven, his mother Deb, his stepfather Paul, and to his entire family.

Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about language included in the Interior Appropriations Conference Report that I believe is unfair to Native Americans--specifically, those Native Americans who have been waiting years for an accounting from the Tribal Trust.

While no tribes in Connecticut are directly impacted by this language, many others throughout Indian Country are. In my view, the provision contained in this conference report undermines the expectations of all Americans who believe that the Federal Government should abide by the rule of law when the Government administers Federal programs and initiatives.

Since 1996, the Department of the Interior has been engaged in a legal battle with Native Americans who want the Department to provide a full accounting of money owed to Indians by the Department. The conflict grew out of the Department's continuous mismanagement of Indian oil royalties, grazing fees and the like for more than a century. As many as half a million Native Americans have been wrongfully denied monies that are owed to them. It appears that the Department may have squandered billions of dollars over the course of the last 116 years. Money that should have gone to Indian education and housing, healthcare and community development was instead wasted.

Recently, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the Department to account for all royalties owed to Native Americans. Judge Lamberth also held the Secretary in contempt of court, because he believed that the Department had not been completely forthcoming about how the Department was working to resolve the dispute. The contempt ruling was overturned on appeal; but needless to say, this conflict has been heated.

Now, this conference report arrives here before the Senate with language that would delay a lawful judicial order rendered by Judge Lamberth and language that would prevent Judge Lamberth from issuing further contempt orders against the Secretary, regardless of the merits of any such order.

I am told that the Senate Legal Counsel has expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the new language because it essentially legislates a judicial outcome by telling a Federal judge how to interpret the law.

I am opposed to the inclusion of this provision. It is my hope that the Senate will take steps to mitigate against the damage that this language may cause.

Too many Native Americans have already waited too long for justice. Requiring them to wait longer serves no valid public policy and is simply wrong.

Mr. President, for over two decades, the Afghan people have endured conflict and internal unrest. And although they are now in the process of rebuilding their country, for many, safety remains elusive. One reason is the continued presence of landmines, which were put into use by occupying powers and governments such as the Soviet Union and Taliban. Unfortunately, these weapons, whose danger is recognized by nations throughout the world, remain a major threat to the safety of ordinary Afghans--especially children.

I know my colleague, Senator Leahy, has been a leader in calling the world's attention to the dangers created by land mines and the obligation of the United States and other governments to help ensure that innocent civilians, especially children, are not killed or critically injured by land mines and unexploded ordnance left behind after armed conflict ceases.

There are now over 10 million land mines throughout Afghanistan. This number is truly staggering. It is estimated that the process of clearing these devices could take up to 25 years--almost three decades. These land mines pose a tremendous danger to the children of Afghanistan. As my colleagues may be aware, Afghan children often perform a variety of chores that entails their passage through mine- laden fields. In fact, as several types of mines are small and brightly colored, children can be tempted to pick them up or to play with them. Too often, young Afghans die or lose a limb as a result of landmine- related incidents. Indeed, every month, 150 Afghans are injured by landmines, and many of these are children.

We need to help these innocent children. We need to protect them not only from the horrors of war, but from the dangers that are left behind. Let me call to the attention of my colleagues an ideal organization to further this effort. Its name is ``No Strings,'' and it is a new aid organization that seeks to use theater and puppetry to provide life-saving education about landmines to children in Afghanistan. ``No Strings'' is composed of two main groups: one with a broad background in humanitarian relief organizations, and the other with extensive experience in the field of children's educational entertainment and puppetry. I believe my colleague, Senator Leahy also is aware of this organization.

I had intended to offer an amendment so that, ``No Strings''--and other worthy organizations--would be able to engage Afghan children and teach them life saving mine safety lessons. Clearly, we must act in order to help to protect a generation of Afghans. However, since Senator Leahy has generously offered to join with me in discussing this matter with appropriate officials at the State Department to encourage the Department to fund innovative programs like ``No Strings,'' I will withhold offering the amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Alexander in introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act, which reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Act. I would especially like to congratulate Senator Alexander, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and his staff for working so hard to ensure that this bill would be a bipartisan piece of legislation.

I, like many of my colleagues, was greatly disturbed by the latest U.S. Census poverty data released last month, which shows that poverty rose to 12.1 percent in 2002, bringing the total number of people living in poverty to 34.6 million. The number of children in poverty rose by 400,000, which means that nearly 17 percent of children are living in poverty. Even more disturbing is that the number of people who lack health insurance rose by 2.4 million in 2002, bringing the total number of uninsured to an alarming 43.6 million. Although the proportion of uninsured children did not change between 2001 and 2002, 11.6 percent of all children remain without the necessary safety net of health insurance. Our children truly are our future; we must treat them like the precious resources that they are and provide them with the services and assistance they need.

