Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution, with my colleagues representing the Upper Mississippi River, expressing our support for the celebration in 2004 of the 150th Anniversary of the Grand Excursion.

In 1854, the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad became the first railroad to reach from the East Coast to the Mississippi River. To celebrate, Henry Farnam, a contractor for the railroad, organized an excursion for friends, family, and stockholders. Word about this event spread quickly and a group of 1,200 people, including former President Millard Fillmore, traveled by steamboat from Rock Island, IL to St. Paul, MN.

This grand excursion turned into an opportunity to show influential persons of the day the remarkable beauty, numerous resources, and the unlimited opportunities that the Mississippi River and the West could provide. This excursion brought millions of dollars of investment to the area and positioned the Upper Mississippi region as a dominant force in the development of the nation in the 19th century.

Once again, the Grand Excursion is an opportunity to highlight the recreational, commercial, and environmental opportunities the river provides, as well as celebrate the renaissance of the Upper Mississippi River region. Over 50 communities, 23 regional organizations, and 4 states are joining together to make this celebration a reality.

For the past 10-15 years, communities in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota have been working together to reclaim their relationship with the Mississippi River and reestablish vibrant riverfront communities. Planning for the celebration has been a catalyst for over $5 billion in capital improvements and environmental initiatives along the river.

In Iowa, communities such as the Quad Cities, Dubuque, and Clinton have all rallied together to make their riverfronts engines for economic development. The Quad Cities are the kickoff site for the Grand Flotilla taking

place in June of 2004. Dubuque is the home of the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium, as well as the home dock of the Audubon Ark. All of the participating Iowa cities have welcoming marinas, main streets, and fun events planned for the celebration. I am honored to be a partner with these dynamic communities.

Through the Grand Excursion 2004, hundreds of thousands of citizens will experience America's River, a matchless national treasure, through community festivities, educational events, enhanced recreation opportunities, and cultural programs. Those who are unable to participate first-hand in the celebrations will be able to experience the excitement through a first-class website and educational Exploration Trunks that will be provided with curriculum to classrooms around the country.

I hope that you will join me in supporting this resolution of America's celebration of the Upper Mississippi River: Grand Excursion 2004.

Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for legislation introduced today by Senators Lincoln and Allard, entitled ``The Resource Efficient Appliance Incentive Act of 2003.'' I'm proud to be an original cosponsor.

This legislation will provide a valuable incentive to accelerate and expand the production and market penetration of ultra energy-efficient appliances. By providing a tax credit for the development of super energy-efficient washing machines and refrigerators, this legislation creates the incentives necessary to increase the production and sale of these appliances in the short term and ultimately lead to a dramatic change in consumer purchasing decisions.

Under this proposal, manufacturers would be eligible to claim a credit of either $50 or $100, depending on efficiency level, for each super energy-efficient washing machine produced between 2003 and 2007. Likewise, manufacturers would be eligible to claim a credit of $50, $100, or $150, depending on efficiency level, for each super energy- efficient refrigerator produced between 2003 and 2007. It is estimated that this tax credit will increase the production and purchase of super energy-efficient washers by almost 200 percent and the purchase of super energy-efficient refrigerators by over 285 percent.

Equally important is the long-term environmental benefits of the expanded use of these appliances. Over the life of the appliances, over 200 trillion Btus of energy will be saved. This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road or closing 6 coal-fired power plants for a year. In addition, the clothes washers will reduce the amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, an amount equal to the needs of every household in a city the size of Phoenix, Arizona for two years. And, the benefits to consumers over the life of the washers and refrigerators from operational savings is estimated at nearly $1 billion.

In my home State of Iowa, this legislation would result in the production of 1.5 million super energy-efficient washers and refrigerators during the next five years. I also expect Iowans to save $11 million in operational costs over the life span of the appliances, and 9 billion gallons of water--enough to supply drinking water for the entire State for 30 years.

As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I look forward to working with Senators Lincoln and Allard as we continue to promote energy conservation and efficiency.

Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for legislation introduced today by Senators Lincoln and Allard, entitled ``The Resource Efficient Appliance Incentive Act of 2003.'' I'm proud to be an original cosponsor.

This legislation will provide a valuable incentive to accelerate and expand the production and market penetration of ultra energy-efficient appliances. By providing a tax credit for the development of super energy-efficient washing machines and refrigerators, this legislation creates the incentives necessary to increase the production and sale of these appliances in the short term and ultimately lead to a dramatic change in consumer purchasing decisions.

Under this proposal, manufacturers would be eligible to claim a credit of either $50 or $100, depending on efficiency level, for each super energy-efficient washing machine produced between 2003 and 2007. Likewise, manufacturers would be eligible to claim a credit of $50, $100, or $150, depending on efficiency level, for each super energy- efficient refrigerator produced between 2003 and 2007. It is estimated that this tax credit will increase the production and purchase of super energy-efficient washers by almost 200 percent and the purchase of super energy-efficient refrigerators by over 285 percent.

Equally important is the long-term environmental benefits of the expanded use of these appliances. Over the life of the appliances, over 200 trillion Btus of energy will be saved. This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road or closing 6 coal-fired power plants for a year. In addition, the clothes washers will reduce the amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, an amount equal to the needs of every household in a city the size of Phoenix, Arizona for two years. And, the benefits to consumers over the life of the washers and refrigerators from operational savings is estimated at nearly $1 billion.

In my home State of Iowa, this legislation would result in the production of 1.5 million super energy-efficient washers and refrigerators during the next five years. I also expect Iowans to save $11 million in operational costs over the life span of the appliances, and 9 billion gallons of water--enough to supply drinking water for the entire State for 30 years.

As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I look forward to working with Senators Lincoln and Allard as we continue to promote energy conservation and efficiency.

I have no objection coming back at 5:30 p.m.

In other words, if she comes in, I would stop and let her speak?

I think 20 minutes.

Like I said, I can come back at 5:30 p.m.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his consideration. Obviously, since I voted for this nomination out of committee and I argued last year that the nomination should have come up last year, I am strongly in support of President Bush's nominee, Miguel Estrada. I think he is a very qualified judicial nominee and will make an excellent member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Not only is he regarded as one of the Nation's top appellate lawyers, but the American Bar Association, which I think Democrats consider the gold standard of determination of a person's qualifications to be a judicial nominee, has given him a unanimous rating of, in their words, ``well qualified.'' This happens to be the highest American Bar Association rating. It is a rating they would not give to just any lawyer who comes up the pike. According to the American Bar Association, quoting from their standard:

To merit a rating of well qualified, the nominee must be at

the top of the legal profession in his or her legal

community, have outstanding legal ability, breadth of

experience, the highest reputation for integrity and either

have demonstrated or exhibited the capacity for judicial

temperament.

Just think of some of those words: ``The highest reputation for integrity'' and having ``demonstrated or exhibited the capacity for judicial temperament.'' This was from the American Bar Association's rating of well qualified.

We ought to demand that more of these people be appointed to the bench rather than fighting their nomination. Mr. Estrada then certainly deserves the American Bar Association's most qualified rating.

