Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time is available?

If the Chair would notify me when I have used 8 minutes please.

Mr. President, the primary topic I will talk about today is the markup tomorrow with regard to chemical plant security. The Environmental and Public Works Committee will take up legislation dealing with one of the most serious security threats to our Nation. According to statistics by EPA, there are 123 facilities in 24 States where a chemical release could expose more than a million people to a toxic chemical, and nearly 3,000 facilities spread across 49 States where 10,000 people could be exposed.

This is a serious issue that can create real health and safety hazards to our community, particularly in a time when we know we are under potential terrorist attack at home.

This is an issue that has been identified by the Department of Homeland Security and by almost every security expert as one of the most serious exposures we have in our infrastructure. When we go from code yellow to code orange, chemical plants are identified as part of the infrastructure that needs to be hardened in those events.

It seems to me we need to be addressing this matter. I am pleased Chairman Inhofe, EPW, and others are taking up this challenge to address this issue. I have been pushing on this for the last 2 years, actually got a vote in EPW on a bill that had 100-percent support of everyone in the committee a year and a half ago. Until the lobbyists went to work, we thought we had a real response that would work on a bipartisan basis. We have adjusted that bill, made changes, offered economic incentives to the industry to move forward. We have a roadblock to dealing with one of the most important risks we have in our infrastructure.

I commend Senator Inhofe and other members of the committee for addressing the issue. Unfortunately, I do not think the bill meets the needs of what we are trying to accomplish. Constructively, the committee has moved to require chemical plants to develop security plans and submit them to the Department of Homeland Security. The administration had not asked them to submit the plans. Unfortunately, DHS will not have to review them according to the bill, as I understand it. They would not have to evaluate them. They would not have to approve them. They would not have to do anything to assure the public is protected. That is a problem. The Department could simply let the plans sit on a back shelf and let dust accumulate.

Furthermore, it would tighten all 15,000 chemical plants without any kind of prioritization in the country, which is also a big mistake. We need to make sure these plans are actually reviewed, that there is real accountability. That is my major concern with the mark that will be coming through tomorrow.

There are other problems also. It is not strong enough on one of the fundamental issues with regard to my original bill, inherently safer technologies. There are alternative approaches. We cannot build fences high enough and put enough guards to make sure that every possible terrorist attack or criminal attack on a chemical plant could actually be accomplished. We need to make sure if there is a successful attack, that it has minimal exposure. We ought to do everything we can to have inherently safer technologies within economic feasibility. That is practical.

While there is a step forward in recognizing this is immediate, and there is necessary evaluation that is being asked for from chemical producers, I don't think we are going far enough in requiring the use of inherently safer approaches if they are economically feasible and practical. That should be a requirement of the law. This is one of the major issues I have.

Finally, there is a gaping loophole in this legislation as I understand it, and I hope others will challenge it tomorrow in the committee mark. I certainly will if it gets to the floor; that is, if the chemical industry or any particular private sector approach has a substantially equivalent standard as opposed to what DHS puts out as a standard, that will be acceptable to the Department of Homeland Security. They have already embraced a private standard that they have suggested is very good. It does not include inherently safer technologies. It does not require accountability in that other standard being established by the chemical industry.

As a consequence, we are actually moving back to a completely voluntary approach. I don't get it. I don't understand it. I don't think it is the direction we should be taking. It is a loophole that erases all the good things that have been included in the mark if you go to a substantially equivalent standard.

There are serious shortfalls in the mark, at least as I understand them. I hope they will be debated seriously in the committee tomorrow. I want folks to know this is not an issue that will die down. We have eight of these plants in New Jersey. They are located right smack dab in the middle of some of the highest concentrations of population in our country. We have had accidents over the years in my community that have taken lives in the community and evacuated the surrounding citizens. This is a vulnerability that everyone acknowledges is real, it is present, and it needs to be addressed. That is why I feel so strongly about it.