There are many troubling signs for families today, particularly families with children. Unemployment continues to be a problem. Families are running out of unemployment benefits without finding jobs. The most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that welfare caseloads continue to decline overall, but in many States over the last year, caseloads are increasing. With States facing their worst budget crisis since WWII, many programs for low-income families are being cut. This is particularly a problem given that half the states are cutting child care funds. Parents need affordable child care to get and keep jobs. Clearly, this is a time of crisis for our Nation's low-income individuals and families. It is time for our government to help them through these difficult economic times and give them the opportunities and the tools to lift themselves back onto their feet.

The bill that we are introducing today will reaffirm our nation's commitment to alleviating poverty and upholding the American ethos of helping our neighbors. For over 40 years, Community Action Agencies have been using Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds to coordinate and deliver comprehensive poverty programs and services to our nation's poor. From administering Head Start programs, to delivering meals to the sick and elderly, providing adult education and literacy, and implementing the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, CSBG funds are reaching and helping nearly a quarter of all people living in poverty in the United States. It goes without saying, that ideally, we would like to reach out to each and every individual and family living in poverty, but this bill is a start. It is a good start. It is a firm commitment to communities that when times are tough, Community Action Agencies will continue to work at the local level to address local needs.

The bill will enhance community flexibility in serving the poor and working poor. I don't need to tell you, that a poor person living in urban New Haven has different needs from an impoverished family living in rural Danielson, CT. The same holds true for Community Action Agencies across our Nation. One Community Action Agency could be using their CSBG funds to teach computer skills in a town where a major manufacturing plant just closed down, while another Community Action Agency is using the same funds to develop rural waste water management systems. I am pleased that this reauthorization retains and strengthens the flexibility that makes CSBG such a unique and successful program, by upholding and strengthening the successful and innovative Results Oriented Management Assessment (ROMA) system of accountability and monitoring procedures.

I am also pleased that reauthorization of this bill will allow crucial assistance to reach more of our country's poor and working poor by setting a minimum eligibility level for assistance at 125 percent of the poverty level and a maximum of 60 percent of the State median income. In Connecticut alone, nearly 32 percent, or 437,492 households, are below 60 percent of the State median income. Conversely, if we had set the maximum at 185 percent of the poverty threshold, we would only reach 269,373 households. By using the State median income as a maximum, not only will this bill be benefitting the Nation's families living in poverty, but it will also assist those working poor families just above the poverty line, including those leaving welfare to make a smooth and permanent transition to self-sufficiency.

The bill also reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which allocates grants to States to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. According to the most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services, 4.8 million households received winter heating assistance, 250,000 benefitted from cooling aid and 87,000 received summer crisis aid in fiscal year 2001. This legislation makes funding LIHEAP more responsive to community needs by basing emergency funding triggers on the price of home energy bills and the average number of heating and cooling days in a month. These simple automatic triggers will ensure that LIHEAP funds are readily available in times of crisis.

Again, I would like to congratulate and thank Senator Alexander for his fine work on this bipartisan piece of legislation. I firmly believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. Every day in this chamber and throughout the halls of the Senate, we talk about leaving no child behind, food stamps, comprehensive health care, job training and rural housing assistance. Mr. President, this bill encompasses all of these programs and services, and many more important poverty initiatives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in helping to strengthen low income communities, so that we can help more families become self-sufficient. In these tough economic times, families deserve this support.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Reed, Clinton and Murray to introduce the Democratic proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 (QUAD).

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

According to a recent CRS report, tuition went up last year at four- year public universities from 1.9 percent in New York to 23.8 percent in Massachusetts. In Connecticut, tuition went up 8.1 percent. According to the College Board, the average cost of attending a public four-year college including tuition, fees, room and board is over $9,000. For private four-year colleges, the average cost is over $24,000. Another study indicates that 29 percent of an average family's income goes toward public university tuition payments and 41 percent of an average family's income goes toward private university tuition. In comparison, the average family's mortgage payment represents 32 percent of the annual income.

The simple fact is that many parents are deeply worried about how they are going to pay for their children's higher education. Constant hikes in tuition are not only a source of concern for parents, in some cases they are a source of panic. The legislation we are introducing today is an attempt to alleviate this worry and help working parents and working students afford the high cost of college. We do this in a number of ways.

The QUAD Act will increase the amount of Pell grants available to working families. Two decades ago, Pell grants covered 84 percent of average costs at four-year universities; today they cover less than 30 percent. This bill will reverse this downward trend by raising the maximum Pell Grant for students by $450, from $4,050 to $4,500.

The bill works through the tax code and student loans to make sure students are getting the financial support that they need on the most favorable terms. We eliminate origination fees on subsidized student loans, double the size of the Hope Credit, and allow college graduates a chance to refinance their consolidated loans so that they can take advantage of today's historically low interest rates.

QUAD works to level the playing field in admissions by requiring universities and colleges to be more up-front about their admissions policies and by creating a grant program so that low-income students and minority students have available to them college test preparation programs that on average increase a student's SAT score by 100 points.