As my colleagues know, I am not a lawyer. There is nothing wrong with going to law school, but I did not. I have been on the Judiciary Committee my entire time in the Senate. I know some of the qualifications that are needed to be a Federal judge and particularly a Federal judge on this DC Circuit that handles so many appeals from administrative agencies and is often considered, by legal experts, to be the second highest court of our land.

Mr. Estrada's academic credentials are stellar. He earned his juris doctorate from Harvard University, magna cum laude, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Estrada did not just attend Harvard Law School; he graduated with honors. He also served as the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

To be selected as the editor of a law review is a feat that only the most exceptional of law students attain. Not only did he excel in law school, but he graduated from Columbia University with his bachelor's degree magna cum laude and was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Mr. Estrada certainly has the intellect required to be a Federal Court of Appeals judge. His professional background also gives testament to his being qualified for a Federal Court of Appeals judgeship as opposed to just any judgeship.

After law school, Mr. Estrada served as a law clerk to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and to Justice Kennedy, on the United States Supreme Court. Subsequently, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Deputy Chief of the appellate section of the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York, and then as assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States of America, officed in Washington, DC.

Mr. Estrada has been in the private sector as well. He is a partner with the Washington, DC, office of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. So for a very young lawyer, I think I can give my colleagues a person who can truly be labeled an American success story. In fact, instead of downgrading his ability to serve as a circuit court judge, we should all be proud of Mr. Estrada's many accomplishments.

We are hearing that the Democrats are considering a filibuster of this exceptionally qualified lawyer. In all my years on the Judiciary Committee--and that has been my entire tenure in the Senate-- Republicans never once filibustered a Democratic President's nominee to the Federal bench. There are many I may have wanted to filibuster, but I did not do it--we did not do it--because it is not right.

This nominee, like all nominees, deserves an up-or-down vote. Anything less is absolutely unfair. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will strongly consider this proposed filibuster before they cross this Rubicon and establish new precedent for confirmation.

Mr. Estrada's opponents claim he has not answered questions or produced documentation, and so he should not be confirmed to the Federal bench. I can think of a number of Democratic nominees who did not sufficiently answer even my questions, but that did not lead me to filibuster. As far as I know, Mr. Estrada has answered all questions posed to him by the Judiciary Committee members, and that the Justice Department has directed certain in-house memos not be turned over because this is the policy of the Department and this documentation has never been produced to the Judiciary Committee. This is not just the policy of this administration, the Bush administration, a Republican administration. This has also been the policy under Democratic Presidents.

So once more, we see a coalescing of liberal activists circling the wagon around a very talented, very principled, highly qualified legal mind to defeat Mr. Estrada's nomination solely because these activists have determined that he may not comply with some sort of liberal ideological agenda. These liberal interests only want the Senate to confirm judicial nominees who will be sure to implement a left-wing agenda, and if there is any question they will not do their bidding, then those judges and those nominees better watch out.

As far as I can see, the concerns raised about Mr. Estrada are pure speculation and, most importantly, highly politically motivated. This is a disgrace. It is an outrage, but we must put a stop to these unfounded political attacks and get on with the business of confirming to the Federal bench good men and women who are committed to doing what judges should do, interpret law as opposed to those who make law from the bench, because it is our responsibility to make law as members of the legislative branch.

Additionally, we have concerns materializing out of thin air that Mr. Estrada may not have the right judicial temperament for the job. Of course, that goes contrary to the analysis made by the American Bar Association committee which gave him a well-qualified determination, and that well-qualified determination only goes to those people who have judicial temperament.

This determination against Mr. Estrada, by these activists, goes to the point that he is some right-wing ideologue who will impose his own views and cannot be trusted to follow the law written by Congress. In my opinion, these concerns and these allegations

are fabrication and pure speculation. They have no basis in fact. To the contrary, numerous present and former co-workers, as well as individuals who know Mr. Estrada and his work very well, have written letters to the Judiciary Committee expressing strong support for Mr. Estrada. They go on to say he will take the law seriously, apply Supreme Court precedent faithfully, and not rule based upon personal views and political perspectives.

If a judge has the law in front of him, if a judge is willing to follow the interpretation of the Supreme Court, and if a judge leaves out his personal views and leaves out his own political perspectives, then what he has in front of him is only the language of the law and the precedent. That is what a judge is supposed to make his decision on. That is what he said he would do. More importantly, people who have known him over a long period of time are convinced he will so do.

Letters from Republicans and Democrats have highly praised Mr. Estrada's intellect, judgment, integrity, and ethics. Yet we still have some who are quick to lend credence to unfounded attacks which appear to have been generated primarily by Paul Bender, a former politically appointed supervisor in the Solicitor General's Office during the Clinton administration.

Clearly, Mr. Bender's allegations are politically motivated. Not only is Mr. Bender a liberal activist, his own out-of-the-mainstream views on matters such as pornography cast serious doubts on his ability to fairly judge Mr. Estrada's qualifications. Need I remind my colleagues of the Clinton administration where they had a flip-flop fiasco in the Knox case, where Mr. Bender had a heavy hand in formulating a very extremist position that directly ran counter to a child pornography statute and to clear congressional intent about that child pornography statute.

Need I remind my colleagues that Mr. Bender's position would have resulted in the freeing of a twice-convicted child pornographer who had demonstrated a tendency to lure underage girls into criminal relationships. Need I remind my colleagues of the resolution they themselves voted on in the House and Senate that soundly rejected Mr. Bender's position in the Knox brief? I highly doubt Mr. Bender's own judgment is unbiased enough to provide an accurate recommendation of Mr. Estrada's ability to be a judge on the DC Circuit, particularly when these statements contradict Mr. Bender's own contemporaneous, glowing evaluations of Mr. Estrada when Mr. Estrada was one of those he supervised at the Solicitor General's office. Mr. Estrada was given glowing evaluations by Mr. Bender.

I also point out that Mr. Bender appears to be the only one of Mr. Estrada's former colleagues at the Department of Justice that now questions Mr. Estrada's ability to be a good judge. In fact, as far as I know, everyone else who has worked with Mr. Estrada has praised his record to the high heavens and believes he is more than qualified for this judgeship. It is obvious that Mr. Estrada's record and his integrity have been unfairly and baselessly attacked by a political hatchet person.

To whom are we going to listen? To whom do we 100 Senators listen? The American Bar Association, which interviewed scores of people and gave Mr. Estrada a unanimous ``well-qualified'' rating. The colleagues who know and who have observed Mr. Estrada's work over the years? Or are we going to listen to an advocate for freeing child pornographers, a man who is so extreme that his outrageous legal views were universally condemned in that vote on child pornography in the House and Senate?

In addition, last week, in a Democratic caucus press conference held by the Senator minority leader, a representative of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund criticized the statement that I made in the Judiciary Committee's consideration of Mr. Estrada when I was speaking for his name to be voted out of committee. This is what I said: If we deny Miguel Estrada this position on the DC Circuit, it would be to shut the door on the American dream for Hispanic Americans everywhere.