This should be a bipartisan issue. I am glad Senator Chafee has been working to push the issue in committee this year. But we need to move it.

By the way, just finally, there is something I have a problem with also in the bill in the sense that if somebody turns loose one of the plans that is filed by an individual plant, that will be subject to criminal penalties. But if a chemical producer does not comply with the standards they set down in the plan, that is a civil liability. It sounds right to me there would be criminal penalties for people who leak information into the public that could be dangerous and used against the public. But it strikes me as unequal treatment; it sort of does not jibe with regard to parity that those people who are actually not complying with the law are going to be treated on a civil basis.

Where is the parity? It seems to me we are listening to industry more than we are listening to the needs of the American people. If September 11 taught us anything, it is that America can no longer avoid thinking about the unthinkable. We have to face up to the Nation's most serious vulnerabilities. We have to focus on them. And we have to confront them head on.

That is why I have long advocated the adoption of legislation to create meaningful and enforceable security standards for chemical facilities. Under my proposal, the Federal Government would identify ``high priority'' chemical facilities--those that potentially put a larger number of people at risk. It then would require those facilities to assess their vulnerabilities and implement plans to improve security. These plans would have to be submitted for review. And changes could be required if deficiencies are identified.

In the last Congress, my legislation was approved on a unanimous vote by the Environment and Public Works Committee. But after the committee acted, the bill was killed after some in industry lobbied against it.

This year, the committee apparently is planning to take up a different bill. And let me say, first, that I commend the chairman, Senator Inhofe, and the other members of the committee for addressing this matter. Unfortunately, while I no longer serve on the committee and have not been privy to all of its discussions, it appears that the bill currently under discussion has at least one glaring weakness.

The committee is considering requiring chemical plants to develop security plans and submit them to the Department of Homeland Security. But--and here is the problem--the bill doesn't require the Department to do anything with them. DHS wouldn't have to review them. It wouldn't have to evaluate them. It wouldn't have to approve them. It wouldn't have to audit them. It wouldn't have to do a thing to ensure the public is protected. Instead, the Department could simply let these plans sit on a back room shelf, collecting dust.

Some might ask: Would the Bush administration really do that? Would it really just let security plans sit on the shelf, and not even review them? Well, for those who think that is unrealistic, consider this: The administration's own plan didn't require companies to submit their security plans to the Government at all. And that would certainly be the preference of many of their friends in industry. So, yes, there is every reason to be concerned that, unless forced to do so, the administration will take a hands-off approach and simply ignore these security plans. And the end result would be a lax security system with no real teeth.

Beyond the failure of the bill to require review of security plans, the legislation under development in the Environment and Public Works Committee has other problems, as well. First, it fails to require industry to adopt alternative technologies--such as the use of safer chemicals--if those alternative approaches are cost effective. I think that is a mistake. After all, no matter how many security personnel are hired, and no matter how high a security fence, no security scheme is impenetrable. And we need to prepare for the possibility that terrorists will be successful in attacking a chemical plant and releasing toxic materials. That is why it is important for facilities to implement inherently safer technologies, where practicable, to reduce the resulting death and destruction in the event of an attack.

Thanks largely to the involvement of Senator Chafee, the Inhofe mark has made real progress in this area. As I understand it, the chairman has agreed to require detailed consideration of safer technologies. And I think that's a step forward. In my view, though, it still falls short. Given the number of lives that are at stake, I think companies should be required to implement safer technologies if they are cost effective.

Unfortunately, the requirement that facility owners consider safer technologies could be undermined because of a huge loophole in the bill that may allow industry to sidestep many Federal security requirements. Under this provision, DHS's security standards could be waived for any facility that participates in an industry program that is, ``substantially equivalent.''