The bill creates two new retention programs to ensure that students that start college complete their degrees. Low-income students are half as likely as upper income students to complete a bachelor's degree in four years. African-American students are half as likely as white students to graduate, and four in ten Hispanics who enroll in four-year institutions drop out within three years.

QUAD will improve opportunities for undergraduates and graduate students at Minority Serving Institutions by creating new grant programs, removing regulatory burdens and increasing the funding levels of current initiatives. The bill also helps colleges and school districts recruit and train more highly qualified teachers and provides better training for principals and superintendents.

In addition to all of this, QUAD directly addresses the problem of rising college costs. This bill puts into place a requirement that states maintain their portion of higher education funding at 90 percent from fiscal year to fiscal year. If the Federal Government is going to make a commitment to providing more resources to higher education by increasing monies for student aid, it is only fair that we require states to maintain their current share of assistance. States should not be using our proposed increases in federal aid as an excuse to decrease their own spending levels. The states and the Federal Government should be working together on higher education, and not using one or the other as an excuse to reduce their share of the costs.

This bill also creates incentives for colleges to cut costs. QUAD creates a demonstration program to provide seed money to colleges and universities that want to explore innovative ways to reduce costs and pass savings on to students. This can be accomplished across universities by pooling resources, making joint purchase of supplies or employee benefits, and creating joint degree programs.

Recently, a 20-member consortium of Wisconsin universities spent $285,000 on staff and resources to find a way to purchase health care jointly. In the first year, they realized a savings of $3.8 million. That is a pretty impressive return on an investment of $285,000. Building on this type of initiative, our bill provides grants of $200,000 to consortia in other states around the country to incentivize these same kinds of cost-cutting measures, measures that have no effect on academic mission or quality of student life.

In the end, it is essential in this reauthorization that we do everything we can to ensure that qualified students are not being locked out of college. The economic costs for families would be immense. A full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, the gap in earnings exceeds $1 million.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that every young person in our Nation has an opportunity to rise as high as their talents, dreams and determination will take them.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Alexander in introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act, which reauthorizes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Act. I would especially like to congratulate Senator Alexander, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and his staff for working so hard to ensure that this bill would be a bipartisan piece of legislation.

I, like many of my colleagues, was greatly disturbed by the latest U.S. Census poverty data released last month, which shows that poverty rose to 12.1 percent in 2002, bringing the total number of people living in poverty to 34.6 million. The number of children in poverty rose by 400,000, which means that nearly 17 percent of children are living in poverty. Even more disturbing is that the number of people who lack health insurance rose by 2.4 million in 2002, bringing the total number of uninsured to an alarming 43.6 million. Although the proportion of uninsured children did not change between 2001 and 2002, 11.6 percent of all children remain without the necessary safety net of health insurance. Our children truly are our future; we must treat them like the precious resources that they are and provide them with the services and assistance they need.

There are many troubling signs for families today, particularly families with children. Unemployment continues to be a problem. Families are running out of unemployment benefits without finding jobs. The most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that welfare caseloads continue to decline overall, but in many States over the last year, caseloads are increasing. With States facing their worst budget crisis since WWII, many programs for low-income families are being cut. This is particularly a problem given that half the states are cutting child care funds. Parents need affordable child care to get and keep jobs. Clearly, this is a time of crisis for our Nation's low-income individuals and families. It is time for our government to help them through these difficult economic times and give them the opportunities and the tools to lift themselves back onto their feet.

The bill that we are introducing today will reaffirm our nation's commitment to alleviating poverty and upholding the American ethos of helping our neighbors. For over 40 years, Community Action Agencies have been using Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds to coordinate and deliver comprehensive poverty programs and services to our nation's poor. From administering Head Start programs, to delivering meals to the sick and elderly, providing adult education and literacy, and implementing the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, CSBG funds are reaching and helping nearly a quarter of all people living in poverty in the United States. It goes without saying, that ideally, we would like to reach out to each and every individual and family living in poverty, but this bill is a start. It is a good start. It is a firm commitment to communities that when times are tough, Community Action Agencies will continue to work at the local level to address local needs.

The bill will enhance community flexibility in serving the poor and working poor. I don't need to tell you, that a poor person living in urban New Haven has different needs from an impoverished family living in rural Danielson, CT. The same holds true for Community Action Agencies across our Nation. One Community Action Agency could be using their CSBG funds to teach computer skills in a town where a major manufacturing plant just closed down, while another Community Action Agency is using the same funds to develop rural waste water management systems. I am pleased that this reauthorization retains and strengthens the flexibility that makes CSBG such a unique and successful program, by upholding and strengthening the successful and innovative Results Oriented Management Assessment (ROMA) system of accountability and monitoring procedures.