I said that because I believe it. Mr. Estrada is an example and a role model for all Americans, but he is a particularly bright and shining light for the Hispanic and immigrant communities in the United States of America. I don't happen to be alone in that belief. The League of United Latin American Citizens agrees with me because in a letter to Senator Leahy, the League of United Latin American Citizens expressed its strong support for Mr. Estrada, saying: Few Hispanic attorneys have as strong educational credentials as Mr. Estrada, who graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia College and magnum cum laude from Harvard, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Continuing: He also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy in the U.S. Supreme Court, making him only one of a handful of Hispanic attorneys to have had this opportunity. He is truly one of the rising stars in the Hispanic community and a role model for our youth. That is from the League of United Latin American Citizens.

The Latino Coalition, a national Latino organization, also agrees that Mr. Estrada should be approved. They expressed in a press release last April that ``to deny Latinos, the Nation's largest minority, the opportunity to have one of our own serve on this court in the Nation's Capital is unforgivable.'' I agree.

We also have the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses. In another letter to Senator Leahy, the president of the National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses said: Mr. Estrada's appointment as a first Hispanic member of the DC Circuit will be a benefit to us in further illustrating the wide range of talent in the minority community just waiting to be effectively and fully used.

Mr. Estrada was not nominated just because he is Hispanic. The President nominated him because he is one of the most qualified lawyers in the country to serve in this position, not one of the most qualified Hispanic lawyers. However, because he is Hispanic, his nomination sends the clear message that with hard work anyone can achieve success. It speaks all about opportunity, the offering of opportunity for all kinds of people in America. In this case, especially, to Hispanics. He absolutely is the kind of role model that Hispanic youth should look up to, and we ought to encourage that opportunity.

Unfortunately, some in the Hispanic community do not believe Mr. Estrada is Hispanic enough. I don't know where they are coming from-- Hispanic enough? What does that mean? According to the National Review at last week's Democratic press conference, representatives of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, an organization I referred to before with the acronym MALDEF, and then another organization, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, criticized Mr. Estrada for not being authentically Hispanic. If you are Hispanic, who is going to say whether or not you are authentically Hispanic? He is Hispanic as a result of his birth and the background of generations before him. Is that somehow supposed to fit people into a class that you isolate yourself and you have to have certain aspects about you that are uncompromising, or is it OK in America, whether you are German, Italian, African American, Hispanic, don't you have a right to be an individual? Can't you just be Mary Smith and Joe Smith and Mr. Estrada and anybody else you want to be as an individual? What is there about being authentically Hispanic?

I ask unanimous consent that an article from the National Review entitled ``Dems to Miguel Estrada: You're not Hispanic Enough'' be printed in the Record after my statement.

Also at that press conference, remarks were made that one had to have more than a Hispanic surname to be considered Hispanic. I find these remarks do not make any sense. What they are saying is, unless you think as they do, you are not really Hispanic. In other words, if you do not think as they do, you cannot possibly be Hispanic. What an outrageous idea in 21st century America. The tag line that Mr. Estrada ``isn't Hispanic enough'' is code words for ``he isn't liberal enough.'' Yet at this Democratic

press conference, participants describe the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government.

The President has nominated one of the most qualified attorneys in the country to be a judge on the second highest court of the land, and this person, of outstanding capabilities, with degrees from Columbia and Harvard, happens to be a Hispanic. Not only is he Hispanic, but he is an immigrant to this country who at the age of 17 came here from Honduras speaking little English. He learned the language, worked hard, rose to the top of his legal profession. One would think these groups would be happy with this nomination. But no, they stand in firm opposition to Mr. Estrada. You see, these groups believe a person is only Hispanic when he or she believes what these groups believe.

That is intellectual prejudice. I urge my colleagues to resist the rhetoric of ideological prejudice and to overwhelmingly support the confirmation of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court for the DC Circuit.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the National Review, Feb. 6, 2003]

Dems to Miguel Estrada: You're Not Hispanic Enough

(By Byron York)

The headline from Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's news

conference Wednesday was his threat to filibuster the

appeals-court nomination of Miguel Estrada. ``There is

overwhelming opposition within our caucus to Mr. Estrada,''

Daschle said. ``Because we're in the minority, we have no

other option in some cases . . . than to filibuster

nominations. We don't take that responsibility lightly, but

we hold it to be an important tool that we will use.''

Daschle said he will make the filibuster decision next week.

But the more interesting story from Daschle's appearance

was the strange disconnect between the reasons he gave to

oppose Estrada and the reasons cited by a number of Hispanic

interest-group leaders who appeared with Daschle.

To hear Daschle tell it, Estrada's alleged refusal to

answer questions at his confirmation hearing had virtually

forced Democrats to vote against him, and perhaps to

filibuster the nomination. Democratic senators take their

advise-and-consent role very seriously, Daschle said, and,

``In our view, we have been thwarted from fulfilling our

constitutional obligation.''

But to hear representatives from the Congressional Hispanic

Caucus, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education

Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and

others tell it, the Estrada nomination should be killed not

because of Estrada's alleged refusal to answer questions or

because of constitutional obligations but because Estrada,

who was born and raised in Honduras before coming to the

United States and learning English at the age of 17, is

simply not authentically Hispanic.

``Being Hispanic for us means much more than having a

surname,'' said New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez, a member of the

Congressional Hispanic Caucus. ``It means having some

relationship with the reality of what it is to live in this

country as a Hispanic American.'' Even though Estrada is of

Hispanic origin, and even though he lives in this country,

Menendez argued, he falls short of being a true Hispanic.

``Mr. Estrada told us that him being Hispanic he sees having

absolutely nothing to do with his experience or his role as a

federal court judge. That's what he said to us.'' Menendez

found that deeply troubling.

But Menendez was relatively kind to Estrada compared to the

representatives of Hispanic interest groups. Angelo Falcon,

an official of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education

Fund, railed about the ``Latino Horatio Alger story that's

been concocted'' about Estrada's success and, more generally,

about the ``concocted, invented Latino imagery'' of Estrada's

life.

``As the Latino community becomes larger and larger in the

country, as we gain more political influence, as we become

more diverse, the issue of what is a Hispanic becomes more

problematic,'' Falcon explained. ``It's not good enough to

simply say that because of someone's genetics or surname that

they should be considered Hispanic.''

Marisa Demeo from the Mexican American Legal Defense and

Education Fund went even farther. Not only is Estrada not

authentically Hispanic, Demeo argued, but his elevation to

the federal bench would ``crush'' the American dream for

millions of genuine Hispanics in the United States.

Demeo was particularly angry at Republican Judiciary

Committee member Sen. Charles Grassley, who last week said

that, ``If we deny Mr. Estrada a position on the D.C.

Circuit, it will be to shut the door on the American dream of

Hispanic Americans everywhere.'' ``Actually, the reverse is

true,'' Demeo said. ``If the Senate confirms Mr. Estrada, his

own personal American dream will come true, but the American

dreams of the majority of Hispanics living in this country

will come to an end through his future legal decisions.''