At first, that may sound like a reasonable approach. But the term ``substantially equivalent'' is so broad that it could well allow the Bush administration to simply rubberstamp an existing chemical industry program that is grossly inadequate. For example, the chemical industry's program has no requirement that industry evaluate safer technologies in any detail. Yet it seems very possible that the Bush administration would exploit the bill's loophole to rubberstamp this industry program, and exempt participating plants even from the bill's limited requirement for consideration of safer alternative approaches.

The last point I want to make about the bill apparently being discussed relates to enforcement. Under the legislation, as I understand it, if a Government employee wrongly discloses a chemical plant's security plan, that employee would be subject to criminal penalties. That sounds right. Yet, if the owner of a chemical plant knowingly violated Federal security standards, the only remedies prescribed in the legislation are civil. That sounds wrong.

That disparate treatment of Government employees and chemical industry officials doesn't seem fair. Nor does it seem appropriate, given the nature of the threats are now confronting. After all, criminal penalties are available for violations of certain anti- pollution laws. Surely violations of a new chemical plant security law--a law designed to save lives--should be punished with an equal degree of severity.

Before I conclude, let me step back for a moment and again remind my colleagues that should terrorists attack one of 123 chemical facilities around the country, at least a million American lives could be at risk. These are real people--mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers--all innocent Americans who have no choice but to rely on their Government leaders to protect them.

We, in Congress, have an obligation to do everything we can to protect these Americans, and to prevent what really could be a tragedy of catastrophic proportions. We should not be satisfied with a largely toothless plan that leaves industry free to design security plans to their own choosing, with no requirement that those plans even be reviewed. That is just unacceptable.

I hope my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee will reconsider this approach. And, if not, I intend to pursue this matter aggressively if, and when, the bill ever reaches the Senator floor.

We need to address chemical plant security. But we need to do so in an enforceable way that will really make Americans safer. The lives of many thousands of Americans may well hang in the balance.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Lastly, Mr. President, I want to say something about the bill that we are going to be debating in the next hour or so, class action fairness.

I am not a lawyer, so I am not as sharp on all of the terminology and all the other issues, but it is very clear to me that we are taking the small ``d'' democratic processes out of access to our courts with the legislation that is underlying the motion to proceed.

I think it is absolutely essential that we maintain the checks and balances in our present Federal constitutional system. That does not mean there are not abuses, and it does not mean we should not move to correct some of the things with regard to venue shopping, with regard to coupon procedures, which, by the way, are not even dealt with in this bill.

I think this is a radical move. I am very much in favor of Senator Breaux's proposal, a modified approach, that will deal with some of the flaws. His bill would preserve state class actions while sending truly national class actions to Federal court. At the same time, it addresses the problem of abusive coupon settlements, which is something that the bill before us does not touch.

But instead, at a time when we are fighting a war in Iraq, when we are fighting a war on terrorism worldwide, and we are facing historic budget deficits and job losses, we are debating a radical bill that would legislate away the legal rights of American families. This legislation would dramatically alter the constitutional distribution of judicial power. It would: remove most State law class actions into Federal court; clog the Federal courts with State law cases and make it more difficult to have Federal civil rights cases heard; deter people from bringing class actions; and impose barriers and burdenson settlement of class actions.

I am not a lawyer, but I can appreciate that class actions are critical tools for ordinary citizens who want to hold wrongdoers accountable. For many people who can't afford lawyers, class actions are the only way to vindicate their rights. For consumers victimized by negligence, fraud and reckless misconduct, it is their opportunity to exercise their democratic rights.

Simply put, class actions promote efficiency and level the playing field,

giving persons who are injured in the same manner by the same defendants the ability to hold the wrongdoers accountable. This sort of collective action gives ordinary citizens the ability to level the playing field with powerful defendants. For example, by allowing groups of citizens to band together and demand a safe and healthy environment, class actions often result in courts requiring companies to stop poisoning our neighborhoods and our water. Without the class action tool, it would often be impossible for ordinary citizens to take on powerful defendants when they damage the environment and cause illness.