I am also pleased that reauthorization of this bill will allow crucial assistance to reach more of our country's poor and working poor by setting a minimum eligibility level for assistance at 125 percent of the poverty level and a maximum of 60 percent of the State median income. In Connecticut alone, nearly 32 percent, or 437,492 households, are below 60 percent of the State median income. Conversely, if we had set the maximum at 185 percent of the poverty threshold, we would only reach 269,373 households. By using the State median income as a maximum, not only will this bill be benefitting the Nation's families living in poverty, but it will also assist those working poor families just above the poverty line, including those leaving welfare to make a smooth and permanent transition to self-sufficiency.

The bill also reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, which allocates grants to States to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. According to the most recent data from the Department of Health and Human Services, 4.8 million households received winter heating assistance, 250,000 benefitted from cooling aid and 87,000 received summer crisis aid in fiscal year 2001. This legislation makes funding LIHEAP more responsive to community needs by basing emergency funding triggers on the price of home energy bills and the average number of heating and cooling days in a month. These simple automatic triggers will ensure that LIHEAP funds are readily available in times of crisis.

Again, I would like to congratulate and thank Senator Alexander for his fine work on this bipartisan piece of legislation. I firmly believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. Every day in this chamber and throughout the halls of the Senate, we talk about leaving no child behind, food stamps, comprehensive health care, job training and rural housing assistance. Mr. President, this bill encompasses all of these programs and services, and many more important poverty initiatives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in helping to strengthen low income communities, so that we can help more families become self-sufficient. In these tough economic times, families deserve this support.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Reed, Clinton and Murray to introduce the Democratic proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 (QUAD).

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

According to a recent CRS report, tuition went up last year at four- year public universities from 1.9 percent in New York to 23.8 percent in Massachusetts. In Connecticut, tuition went up 8.1 percent. According to the College Board, the average cost of attending a public four-year college including tuition, fees, room and board is over $9,000. For private four-year colleges, the average cost is over $24,000. Another study indicates that 29 percent of an average family's income goes toward public university tuition payments and 41 percent of an average family's income goes toward private university tuition. In comparison, the average family's mortgage payment represents 32 percent of the annual income.

The simple fact is that many parents are deeply worried about how they are going to pay for their children's higher education. Constant hikes in tuition are not only a source of concern for parents, in some cases they are a source of panic. The legislation we are introducing today is an attempt to alleviate this worry and help working parents and working students afford the high cost of college. We do this in a number of ways.

The QUAD Act will increase the amount of Pell grants available to working families. Two decades ago, Pell grants covered 84 percent of average costs at four-year universities; today they cover less than 30 percent. This bill will reverse this downward trend by raising the maximum Pell Grant for students by $450, from $4,050 to $4,500.

The bill works through the tax code and student loans to make sure students are getting the financial support that they need on the most favorable terms. We eliminate origination fees on subsidized student loans, double the size of the Hope Credit, and allow college graduates a chance to refinance their consolidated loans so that they can take advantage of today's historically low interest rates.

QUAD works to level the playing field in admissions by requiring universities and colleges to be more up-front about their admissions policies and by creating a grant program so that low-income students and minority students have available to them college test preparation programs that on average increase a student's SAT score by 100 points.

The bill creates two new retention programs to ensure that students that start college complete their degrees. Low-income students are half as likely as upper income students to complete a bachelor's degree in four years. African-American students are half as likely as white students to graduate, and four in ten Hispanics who enroll in four-year institutions drop out within three years.

QUAD will improve opportunities for undergraduates and graduate students at Minority Serving Institutions by creating new grant programs, removing regulatory burdens and increasing the funding levels of current initiatives. The bill also helps colleges and school districts recruit and train more highly qualified teachers and provides better training for principals and superintendents.

In addition to all of this, QUAD directly addresses the problem of rising college costs. This bill puts into place a requirement that states maintain their portion of higher education funding at 90 percent from fiscal year to fiscal year. If the Federal Government is going to make a commitment to providing more resources to higher education by increasing monies for student aid, it is only fair that we require states to maintain their current share of assistance. States should not be using our proposed increases in federal aid as an excuse to decrease their own spending levels. The states and the Federal Government should be working together on higher education, and not using one or the other as an excuse to reduce their share of the costs.

This bill also creates incentives for colleges to cut costs. QUAD creates a demonstration program to provide seed money to colleges and universities that want to explore innovative ways to reduce costs and pass savings on to students. This can be accomplished across universities by pooling resources, making joint purchase of supplies or employee benefits, and creating joint degree programs.

Recently, a 20-member consortium of Wisconsin universities spent $285,000 on staff and resources to find a way to purchase health care jointly. In the first year, they realized a savings of $3.8 million. That is a pretty impressive return on an investment of $285,000. Building on this type of initiative, our bill provides grants of $200,000 to consortia in other states around the country to incentivize these same kinds of cost-cutting measures, measures that have no effect on academic mission or quality of student life.