Through it all, Daschle stood by impassively. He couldn't

very well cite Estrada's alleged lack of authentic Hispanic-

ness as a reason to filibuster and kill the nomination; even

the most partisan Democratic senator would have a hard time

making that argument. Yet he remained quiet while his allies

bashed Estrada in the most personal terms.

It made some observers question just why Democrats are

opposing Estrada. Do they really believe their words about

their ``constitutional obligations,'' or are they going along

with the angry interest groups who are pushing them to do it?

Mr. President, could I read something for the administrative staff?

I assume this is without objection from the other side. I thank the Senator from California.

I ask unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock today the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Executive Calendar Nos. 28, 29, 30; provided further that there be 15 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member. I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate, the Senate then immediately proceed to three consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations, with no intervening action or debate; provided further that, following those votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, during the last Congress Senator Feingold and I sponsored the Transparency for Independent Livestock Producers Act, or what we have generally referred to as the ``Transparency Act''. Today we are once again working together in a bipartisan fashion to re-introduce this important legislation.

As everyone knows, I introduced the packer ban this Congress because I want more competition in the marketplace. While I don't think packers should be in the same business as independent livestock producers, it's not the fact that the packers own the livestock that bothers me as much as the fact that the packers' livestock competes for shackle space and adversely impacts the price independent producers receive.

My sponsorship of the packer ban is based on the belief that independent producers should have the opportunity to receive a fair price for their livestock. The last few years have led to widespread consolidation and concentration in the packing industry. Add on the trend toward vertical integration among packers and there is no question why independent producers are losing the opportunity to market their own livestock during profitable cycles in the live meat markets.

The past CEO of IBP in 1994 explained that the reason packers own livestock is that when the price is high the packers use their own livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers buy livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely being limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the live market. This is not good for the survival of the independent producer.

This bipartisan legislation would guarantee that independent producers have a share in the market place while assisting the Mandatory Price Reporting system. The proposal would require that 25 percent of a packer's daily kill comes from the spot market. By requiring a 25 percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory price reporting system, which has been criticized due to reporting and accuracy problems, would have consistent, reliable numbers being purchased from the spot market, improving the accuracy and transparency of daily prices. In addition, independent livestock producers would be guaranteed a competitive position due to the packers need to fill the daily 25 percent spot/cash market requirement.

The packs required to comply would be the same packs required to report under the Mandatory Price Reporting system. Those are packs that kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000 lambs annually, over a 5 year average.

Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating Mandatory Price Reporting data. If the Mandatory Price Reporting data is not accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy and viability of the Mandatory Price reporting system and secure fair prices for contracts based on that data.

It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the Mandatory Price reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that information is wrong the contract producers suffer.

This legislation will guarantee independent livestock producers market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these goals by making it more difficult for the Mandatory Price Reporting System to be manipulated because of low numbers being reported by the packs. The Transparency Act is crucial legislation to guarantee livestock producers receive a fair shake at the farm gate and I am looking forward to working on this legislation in a bipartisan fashion.

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

Mr. President, during the last Congress Senator Feingold and I sponsored the Transparency for Independent Livestock Producers Act, or what we have generally referred to as the ``Transparency Act''. Today we are once again working together in a bipartisan fashion to re-introduce this important legislation.

As everyone knows, I introduced the packer ban this Congress because I want more competition in the marketplace. While I don't think packers should be in the same business as independent livestock producers, it's not the fact that the packers own the livestock that bothers me as much as the fact that the packers' livestock competes for shackle space and adversely impacts the price independent producers receive.

My sponsorship of the packer ban is based on the belief that independent producers should have the opportunity to receive a fair price for their livestock. The last few years have led to widespread consolidation and concentration in the packing industry. Add on the trend toward vertical integration among packers and there is no question why independent producers are losing the opportunity to market their own livestock during profitable cycles in the live meat markets.

The past CEO of IBP in 1994 explained that the reason packers own livestock is that when the price is high the packers use their own livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers buy livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely being limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the live market. This is not good for the survival of the independent producer.

This bipartisan legislation would guarantee that independent producers have a share in the market place while assisting the Mandatory Price Reporting system. The proposal would require that 25 percent of a packer's daily kill comes from the spot market. By requiring a 25 percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory price reporting system, which has been criticized due to reporting and accuracy problems, would have consistent, reliable numbers being purchased from the spot market, improving the accuracy and transparency of daily prices. In addition, independent livestock producers would be guaranteed a competitive position due to the packers need to fill the daily 25 percent spot/cash market requirement.

The packs required to comply would be the same packs required to report under the Mandatory Price Reporting system. Those are packs that kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000 lambs annually, over a 5 year average.

Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating Mandatory Price Reporting data. If the Mandatory Price Reporting data is not accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy and viability of the Mandatory Price reporting system and secure fair prices for contracts based on that data.

It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the Mandatory Price reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that information is wrong the contract producers suffer.

This legislation will guarantee independent livestock producers market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these goals by making it more difficult for the Mandatory Price Reporting System to be manipulated because of low numbers being reported by the packs. The Transparency Act is crucial legislation to guarantee livestock producers receive a fair shake at the farm gate and I am looking forward to working on this legislation in a bipartisan fashion.

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

Mr. President. I rise today with a heavy heart to honor seven fallen astronauts, the adventurers aboard Columbia. On Saturday, February 1, after 16 days in space, their hero's homecoming abruptly turned into a national tragedy. As the space shuttle fell apart upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere in the skies above Texas, the Nation once again fell into mourning.

Each of the seven astronauts leaves behind family and friends who now bear the burden of immense sorrow and grief. May they find peace in the days and years ahead. The loss of a spouse, father, mother, sibling, or child brings immeasurable anguish, especially under such tragic, public circumstances.

May they find comfort in the knowledge that their loved ones were pursuing their lifelong dreams. The dreams of individuals whose aspirations will benefit all of humanity. They leave behind for their children and grandchildren a legacy that will continue to inspire generations to come. The U.S. space program will continue. Their mission will not be forgotten.

In classrooms across America, Israel, India, and the world over, young impressionable minds can learn from these seven ambitious individuals the values inherent to the human spirit: courage, adventure, discipline, discovery, commitment, exploration, and risk- taking.

Each of the astronauts ought to be remembered in history for their willingness to risk it all in pursuit of scientific discovery. The Columbia crew carried out 90 experiments to help solve problems here on Earth, including science experiments developed by students from 9 States and 8 countries. Thanks to their selfless good work--ranging from tests developed to help fight cancer, improve crop yields, build earthquake-resistant buildings, and understand the effects of dust storms on weather--human civilization stands to gain from their labors above.

Like the explorers and frontiersman who traversed the unknown before them, these seven men and women responded to a similar calling. Their predecessors navigated uncharted territory by way of oceans and open prairie: Ferdinand Magellan. James Cook, Lewis and Clark. It is a timeless human quest to discover the undiscovered and to take risks.

These magnificent seven set out on heavenly horizons to explore, investigate, research, and navigate what for most of us Earth-bound folks will remain a mystery. We are indebted to their courage, commitment and contributions.