Class actions are also essential to the enforcement of our Nation's civil rights law. They are, in fact, often the only means by which individuals can challenge and obtain relief from systemic discrimination. Class actions have on important occasions served as a primary vehicle for civil rights litigation seeking broad equitable relief.

In far too many cases, justice delayed is justice denied. No one recognizes this better than the manufacturers and the polluters, who would prefer these cases to be in the Federal court system, where there is a tremendous judicial backlog.

Overloading these courts will inevitably delay the resolution of all cases in Federal courts. Indeed, the Judicial Conference of the United States, headed by Chief Justice Rehnquist--not someone with whom I often agree, I might add--has told Congress that the Federal courts are not equipped to handle all these cases. That is why he opposes this bill.

The delays caused by clogged courts would be particularly damaging in cases where civil rights plaintiffs are seeking immediate injunctive relief to prohibit discriminatory practices--such as racial profiling or predatory lending.

In addition to the above concerns, I was very distressed to learn that the manager's amendment slips mass torts back into this bill, greatly expanding the scope of the bill. This change makes the bill even more extreme, and, by federalizing individual tort suits, will flood the Federal courts with cases involving questions of State tort law.

By sending a majority of mass tort actions--cases involving products liability and environmental damages--to Federal courts, the bill would completely jam the already overburdened Federal courts and delay justice to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people injured by defective drugs and medical devices, like the Dalkon Shield, and environmental contamination.

Class actions are an important tool for ordinary citizens to level the playing field and vindicate their rights. They promote safety, protect our health and environment, and are essential to enforcement of our civil rights laws.

The legislation before us would impose new and substantial limitations on access to the courts for victims of discrimination, mass torts, consumer fraud, and other misconduct. This is not a balanced, fair approach. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment is based on legislation I introduced earlier this year, S. 1327, which proposed an innovative way to improve anti-spam laws. The amendment would move us toward a system that creates an incentive for individuals to assist the FTC in identifying spammers, by giving them a portion of

any collections resulting from information provided to the Commission. It also calls for the FTC to set forth a plan for requiring all unsolicited commercial e-mail to be identifiable from its subject line by means of the use of the characters ``ADV'' or other comparable identifier. If the Commission recommends against such a plan, it will have to provide Congress with a full explanation.

The fundamental problem in dealing with spam is enforcement. It is one thing to propose rules governing e-mails. But it is often hard for Government officials to track down those who violate those standards. Spammers typically use multiple e-mail addresses or disguised routing information to avoid being identified. As a result, finding spammers can take not just real expertise, but persistence, time, energy and commitment.

The concept of requiring the FTC to pay a bounty to those who track down spammers actually isn't my idea. It was originally proposed by one of the leading thinkers about the Internet, Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School, and introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. The proposal would invite anyone who uses the Internet to hunt down these law-violating spammers. These would include people who send fraudulent e-mail, e-mail with inaccurate routing information, and e-mail that fails to include the required opt- out. The FTC would then fine the spammer and pay a portion of that fine as a reward to the person who provided the information.

Creating incentives for private individuals to help track down spammers is likely to substantially strengthen the enforcement of anti- spam laws. It promises to create an army of computer geeks who seek out spammers for their and the public's--benefit. Those who share my belief in the efficiency of entrepreneurial capitalism should understand the potential value of this free market approach to enforcement.

At the request of the managers, I have modified the original proposal I introduced earlier this year. This amendment calls for the FTC to develop a plan to implement a bounty hunting system and issue a report to the Congress within 9 months of enactment. The Commission then could implement the plan, but not before 12 months after the date of enactment. While this doesn't go quite as far as I proposed originally, I think it is an important step forward. And I am pleased that the managers have committed to me that they will secure inclusion of the proposal in any related conference report.