In the end, it is essential in this reauthorization that we do everything we can to ensure that qualified students are not being locked out of college. The economic costs for families would be immense. A full-time worker with a bachelor's degree earns about 60 percent more than a full-time worker with only a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, the gap in earnings exceeds $1 million.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that every young person in our Nation has an opportunity to rise as high as their talents, dreams and determination will take them.

Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment to lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. I and many of my colleagues have been trying for the last five years to restore American citizens' right to travel where they choose, including to the island of Cuba, if that is their desire.

The broad cross-section of bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment are in agreement that the time has come to lift the very archaic, counterproductive, and ill-conceived ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. Not only does this ban hinder rather than help our effort to spread democracy, it unnecessarily abridges the rights of ordinary Americans. The United States was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. Yet when it comes to Cuba, our Government abridges these rights with no greater rationale than political and rhetorical gain.

Cuba lies just 90 miles from America's shore. Yet those 90 miles of water might as well be an entire ocean. We have made a land ripe for American influence, forbidden territory. Look, there is no doubt in my mind that Fidel Castro does not want the light of freedom shone on his island. He is a dictator and wants nothing more than to keep his people in the darkness. Sadly, U.S. policy has helped make his worker easier. We have enabled the Cuban regime to be a closed system, with the Cuban people having little contact with their closest neighbors.

Surely we do not ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of Americans who might visit that island nation. Today Americans are free to travel to Iran, Sudan, Burma, Syria, and even to North Korea--but not to Cuba. You can fly to North Korea; you can fly to Iran; you can travel freely. It seems to me if you can go to those countries, you ought not be denied the right to go to Cuba. If the Cubans want to stop Americans from visiting that country, that ought to be their business. But to say to an American citizen that you can travel to Iran, where they held American hostages for months on end, to North Korea, which has declared us to be an enemy of theirs completely, but that you cannot travel 90 miles off our shore to Cuba, is a mistake.

To this day, some Iranian politicians believe the United States to be ``the Great Satan.'' We hear it all the time. A little more than two decades ago, Iran occupied our embassy and took innocent American diplomats hostage. To this day, protesters in Tehran burn the American flag with the encouragement of some officials in that government. Those few Americans who venture into such inhospitable surroundings often find themselves pelted by rocks and accosted by the public.

Similarly, we do not ban travel to Sudan, a nation we attacked with cruise missiles a few short years ago, for its alleged support of terrorism; to Burma, a nation with one of the most oppressive regimes in the world today; to North Korea, whose soldiers have peered at American servicemen through gun sights for decades; or Syria, which has one of the most egregious human rights records and is one of the foremost sponsors of terrorism.

I totally agree with my colleagues that it borders on negligence when 10 percent of the Treasury's Office on Foreign Assets Control budget is devoted to tracking down and punishing grandmothers and grandfathers because they have visited Cuba. Don't we have more important programs to spend resources on? How about tracking down the financial resources that continue to support terrorist groups like al-Qaida? We know that activities of that organization and others like it are a direct threat to U.S. national security. We know that more government resources are need to ensure that events like September 11, 2001 never again are repeated against our citizens. Chasing down bikers who have visited Cuba is doing nothing to ensure our citizens are protected against terrorist attacks.

It is time to get our priorities straight and end the inconsistency

with respect to U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba. We ban travel to Cuba, a nation which is neither at war with the United States nor a sponsor of international terrorist activities.

Why do we ban travel? Ostensibly so that we can pressure Cuban authorities into making the transition to a democratic form of government.

I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and ideals will foster the transition to democracy in that country. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and from the influence of Americans when they go to that country to help bring about the change we all seek, serves our own interests.

The Cuban people are not currently permitted the freedom to travel enjoyed by many peoples around the world. However, because Fidel Castro does not permit Cubans to leave Cuba and come to this country is not justification for adopting a similar principle in this country that says Americans cannot travel freely. We have the Bill of Rights. We need to treasure and respect the fundamental rights that we embrace as American citizens. Travel is one of them. If other countries want to prohibit us from going there, then that is their business. But for us to say that citizens of Connecticut or Alabama cannot go where they like is not the kind of restraint we ought to put on people.

If Americans can travel to North Korea, to the Sudan, to Iran, then I do not understand the justification for saying that they cannot travel to Cuba.

I happen to believe that by allowing Americans to travel to Cuba, we can begin to change the political climate and bring about the changes we all seek in that country.

Today, every single country in the Western Hemisphere is a democracy, with one exception: Cuba. American influence through person-to-person and cultural exchanges was a prime factor in this evolution from a hemisphere ruled predominantly by authoritarian or military regimes to one where democracy is the rule. Our current policy toward Cuba blocks these exchanges and prevents the United States from using our most potent weapon in our effort to combat totalitarian regimes, and that is our own people. They are the best ambassadors we have. Most totalitarian regimes bar Americans from coming into their countries for the very reasons I just mentioned. They are afraid the gospel of freedom will motivate their citizens to overthrow dictators, as they have done in dozens of nations over the last half century. Isn't it ironic that when it comes to Cuba we do the dictator's bidding for him in a sense? Cuba does not have to worry about America spreading democracy. Our own Government stops us from doing so.