Mr. President, I wanted like to single out one member of the crew. One of seven U.S. astronauts with Iowa ties, Laurel Clark was born in Ames. She leaves behind some family members in Iowa, including her 96- year-old grandmother Mary Haviland and Doug and Betty Haviland, her aunt and uncle. For the second time in 16 months, Reverend and Mrs. Haviland are coming to grips with devastating grief. They also lost their son in the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11. Friends and family members recall Clark as a high-achiever committed to science and the space program. Last year, she visited an elementary school in Carroll, IA to educate a second-grade class about the space shuttle's mission. A wife and mother of an 8-year-old son, the 41-year-old Navy doctor was on her first space flight. In her e-mails from Columbia, Clark wrote about how ``glorious'' it was to see Earth from her position in space. May her loved ones find peace as she watches over them now from the heavens above. The necessary investigations are underway to discover what went so terribly wrong on that bright Saturday morning in February, just minutes before the crew's homecoming. May we fully ascertain what went wrong to bring closure to the loved ones left behind and avert another tragedy. Congress will need to continue strong oversight and consider NASA's budgeting needs to ensure an effective, efficient, and safe space program.

It is sadly ironic to consider that for many Americans, these highly- trained and dedicated astronauts would have remained to them anonymous if not for the tragedy that took their lives. Continuing and improving the space program would be the best way to honor the legacy of the fallen Columbia crew. Consider the discoveries waiting to be made in medicine, biology, physics, meteorology, and agro-sciences. Don't discount the advances already made in satellite communications and strategic military defense systems thanks to space exploration.

Four decades ago, the first American astronauts launched us into space. There is no turning back on destiny now.

Notwithstanding the loss of human life, I believe the Columbia crew, including Iowa-born Laurel Clark, would urge us to resume America's space odyssey and get back to the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003, a bill that will help curb class action lawsuit abuse. For the last several Congresses, Senators Kohl, Hatch and others have joined me in introducing this important measure. Over the years, we have held several hearings on the numerous abuses of the class action system and the urgent need for reform. The Senate Judiciary Committee marked up and reported a similar class action bill in the 106th Congress, and in the 107th Congress the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on class action abuse. This bi-partisan bill has garnered increasing support over the years, and I look forward to even greater support in this Congress.

Abuses of the class action system abound. Specifically, class action cases have proven to be an easy way for attorneys to make millions of dollars while the plaintiff class members receive little or nothing of value. We all are familiar with the many class action lawsuits where plaintiffs were awarded nothing or coupons of limited value, while the lawyers got all the money in attorney's fees. Everyone of us has found ourselves to have been a potential member of a plaintiff class in a class action lawsuit, and for those of us who are not lawyers, it has been impossible to know what our rights are or whether we are being served the attorneys we never hired in the first place.

In addition, most class action lawsuits are being filed in state courts, even though these are usually the cases that involve the most money, have nationwide implications, and implicate citizens from all 50 States. Lawyers often game the system so they can bring lawsuits in State courts, which are more likely to certify class actions without adequately considering whether a class action would be fair to all class members. In some instances, class lawyers manipulate pleadings to avoid removal of the lawsuit to the federal courts. To do this, lawyers may claim that their clients suffered under $75,000 in damages so that the Federal threshold isn't triggered, even though their clients may have suffered an even greater injury. Class lawyers also sometimes defeat the complete diversity requirement by ensuring that at least one named class member is from the same state as a defendant, even if every other class member is from a different state.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 will go a long way toward ending some of these abuses. This modest bill carefully fixes the more egregious problems with the class action system, while preserving class action lawsuits as an important tool which brings representation to the unrepresented.

First, our bill requires that notice of proposed settlements in all class actions, as well as all class notices, must be in clear, easily understood English and must include all material settlement terms, including amount and source of attorneys' fees. The notices most plaintiffs receive are written in small print and confusing legal jargon. In fact, a lawyer testified before my Subcommittee that even he could not understand the notice he received as a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Since plaintiffs are giving up their right to sue, it is imperative that they understand what they are doing and the ramifications of their actions.

Second, our bill requires that State attorneys general be notified of any proposed class settlement that would affect residents of their States. The notice would give a State attorney general the opportunity to object if the settlement terms are unfair to consumers.

Third, our bill disallows bounty payments to lead plaintiffs so lawyers looking for victims can't promise them unwarranted payoffs to be their excuse

for filing suit. It also prevents settlements that discriminate based on geography, so that one plaintiff doesn't receive more money just because he lives near the courthouse.

Fourth, our bill requires that courts scrutinize settlements where the plaintiffs get only coupons or non-cash awards, and the lawyers get money. The courts are required to make a written finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable for class members. A court will still be able to find that a non-cash settlement, like in the case of injunctive relief banning some type of bad conduct, is fair and reasonable. But courts would be able to throw out sham settlements where the lawyers get big paychecks but the plaintiffs get nothing but coupons.

Finally, our bill allows more class action lawsuits to be removed from state court to federal court, either by a defendant or an unnamed class member. A class action would qualify for federal jurisdiction if the total damages exceed $2,000,000 and parties include citizens from multiple States. Currently, class lawyers can avoid removal if individual claims are for $75,000 or less, even if hundreds of millions of dollars in total are at stake, or if just one class member is from the same State as a defendant. But if a case really belongs in state court because it's a State-law question or the substantial majority of class members and defendants are in-State, the case will stay in state court.

We need class action reform badly. Both plaintiffs and defendants are calling for change in this area. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 is a good, modest bill that will help curb the many problems that have plagued the class action system.

This bill will remove the conflict of interest that lawyers face in class action lawsuits, and will ensure the fair settlement of these cases. This bill will preserve the process, but put a stop to the more egregious abuses. I urge all my colleagues to join Senators Kohl, Hatch, Carper, Specter, Chafee, Lugar, Miller and I in supporting this important legislation.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003, a bill that will help curb class action lawsuit abuse. For the last several Congresses, Senators Kohl, Hatch and others have joined me in introducing this important measure. Over the years, we have held several hearings on the numerous abuses of the class action system and the urgent need for reform. The Senate Judiciary Committee marked up and reported a similar class action bill in the 106th Congress, and in the 107th Congress the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on class action abuse. This bi-partisan bill has garnered increasing support over the years, and I look forward to even greater support in this Congress.

Abuses of the class action system abound. Specifically, class action cases have proven to be an easy way for attorneys to make millions of dollars while the plaintiff class members receive little or nothing of value. We all are familiar with the many class action lawsuits where plaintiffs were awarded nothing or coupons of limited value, while the lawyers got all the money in attorney's fees. Everyone of us has found ourselves to have been a potential member of a plaintiff class in a class action lawsuit, and for those of us who are not lawyers, it has been impossible to know what our rights are or whether we are being served the attorneys we never hired in the first place.