I also am pleased that the amendment calls on the FTC to investigate another proposal that I actually believe is very important in the reduction of spam, and that also was included in legislation I introduced earlier this year: a requirement that the subject line of unsolicited commercial e-mails include a so-called ``ADV'' label. In my view, such an approach would give individuals and ISPs considerable power to keep spam out of their in boxes, and I am hopeful that we will return to this proposal before long. In fact, I understand that some members of the House of Representatives will be pursuing this on a related bill, and I hope there will be a way to include an enforceable labeling requirement in a conference report on anti-spam legislation.

Mr. President, today, an icon of Puerto Rico has passed away. I want to express my sadness at the passing of Luis Ferre, former Governor of Puerto Rico, only 4 months shy of his 100th birthday.

Luis Ferre was a great leader, businessman, and a faithful believer in social justice. Born February 17, 1904, in the city of Ponce, Puerto Rico, Ferre was a member of the Assembly that produced Puerto Rico's 1952 Constitution. In 1969, he became the Island's third Governor under its new constitution. He established the Luis A. Ferre Foundation to support the development of the arts and the culture, and in 1991, received the Medal of Liberty from President George H.W. Bush.

I extend my condolences to the Ferre family and to all Puerto Ricans, on the Island and here on the mainland.

I would presume 10 minutes.

Reserving the right to object, I could not hear.

I know we will have some Members who want to speak. I wonder, could we increase the 10-minute agreement to 15 on my side?

If the distinguished Senator from Kansas will recall, I gave a presentation last night of about 30 minutes on this subject. I will be happy to respond to different elements. I thought I would hear what the arguments were and then make a response. If you would like to see it all now, I would be more than happy to do some responding, but I would like to hear the overall argument.

Mr. President, I would still like to hear the full development

of the argument. I understand very clearly the comment that the committee is in the midst of its work. I appreciate and believe very strongly in the distinguished Senators from Kansas and West Virginia about this process. But to my knowledge, there have not been public hearings even on things that can be talked about in public. I am very clear in my amendment that the Congress underscores its commitment to and support for ongoing congressional views regarding the collection and analysis of intelligence related to Iraq.

This is not an attempt to usurp. It is trying to bring additional attention to a very difficult issue. As I said last night, there has been since the last time we debated this on the floor a long litany of weaknesses, questions about the development and use of intelligence.

It is in that vein that I will be speaking, as I did last night. I would like to hear why it is so important only to do it in one vein when we certainly thought it was important to look at the intelligence operations failures.

If the Senator from Kansas will yield a couple of minutes to my side back.

Mr. President, I made a few opening remarks last night. I want to start by saying we are all looking for the same objective; that is, to get to the bottom of understanding the development and the use of intelligence that was the basis on which we entered into a conflict during which we have now lost 335 men, and literally thousands have been injured. There is a reason to understand whether the development and use of that intelligence was appropriately handled.

The commission I am suggesting, as I read before, underscores its commitment to the process the distinguished Senator from Kansas outlined. It is not to usurp; it is to make sure everyone will have the view that it is bipartisan, that it is independent of any kind of political process. It is to build upon what is going on in the intelligence committees, not to usurp it.

There is no intention to undermine the credibility of the individuals who are involved in it. I will say that 10 people, as staff, working on and reviewing the intelligence that involves 250,000 troops, where there has been untold loss of life, and the arguments that were made preceding, do not match the reality of what we are finding afterwards-- whether it is in regard to aluminum tubes and centrifuges, yellow cake from Niger, connections of al-Qaida and Iraq, claims about mobile laboratories, missile technology, and now the Kay report which, at least at this stage--and it is an interim report--has disputes about almost all elements that were used as the basic topic. I think the public has a reason to be concerned.

I have other issues when I look at how the 9/11 Commission has actually

been able to operate. I don't know whether the same kind of concerns are operating with regard to the Intelligence Committee. I know the 9/ 11 Commission chairman, who is a respected New Jersey former Governor, a person of great esteem, a Republican, is saying there is difficulty in getting the information to be able to look at the events that led up to 9/11. As a matter of fact, subpoenas have had to be issued to get the records of the FAA. It strikes me when you add the difficulty the 9/11 Commission has had in getting the information--and we don't know what has gone on in the Intelligence Committee. You look at the fact that senior administration officials have been willing to out a CIA agent, to discredit somebody who actually comes into the public to talk about it. I think the public has a reason to want to have independence in making an assessment of whether the intelligence has been used properly and the development and the use of it have been done properly. That is where my interest is.