Let me review for my colleagues who may travel to Cuba under current government regulations and under what circumstances.

The following categories of people may travel to Cuba without applying to the Treasury Department for a specific license to travel. They are deemed to be authorized to travel under so-called general license: Government officials, regularly employed journalists, professional researchers who are ``full time professionals who travel to Cuba to conduct professional research in their professional areas,'' Cuban Americans who have relatives in Cuba who are ill--but only once a year.

There are other categories of individuals who theoretically are eligible to travel to Cuba as well, but they must apply for a license from the Department of the Treasury and prove they fit a category in which travel to Cuba is permissible. What are these categories? The first is so called freelance journalists, provided they can prove they are journalists; they must also submit their itinerary for the proposed research. The second is Cuban Americans who are unfortunate enough to have more than one humanitarian emergency in a 12-month period and therefore cannot travel under a general license. The third is students and faculty from U.S. academic institutions that are accredited by an appropriate national or regional educational accrediting association who are participating in a ``structural education program.'' The fourth is members of U.S. religious organizations.

The fifth is individuals participating in public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions and exhibitions. If that isn't complicated enough--just because you think you may fall into one of the above enumerated categories does not necessarily mean you will actually be licensed by the U.S. Government to travel to Cuba.

Under current regulations, who decides whether a researcher's work is legitimate? Who decides whether a freelance journalist is really conducting journalistic activities? Who decides whether or not a professor or student is participating in a ``structured educational program''?

Who decides whether a religious person is really going to conduct religious activities? Government bureaucrats are making those decisions about what I believe should be personal rights of American citizens.

It is truly unsettling, to put it mildly, when you think about it, and probably unconstitutional at its core. It is a real intrusion on the fundamental rights of American citizens. It also says something about what we as a government think about our own people.

Do we really believe that a journalist, a government official, a Senator, a Congressman, a baseball player, a ballerina, a college professor or minister is somehow superior to other citizens who do not fall into those categories; that only these categories of people are ``good examples'' for the Cuban people to observe in order to understand American values?

I do not think so. I find such a notion insulting. There is no better way to communicate America's values and ideals than by unleashing average American men and women to demonstrate by daily living what our great country stands for and the contrasts between what we stand for and what exists in Cuba today.

I do not believe there was ever a sensible rationale for restricting Americans' right to travel to Cuba. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the cold war, I do not think any excuse remains today to ban this kind of travel. This argument that dollars and tourism will be used to prop up the regime is specious. The regime seems to have survived more than 40 years despite the Draconian U.S. embargo during that entire period. The notion that allowing Americans to spend a few dollars in Cuba is somehow going to give major aid and comfort to the Cuban regime is without basis, in my view.

Political rhetoric is not sufficient reason to abridge the freedoms of American citizens.

Nor is it sufficient reason to stand by a law which counteracts one of the basic premises of American foreign policy; namely, the spread of democracy. The time has come to allow Americans--average Americans--to travel freely to Cuba.

I urge my colleagues to support the pending amendment and restore American citizens' rights to travel wherever they choose, including to the island of Cuba.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, and, of course, on behalf of my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, as well, to address this matter. I do not want to take a lot of time on this amendment. There are other Members who have obligations they want to meet.

This amendment is pretty straightforward. Let me begin by thanking my colleague from Kentucky, my colleague from Missouri, and others with whom, over the last several years, we have worked to create and pass the Help America Vote Act, which was signed into law by the President 1 year ago next week.

This is a law, of course, to try to improve the conduct of Federal elections across the country. I need not remind my colleagues, of course, of the condition of the Federal election system based on the results we saw in the national elections in the year 2000.

The piece of legislation that authorized these funds was adopted 98 to 2 by this body, and almost by a similar percentage of votes in the other body.

Last week, Senator McConnell and I came to the floor. I was going to suggest we offer an additional appropriation on the $87 billion package for Iraq. But, rightly, as my colleague from Kentucky pointed out, that was not the appropriate place to do this. We agreed in a colloquy that we would try to find an opportunity to provide the additional resources necessary so the State and local officials across this country could meet the obligations of doing these elections in a proper way.

I point out to my colleagues that the sense of timing is important. In the Federal elections in 2004, the first primary of which is in the District of Columbia on January 13--less than 3 months away--all States and localities must provide provisional ballots to any voter who is challenged. Those provisional ballots must be verified, according to State law, in 2004. Also, in 2004, all States and localities must be prepared to implement the anti-fraud provisions that the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, fought so diligently and hard for as part of the Help America Vote Act which affect first-time voters who register by mail. There are other requirements, of course, by 2004, and a whole series of things that must be done by 2006.

Needless to say, as the State and local officials will tell you, getting mechanisms in place to get it done requires advanced timing. This cannot

just happen in the last few months before the elections occur.