In addition, most class action lawsuits are being filed in state courts, even though these are usually the cases that involve the most money, have nationwide implications, and implicate citizens from all 50 States. Lawyers often game the system so they can bring lawsuits in State courts, which are more likely to certify class actions without adequately considering whether a class action would be fair to all class members. In some instances, class lawyers manipulate pleadings to avoid removal of the lawsuit to the federal courts. To do this, lawyers may claim that their clients suffered under $75,000 in damages so that the Federal threshold isn't triggered, even though their clients may have suffered an even greater injury. Class lawyers also sometimes defeat the complete diversity requirement by ensuring that at least one named class member is from the same state as a defendant, even if every other class member is from a different state.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 will go a long way toward ending some of these abuses. This modest bill carefully fixes the more egregious problems with the class action system, while preserving class action lawsuits as an important tool which brings representation to the unrepresented.

First, our bill requires that notice of proposed settlements in all class actions, as well as all class notices, must be in clear, easily understood English and must include all material settlement terms, including amount and source of attorneys' fees. The notices most plaintiffs receive are written in small print and confusing legal jargon. In fact, a lawyer testified before my Subcommittee that even he could not understand the notice he received as a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Since plaintiffs are giving up their right to sue, it is imperative that they understand what they are doing and the ramifications of their actions.

Second, our bill requires that State attorneys general be notified of any proposed class settlement that would affect residents of their States. The notice would give a State attorney general the opportunity to object if the settlement terms are unfair to consumers.

Third, our bill disallows bounty payments to lead plaintiffs so lawyers looking for victims can't promise them unwarranted payoffs to be their excuse

for filing suit. It also prevents settlements that discriminate based on geography, so that one plaintiff doesn't receive more money just because he lives near the courthouse.

Fourth, our bill requires that courts scrutinize settlements where the plaintiffs get only coupons or non-cash awards, and the lawyers get money. The courts are required to make a written finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable for class members. A court will still be able to find that a non-cash settlement, like in the case of injunctive relief banning some type of bad conduct, is fair and reasonable. But courts would be able to throw out sham settlements where the lawyers get big paychecks but the plaintiffs get nothing but coupons.

Finally, our bill allows more class action lawsuits to be removed from state court to federal court, either by a defendant or an unnamed class member. A class action would qualify for federal jurisdiction if the total damages exceed $2,000,000 and parties include citizens from multiple States. Currently, class lawyers can avoid removal if individual claims are for $75,000 or less, even if hundreds of millions of dollars in total are at stake, or if just one class member is from the same State as a defendant. But if a case really belongs in state court because it's a State-law question or the substantial majority of class members and defendants are in-State, the case will stay in state court.

We need class action reform badly. Both plaintiffs and defendants are calling for change in this area. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 is a good, modest bill that will help curb the many problems that have plagued the class action system.

This bill will remove the conflict of interest that lawyers face in class action lawsuits, and will ensure the fair settlement of these cases. This bill will preserve the process, but put a stop to the more egregious abuses. I urge all my colleagues to join Senators Kohl, Hatch, Carper, Specter, Chafee, Lugar, Miller and I in supporting this important legislation.

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

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

Mr. President, this morning the Senate Finance Committee completed our first piece of business for the 108th Congress. The business before the committee today was the nomination of John Snow to be Treasury Secretary. It is the matter that we should process as a full body today. The Treasury Secretary is, after the Vice President, perhaps the most important position in the President's Cabinet.

As I said at the nomination hearing 2 days ago, the Finance Committee has a bipartisan tradition of acting expeditiously on this nomination. The reason is the importance of this nomination in the Nation's economic policymaking. The evidence of this tradition can be gleaned from committee records. Let's take a look at the recent history. For the period covering the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and this Bush administration, this committee has kept the position of Treasury Secretary filled in a virtually seamless manner.

Let me emphasize that. For this first time in recent history, we have a significant vacancy in the Treasury Department. There has now been a gap in service. That gap needs to be closed. As long as that vacancy remains, our markets wonder, our global trading partners speculate, and the President is denied his principal economic policymaker.

All Finance Committee Democrats and Republicans, past and present, should be proud of our record in recent history. It should surprise no one that the committee has taken this responsibility seriously. Whether we have divided government, or if one party controls the Congress and the administration, it does not matter. Much of the committee's policy is tied to the Treasury Department. It is a relationship that has a history of seriousness, productivity, and gravity. We all have an interest in filling this important position.

I thank my ranking member and friend, Senator Baucus, for his assistance. I also thank my Finance Committee colleagues for their cooperation.

Fortunately, over the same almost 15-year period, the full Senate has reflected the Finance Committee's seriousness on this important nomination. Again, over that period, under divided government or one party control, we as 100 Senators, have not permitted a significant vacancy to occur in this critical position. Some of my colleagues will recall Secretary O'Neill's nomination. Senator Helms, who some on the other side called ``Senator No,'' had an issue important in his State regarding the Africa free trade bill. Senator Helms recognized the critical nature of the Treasury Secretary's position and allowed the nomination to move forward expeditiously.

Why does this office matter so much?

Well, let's take a look at the job description on the Treasury Web site. I quote:

The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for

formulating and recommending domestic and international

financial, economic, and tax policy, participating in the

formulation of broad fiscal policies that have general

significance for the economy and managing the public debt.

The Treasury Secretary oversees the activities of the

Treasury Department in carrying out his major law enforcement

responsibilities; in serving as the financial agent of the

U.S. Government; and in manufacturing coins and currency.

The chief financial officer of the Government, the

Secretary of the Treasury serves on the President's National

Economic Council. He is also Chairman of the Boards and

Managing Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust

Funds, Chairman of the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight

Board, and serves as U.S. Governor of the International

Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the African

Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction

and Development.

So, Mr. President, who has an interest in filling the gap I referred to earlier? The answer is: (i) any American with an interest in economic growth, (ii) any American senior receiving Social Security or Medicare, (iii) any holders of thrift deposits, (iv) any investor holding a Treasury bond and (v) any worker or management person with an international business. That is just for starters.

This is not just any Cabinet position. The Treasury Department is the oldest Department and it is no accident that the Treasury Department is next door to the White House. These important responsibilities are the reason the Senate has not dilly-dallied on this nomination. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation in the confirmation of John Snow as Treasury Secretary.

I thank my colleagues for their attention to this important children's care policy. They are correct that something must be done to address the funds that have and will revert to the Treasury in the near future. They are also correct to the constraints within the omnibus bill. I strongly support the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is a program that provides health care for over 16,000 low- income children in my State.

Senators Chafee, Snowe, and Rockefeller are looking to address a necessary maintenance issue within S-CHIP. As Senator Snowe noted, I worked very closely with Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, Senator Rockefeller, Chairman Tauzin, and Representative Dingell on a bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would have addressed expired S-CHIP funds.

The proposal reflected a balanced approach to redistributing S-CHIP funding taking into account that some States are spending through their existing allotments and other States are ramping up their programs and will need additional funding in the years to come.

This proposal did not pass the Senate last year, but it is a fair approach to redistributing S-CHIP funds. Unfortunately, I cannot support including this policy at this time. The omnibus is a poor vehicle for this necessary maintenance.