I know the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia want to get to the bottom of this just as much as this Senator does, as much as this body ought to want to; and the people of America ought to have an understanding that we are not developing intelligence for purposes of winning political arguments or winning arguments on the floor of the Senate but to form what is the proper policy. To me, I think we ought to do everything possible to make sure intelligence is properly developed. That is what I have been trying to suggest. I did it earlier in July and I am doing it again.

I believe very strongly that this is an important issue. There are a whole series of issues about which there are questions. There are very visible examples of challenges to the facts by people who were either close or near to the effort. I will go ahead and say it. On Wednesday night, there was a follow-through by an individual who was in a senior position in the State Department, and I will quote how he felt the intelligence was framed. ``Plenty of blame to go around,'' according to Mr. Thielmann, who, by the way, was a senior officer in the State Department, a 25-year veteran in the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs.

He said:

The main problem is senior administration officials have

what I call a ``faith-based approach to intelligence.'' They

knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were

really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing

information the intelligence community would produce. I would

assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of

the blame to senior administration officials.

I just believe there are enough questions in the public's mind, and they grow incrementally all the time, that it is time for us to have an independent view of this matter. That in no way is undermining what is going on in the Intelligence Committee. It builds on it. That is the purpose. That is certainly where I come from. That is the argument I have tried to make and I will continue to make.

Again, I have great respect for the leadership on the Intelligence Committee. I am sure there is a good-faith willingness to try to get to the bottom of this situation. I think this is very important.

We have other questions: North Korea, Iran, and the terrorist networks that exist across this globe. If we cannot trust our intelligence, then we are going to have a hard time making fundamental decisions in this Chamber, and the American people are going to have a hard time judging whether we made the right decisions and whether we are working in their best interests.

I yield to my distinguished colleague from New York.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

I yield 1 minute to my friend.

The unanimous consent request was withdrawn, if I am not mistaken, Mr. President.

I have no objection.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Illinois and a member of the Intelligence Committee.

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, the goal of this commission is not about blame. This is about trying to find out what went wrong and why we had the kind of development and use of intelligence that is so patently inconsistent with the facts that seem to be coming out.

Most of us do not sit inside those quiet halls of the Intelligence Committee. The public does not, but they are seeing fact after fact refuted. They see CIA agents outed. They see people who were a part of the intelligence community complaining. One of the ways to restore the confidence in something that is absolutely necessary to be able to carry out the war on terrorism, which we all believe in and want to support, is to have confidence in our intelligence community. It is not to undermine the Intelligence Committee.

This amendment underscores a commitment to support the ongoing congressional reviews regarding the collection and analysis of data. It is not to undermine it. We all have tremendous faith in the chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, but this is to restore the confidence of the American people, to restore the confidence of all of us who have to use the information to draw the conclusions that are necessary as to whether we are going to put men and women in harm's way.

I could not agree more with the Senator from West Virginia. Intelligence and military operations now are absolutely intimately linked. They are one in the same. If it is faith based, then we will reach the wrong conclusions. I hope the Senate will support my amendment.

Mr. President, after giving this matter considerable thought, I have decided to vote for this emergency supplemental. I do so with great reluctance, and I wanted to take a few moments to explain how I came to this decision.

Let me begin by saying that I voted in October 2002 against the resolution to give the President broad authority to go to war in Iraq. At the time, I believed the administration had failed to make the case that Iraq posed an imminent threat; had failed to develop a meaningful international coalition with whom to share the burdens and costs of war; had failed to prioritize the more serious risks of global terrorists, North Korea and Iran; had failed to develop a plan for reconstruction once the war was over, and had failed to be straight with the American people about why we were going to war in the first place.