I also point out to my colleagues that, obviously, the States are facing tremendous budget constraints themselves. This is not the ideal way we would like to do this, but we have no other choice but to be part of this budgetary cycle and to include these dollars in this particular effort.

In a time when we are committing, obviously, billions in Federal resources to build democracies around the world--and I supported that; I had reservations about it but, nonetheless, that is critically important--we cannot ignore the needs of our own democracy. Obviously, I think we would all agree we need to do what we can as well, as a nation that prides itself on being the leader when it comes to the conduct of our elections, to try to get these systems working better than they have been.

Again, I thank my colleagues who have worked very hard on this matter. This was truly a bipartisan effort. It continues to be one. We have tried to work together on these matters over the last several years so as not to create any partisan feelings. I think that has been the case.

So today, in a bipartisan way, we are asking our colleagues to be supportive of this additional amount in the appropriations process so we can get the moneys back to our States.

I am sure every one of my colleagues has heard from their State and local officials. By the way, the States are doing a very good job. You may have read recent articles of how the States are getting up to speed, putting things in place, getting their implementation plans in order, and doing so with a great deal of expedition and care.

Several States have already utilized some of the newer approaches as a result of their own State efforts, which are proving to be very successful.

I think we are on the right track. I think we are doing the right thing. The National Governors Association, of course, reported the difficulties they are having with their budget problems, as I mentioned a moment ago.

I do not want to take a lot of time of my colleagues. I think they know what the issues are. I have talked to many of them.

Just last week, Senator McConnell and I came to this floor to express our concerns that the Congress not leave here this session without providing sufficient resources to the States to implement the minimum requirements and other election priorities, for Federal elections enacted under the Help America Vote Act. Some of those requirements must be implemented in time for the Federal elections next year.

The States are living up to their end of the bargain--all States are well along in the development of their state plans and many are in the initial implementation stages of the effort. But we must live up to our side of the bargain.

In his budget request, the President recommended funding these programs in fiscal year 2004 at only one-half of the authorized amount, for a total of $500 million. To their credit, the Appropriations Subcommittee fully funded that request, and I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Shelby, and my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Senator Murray, for their efforts.

However, State and local budgets simply cannot absorb this $500 million shortfall. More importantly, any shortfall in fiscal year 2004 follows on a similar shortfall of over $600 million in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations. Unless we increase funding in this fiscal year, our commitment to the States to share in the funding of the new requirements for Federal elections will fall over $1 billion short.

In a time when we are committing billions of dollars in Federal resources to build democracies around the world, we simply cannot afford to shortchange our own. The basic premise of a democracy is that every citizen must have an equal voice in the determination of its government.

And in this Nation, that voice is expressed through the equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. If America is to continue to be the leader and example for emerging democracies around the world, then our system of giving our citizens an equal voice--our system of elections--must meet this test.

Unfortunately, what we learned in the elections of 2000 was that not all Americans enjoy an equal voice. In fact, some citizens were denied a voice at all because of malfunctioning or outdated voting equipment, inaccurate and incomplete voter registration records, and allegations of voter intimidation and fraud.

The silver lining of the 2000 elections was that it created the opportunity to recognize the challenges confronting our system of Federal elections and the ability to respond with bipartisan determination to provide Federal leadership to overcome those challenges. And 98 members of the Senate responded to that opportunity by overwhelmingly passing the Help America Vote Act last year.

I once again want to thank my distinguished colleagues, and coauthors of the Help America Vote Act, Senator McConnell and Senator Bond, for their bipartisan leadership in that effort and for their continuing commitment to see our promise for Federal funding fulfilled.

I especially want to recognize the leadership of my distinguished colleague, Senator McConnell, whose unfailing leadership on this issue has help to bring us to this point. As then Chairman of the Rules Committee, he chaired the first hearings on election reform and introduced one of the first measures in Congress to offer assistance to the States.

And today we stand before you again, united by our desire to fulfil the commitment and promise of HAVA to the States, and to every American voter, to be a full partner in Federal elections. But rhetoric alone will not fulfill this commitment, nor will it fix the problems that came to light in the 2000 elections. It will take leadership and funds. And that is what the Help America Vote Act provides.

HAVA provides federal leadership in the form of new minimum requirements that all states must meet in the conduct of Federal elections. Those requirements will ensure that all voters can check their ballots and correct them before they are cast and counted. The requirements will ensure that no voter who believes he or she is registered and eligible to vote can be turned away from the polls--but must be given a provisional ballot to cast and then have verified pursuant to State law. And those requirements will ensure the accuracy of voter registration lists against fraud and mistakes through the creation of a single statewide registration list. In short, HAVA will strengthen our democracy by giving an equal voice to all citizens by making it easier to vote and harder to cheat.

Implementing these reforms will not be cheap and so for the first time in our history, Congress committed to being a full partner in the funding of these reforms by authorizing $3.8 billion to fund the implementation of these requirements.