I am sympathetic to the intent of this policy, although this is neither the time nor the place to address this issue. The Senate and the House have an agreement with the administration to keep the omnibus appropriations bill under $750 billion. The S-CHIP policy costs over $1.2 billion in budget authority in 2003. An amendment of this nature would break that agreement and that is simply not acceptable. I appreciate the willingness of Senators Snowe, Chafee, and Rockefeller to accept this reality.

I assure my colleagues that I will work with them in the near future to update the S-CHIP redistribution policy in the near future as chairman of the Finance Committee. It is my understanding that Senator Nickles, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is also interested in a regular order approach and that he is interested in putting money aside in the budget to address the needs of S-CHIP.

With this in mind, I believe the most appropriate way to address this issue is to work with the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, to secure sufficient funding for this bipartisan S-CHIP proposal and then to address it in the Finance Committee. I will also continue my work with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin, so the Senate and the House can move forward in a coordinated fashion.

I assure my colleagues that I will work with them once the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2004 has been adopted to move legislation quickly through the Finance Committee that reflects a bipartisan, bicameral 2-year agreement on S-CHIP.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Biden today in introducing the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. This is a continuation of an effort he and I spearheaded last year to update our laws so they can continue to be used effectively against drug dealers who are pushing drugs on our kids.

As drug dealers discover new drugs and new methods of pushing their poison, we must make sure our legal system is adequately structured to react appropriately. I believe this legislation does that.

Our proposal will modify the existing crack house statute so that its jurisdiction over temporary events, such as raves, would be more clear. And although this legislation grew out of the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. Illegal drug use in any location should not be tolerated, regardless of what cover activity is created to hide the transaction.

This said, I want to emphasize that our legislation should in no way hamper the activities of legitimate event promoters. I realize that drugs are not widely available at all raves or other events open to the public. And I know that my colleagues Senator Biden is just as aware as I am that drug use occurs at events without the knowledge or endorsement of the event promoters. This legislation should not affect the activities of legitimate event promoters. In no way is our bill aimed at stifling any type of music or public expression, it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids.

The sale of illicit narcotics, whether on a street corner here in Washington, D.C., or a warehouse in Des Moines, IA, must be confronted and halted wherever possible. One of the new, ``trendy'' illicit narcotics is Ecstasy--an especially popular club drug that is all too often being sold at all-night dance parties, or raves. Ecstasy is an illegal drug that has extremely dangerous side effects.

In general, Ecstasy raises the heart rate to dangerous levels, and in some cases the heart will stop. It also causes severe dehydration, a condition that is exacerbated by the high levels of physical exertion that happens at raves. Users must constantly drink water in an attempt to cool off--a fact that some unscrupulous event promoters take advantage of by charging exorbitant fees for bottles of water, after cutting off water to drinking fountains and rest room sinks.

Too often, Ecstasy users collapse and die because their bodies overheat. And even those who survive the short-term effects of Ecstasy use can look forward to long-term problems such as depression, paranoia, and confusion, as scientists have learned that Ecstasy causes irreversible changes to the brain.

Many young people perceive Ecstasy as harmless and it is wrongly termed a recreational or ``kid-friendly'' drug. This illegal substance does real damage to real lives. Although targeted at teenagers and young adults, its use has spread to the middle-aged population and rural areas, including my own State of Iowa. Ninety percent of all drug treatment and law enforcement experts say that Ecstasy is readily accessible in this country. We cannot continue to allow easy access to this drug or ignore the consequences of its use.

That is why I believe it is important that we update the laws that have been effectively used to shut down crack houses so they can go after temporary events used as a cover to sell drugs. It is important to remember that this legislation builds upon an existing statute, with existing case law, and therefore existing standards of how it is to be implemented. The existing statute has been used to go after landlords who ``knowingly and intentionally'' let their property be used for illegal narcotics activities. It has not, nor should it be used, to take action against every landlord of every property where drug activity takes place.

Similarly, the expansion of authorities created by this legislation is designed to target promoters who ``knowingly and intentionally'' allow drug use at their events. This is a high standard that should protect event promoters from casual application of this statute. Clearly, taking steps to reduce or eliminate drug use at an event, such as the posting of signs or through zero-tolerance instructions to security personnel, are not actions that would be taken by someone who would intentionally allow drug use to occur at an event.

I believe an event promoter does have some responsibility for what goes on at an event that they create. Particularly if they knowingly create an event for the purpose of buying, using, keeping, or selling drugs. While not common, there have been court cases which have been able to reach this high standard of proof. Using 21 U.S.C. 856, more popularly known as the ``crack house'' statute, law enforcement has arrested drug dealers who hosted raves and other dance events as a cover to push their product. Four cases have been brought to Federal court, with mixed results--mostly because the applicability of current law is unclear.

This legislation is an important step, but a careful one. Our future rests with the young people of this great nation and America is at risk. Ecstasy has shown itself to be a formidable threat and we must confront it on all fronts, not only through law enforcement but education and treatment as well. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation, and help us work towards its quick passage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Biden today in introducing the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. This is a continuation of an effort he and I spearheaded last year to update our laws so they can continue to be used effectively against drug dealers who are pushing drugs on our kids.

As drug dealers discover new drugs and new methods of pushing their poison, we must make sure our legal system is adequately structured to react appropriately. I believe this legislation does that.

Our proposal will modify the existing crack house statute so that its jurisdiction over temporary events, such as raves, would be more clear. And although this legislation grew out of the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. Illegal drug use in any location should not be tolerated, regardless of what cover activity is created to hide the transaction.

This said, I want to emphasize that our legislation should in no way hamper the activities of legitimate event promoters. I realize that drugs are not widely available at all raves or other events open to the public. And I know that my colleagues Senator Biden is just as aware as I am that drug use occurs at events without the knowledge or endorsement of the event promoters. This legislation should not affect the activities of legitimate event promoters. In no way is our bill aimed at stifling any type of music or public expression, it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids.

The sale of illicit narcotics, whether on a street corner here in Washington, D.C., or a warehouse in Des Moines, IA, must be confronted and halted wherever possible. One of the new, ``trendy'' illicit narcotics is Ecstasy--an especially popular club drug that is all too often being sold at all-night dance parties, or raves. Ecstasy is an illegal drug that has extremely dangerous side effects.

In general, Ecstasy raises the heart rate to dangerous levels, and in some cases the heart will stop. It also causes severe dehydration, a condition that is exacerbated by the high levels of physical exertion that happens at raves. Users must constantly drink water in an attempt to cool off--a fact that some unscrupulous event promoters take advantage of by charging exorbitant fees for bottles of water, after cutting off water to drinking fountains and rest room sinks.

Too often, Ecstasy users collapse and die because their bodies overheat. And even those who survive the short-term effects of Ecstasy use can look forward to long-term problems such as depression, paranoia, and confusion, as scientists have learned that Ecstasy causes irreversible changes to the brain.

Many young people perceive Ecstasy as harmless and it is wrongly termed a recreational or ``kid-friendly'' drug. This illegal substance does real damage to real lives. Although targeted at teenagers and young adults, its use has spread to the middle-aged population and rural areas, including my own State of Iowa. Ninety percent of all drug treatment and law enforcement experts say that Ecstasy is readily accessible in this country. We cannot continue to allow easy access to this drug or ignore the consequences of its use.

That is why I believe it is important that we update the laws that have been effectively used to shut down crack houses so they can go after temporary events used as a cover to sell drugs. It is important to remember that this legislation builds upon an existing statute, with existing case law, and therefore existing standards of how it is to be implemented. The existing statute has been used to go after landlords who ``knowingly and intentionally'' let their property be used for illegal narcotics activities. It has not, nor should it be used, to take action against every landlord of every property where drug activity takes place.

Similarly, the expansion of authorities created by this legislation is designed to target promoters who ``knowingly and intentionally'' allow drug use at their events. This is a high standard that should protect event promoters from casual application of this statute. Clearly, taking steps to reduce or eliminate drug use at an event, such as the posting of signs or through zero-tolerance instructions to security personnel, are not actions that would be taken by someone who would intentionally allow drug use to occur at an event.

I believe an event promoter does have some responsibility for what goes on at an event that they create. Particularly if they knowingly create an event for the purpose of buying, using, keeping, or selling drugs. While not common, there have been court cases which have been able to reach this high standard of proof. Using 21 U.S.C. 856, more popularly known as the ``crack house'' statute, law enforcement has arrested drug dealers who hosted raves and other dance events as a cover to push their product. Four cases have been brought to Federal court, with mixed results--mostly because the applicability of current law is unclear.

This legislation is an important step, but a careful one. Our future rests with the young people of this great nation and America is at risk. Ecstasy has shown itself to be a formidable threat and we must confront it on all fronts, not only through law enforcement but education and treatment as well. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation, and help us work towards its quick passage.

Mr. President, I would like to join in the colloquy that has just been held because it comes under the jurisdiction--or at least some of it--of the committee that I chair.

I thank my colleagues for their attention to this important children's health care policy. They are correct that something must be done to address the funds that have and will revert to the treasury in the near future. They are also correct to note the constraints within the omnibus bill. I strongly support the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It is a program that provides heath care for over 16,000 low-income children in my state.

Senators Chafee, Snowe, and Rockefeller are looking to address a necessary maintenance issue within S-CHIP. As Senator Snowe noted, I worked very closely with Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, Senator Rockefeller, Chairman Tauzin, and Representative Dingell on a bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would have addressed expired S-CHIP funds.

The proposal reflected a balanced approach to redistributing S-CHIP funding taking into account that some states are spending through their existing allotments and other states are ramping up their programs and will need additional funding in the years to come.

This proposal did not pass the Senate last year, but it is a fair approach to redistributing S-CHIP funds. Unfortunately, I can not support including this policy at this time. The omnibus bill is a poor vehicle for this necessary maintenance.

I am sympathetic to the intent of this policy, although this is neither the time nor the place to address this issue. The Senate and the House have an agreement with the Administration to keep the omnibus appropriation bill under $750 billion. The S-CHIP policy costs over $1.2 billion in budget authority in 2003. An amendment of this nature would break that agreement and that is simply not acceptable. I appreciate Senator Snowe's, Chafee's and Rockefeller's willingness to accept this reality.

I assure my colleagues that I will work with them in the near future to update the S-CHIP redistribution policy in the near future as chairman of the Finance Committee. It my understanding that Senator Nickles, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is also interested in a regular order approach and that he is interested in putting money aside in the budget to address the needs of S-CHIP.

With this in mind, I believe the most appropriate way to address this issue is to work with the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, to secure sufficient funding for this bipartisan S-CHIP proposal and then to address it in the Finance Committee. I will also continue my work with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin, so the Senate and the House can move forward in a coordinated fashion.

I assure my colleagues that I will work with them once the budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 has been adopted to move legislation quickly through the Finance Committee that reflects a bipartisan, bicameral two-year agreement on S-CHIP.

Yes.

Mr. President, if there is a question before the Senate, I do not want to interfere.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, and then I will yield Senator Kyl 5 minutes.

I want my colleagues to reject this amendment. I, like the Senator from New York, agree we need to strengthen and improve Medicare, and I proved that last year with a bipartisan bill on Medicare give-back. Working with Senator Baucus, we put together a $43 billion bill that would have improved health care in rural America and address many of the issues the Senator from New York wants to address as well.

While I support addressing the needs of all Medicare providers, I cannot support doing it in this way in the amendment being proposed. We have to do this in a comprehensive, studied, and targeted way.

Everyone agrees that Medicare needs improving, and most of us would agree that Medicare payments need to be updated, but we do not have agreement on how that should be done. Some, including this Senator, believe that at least some providers need more money, but other Senators who might disagree with me say that providers are doing well and that their funding should be reduced.

Even very recently, we had the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Committee last week make recommendations to Congress calling for reductions in some provider payments.

I do not take these recommendations as gospel truth, and they are not going to govern my decisionmaking, but I believe we have a responsibility in the Finance Committee to examine all of these issues closely. More important, the only way we get anything done in this body is by a bipartisan approach. So we have to build a consensus before we pass a one-size-fits-all policy such as the one before us. I believe the place to do that is the Finance Committee. We will do our homework. That means listening to providers, beneficiaries, and experts to craft payment adjustments that ensure access to services for Medicare beneficiaries.

I will certainly ensure that the Finance Committee consider my colleague's proposal. The two Medicare provisions in this omnibus bill are limited in time and duration. They target the cases with the most widespread support--physicians as well as rural and small urban hospitals--while we can do it. These two items stand the best chance of being preserved through conference and in negotiation with the White House.

If this bill turns into some sort of Christmas tree for additional health care provisions, then the reality is that these provisions are likely to come out of the bill entirely, and we will not be helping anybody. Consequently, particularly doctors are going to have to wait until spring or summer. Let's not let the best be the enemy of the good.

That is why I suggest we keep with the compromise in the bill and expect our committee, which we will do, to bring forth recommendations.

I yield the floor.

How much time do I have remaining?

Okay. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona and then 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

The Senator from Arizona used his 5 minutes, and I have yielded 3\1/2\ minutes to Senator Santorum.

Of my time?

If it is not more than 30 seconds and we can get the show on the road, let's do it.

I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would like to have a word with the Chairman concerning funding for the war on methamphetamine production and trafficking. I appreciate your accepting my amendment to allocate $10 million for the continuance of methamphetamine reduction efforts. I understand that these funds will come from the $50 million in the bill designated for policing initiatives to combat methamphetamine production and trafficking and to enhance policing initiatives in drug hot spots. It is also my understanding that this $10 million will be used to combat meth production and distribution in the State of Iowa. This money will go to the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy to fund programs that I consider essential to treating and controlling the drug problem in the State of Iowa. These programs would include a Drug-Free Workplace Coordinator to help educate employees to deter and detect use, and put procedures in place to take corrective action if there is a workplace-related substance abuse problem; various community prevention, intervention, and treatment programs; and for a Meth Safe House in Iowa to provide a safe and drug-free environment for recovering meth addicts, and help push them away from the negative influences that previously fed their addiction.