Federal funding is critical to nationwide implementation of this Act and may well govern the success and effectiveness of the new law. To help pay for election reforms and avoid an unfunded mandate on the States, HAVA authorizes a total of nearly $4 billion over three fiscal years, including over $2 billion in fiscal year 2003; $1 billion in fiscal year 2004; and $645,000 in fiscal year 2005.

Of the $1.5 billion Congress appropriated last year to fund grants to the States, $650 million has been distributed to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa. I thank my colleagues for their support during the FY03 appropriations process, particularly Senator Stevens, Chair of the Appropriations Committee and Senator Byrd, the Ranking Member, for providing this substantial down-payment on our commitment to the States.

But we now know that the FY03 appropriation will not provide sufficient funds for the States to fully implement their State plans and meet the new requirements of the law. And the shortfall in the first critical year of funding under HAVA is only compounded by the additional shortfall of $500 million in the bill before the Senate today.

Given the dire financial budget constraints faced by our states and counties, the total shortfall of over just over $1 billion in promised Federal support creates an unfunded mandate that is both unfair and unnecessary and

threatens to undermine the very reforms that were adopted last year.

According to the National Governors Association, the current financial health of state and local governments was at its lowest point since World War II last year and has worsened in the past 10 months. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, States have struggled to close deficits that have totaled approximately $190 billion over the past three years and the best estimate at this time is that they will face deficits of more than $40 billion in fiscal year 2005.

And the counties are in no better economic situation than the States. According to the National Association of Counties, nearly 72 percent of counties are facing budget shortfalls and 56 percent of counties are facing reductions in State funding for State-mandated programs. While counties are struggling to deal with the revenue reductions, the demand for county-provided services continues to rise.

State and local governments are willing and anxious to implement the new requirements; they simply cannot go it alone. And that was the historic message of the Help America Vote Act: the Federal Government will step up to our responsibility to be a full partner in funding Federal election reforms.

Full Federal funding for HAVA is crucial to ensuring that the reforms that Congress overwhelmingly approved, on a broad bipartisan basis, and the President endorsed with his signature, are implemented. The very integrity of our elections, and consequently our democracy, hangs in the balance.

Full funding of HAVA is critical to our national credibility for fairness and accuracy in Federal elections. It is fundamental to the integrity of our democratic process. This amendment not only fulfils out commitment to date, it assures that the very reforms Congress enacted last year will actually be implemented.

This effort is overwhelming supported by a bipartisan and powerful coalition of State and local election officials, in conjunction with all the major civil rights, disability, language minority, and other voter interest groups in the United States. I thank each and every one of them for their strong support in passing HAVA and their continuing commitment to see that Congress makes good on its promise to be a full partner in Federal elections by fully funding the provisions of HAVA. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Coalition be included in the Record following my remarks.

No civil right is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote and no need for Federal funding is more essential to securing that democracy than is the commitment made by this body to ensure the integrity and accuracy of our Federal elections.

I thank my colleagues for their continuing support of this effort and urge my colleagues to fulfill our commitment of last year to ensure the integrity of our Federal elections and the very foundation of our democracy by supporting this bipartisan amendment to fully fund the Help America Vote Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a letter supporting this amendment in the Record.

Again, my colleagues from Kentucky and Missouri and I would prefer to have some other way we could do this, but if we don't get it done now, it is going to be very difficult for us to meet these obligations at all. This additional amount in fiscal year 2004 will get us back on track and allow us to complete this process and to see the election cycle work in a way that all of us would be proud to see.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. Let me just say that this amendment is providing for the number of demands being made on the States. The Senator from Missouri points out what has to be done by the next calendar year, and, just a few weeks from now, on January 13, the Federal primary season, and State and locals are up against the requirements. We are going to get the nominees to the Election Assistance Commission confirmed, but this keeps us on track with the funding. We won't need to come back to this again for another year, but this has to be done now.

We authorized over $3.8 billion for this bill over three fiscal years. This will get us on track for FY03 and FY04 so the States can complete the job. As the Senators have said, this is not our preferred method for providing full funding. Everybody agrees we have to get it done. Contrary to what my friend from Oklahoma says, if we don't get it done now, it will make it that much more difficult to accomplish these goals and it will create huge problems. I will not go through the litany, but I hope my colleagues, when the point of order is made--and I will offer a waiver of that point of order--will support the States on this. I don't want to take much more time. The chairman has other obligations.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Durbin, Schumer, Lieberman, and Edwards be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, let me thank all Members. Let me particularly thank my colleague from Kentucky and my colleague from Missouri, as well as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who graciously said we would try to work this out.

I appreciate my colleagues doing what they did, and I appreciate those who didn't even vote with us. It is a very important moment. I am very grateful to everyone who gave us consideration. I am particularly grateful to the Members who cast their votes with us. I know it was a difficult vote, but it will do a lot for the States.

Procurement of Tanker Aircraft

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