Looking back at my decision, I am more convinced than ever that it was correct. It has become increasingly clear that numerous administration claims about the Iraqi threat were either exaggerated or simply wrong. With little international support, America has been left to fight the war and rebuild Iraq largely on our own. America is shouldering 90 percent of the costs, providing 90 percent of the troops, and tragically bearing 95 percent of the casualties on the ground. In that context, the administration still has not put forward a meaningful, long-term plan to rebuild Iraq and move toward its self- governance. And, after all this time, the Bush administration still has not developed a consistent position about the rationale for this war. In fact, each passing day leads me to be more certain that the development and use of intelligence pre-conflict has been misused for political justification, not informed policy formulation. This is why I continue to call for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence related to Iraq.

Having said all that, the decision to go to war has long since passed. And the question before the Senate today is how to move forward from here.

Needless to say, all of us are glad that Saddam Hussein, a tyrannical dictator, is out of power. However, notwithstanding Saddam's departure, Iraq is now a country with very serious problems. Violence against American soldiers, and crime generally, plagues the country. Iraq's economy is struggling. Many Iraqis have lost jobs and are having a hard time making ends meet. And we have made very little progress in shifting power from American forces to Iraqis themselves.

While I opposed this war, I also am convinced that we cannot and must not just walk away from Iraq at this point. Having invaded the country and created a situation with such problems, we have a responsibility to help address them. Even more fundamentally, helping Iraq get back on its feet is very much in the interests of the United States itself.

A strong, democratic Iraq could well help stabilize the entire Middle East region, even if this rationale is often overstated. By contrast, an unstable Iraq would not only destabilize the region, but is likely to further become a breeding ground for terrorists. Our own national security could be put at risk as a result, as it was by a festering Afghanistan.

So, I do think we need to address the problems facing Iraq in a meaningful way. And that, inevitably, is going to cost money. I voted for the first supplemental appropriations bill, which provided almost $80 billion for the effort. And I recognize that we are going to have to provide much more in future years.

At the same time, we in the Congress have a responsibility to do it right. And I have had serious concerns about the approach recommended by the administration.

Let me be clear: I fully support the funding requested for our military. But, as I see it, the administration's request for reconstruction funding was problematic in many ways.

First, the administration asked for a huge amount of money, but failed to identify a single penny in savings to offset that cost. Every dollar requested was a dollar to be added to the debt that our children, and their children, will be forced to bear long into the future. That, in my view, is fiscally irresponsible. And that is why I was

pleased to join Senator Biden in cosponsoring an amendment to fully offset the bill's cost by merely scaling back a portion of the large new tax breaks for those with taxable incomes well over $300,000. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated. So this bill now will be financed entirely by new debt. That is troubling to me.

I also am concerned about the sheer size of the administration's request. There is no need to appropriate $87 billion today. Funds already appropriated are sufficient to get us through the end of this year, and perhaps well beyond that. And we could sustain operations well into next year at a cost far below $87 billion. In my view, Congress would be wiser to keep the Iraq operation on a short leash, to help ensure greater accountability.

Along the same lines, I remain very concerned about the widespread reports of abuses in the management of the reconstruction effort. Huge contracts have been awarded to companies with close ties to administration officials, often without any bidding, and there already have been major cost overruns. Halliburton is the most notorious example. But there are others. I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment with Senator Lautenberg in an effort to address some of these abuses, and I am pleased that another amendment, proposed by Senator Collins, should help block future no-bid contracts. It is important that this type of protection be included in the final conference report.

Another concern I have had about the administration's $87 billion request is that it has not been matched by an effective or coherent outreach to bring other countries into the reconstruction process. So far, America has borne the overwhelming share of the costs of Iraq operations, and there is little evidence that this will change in the foreseeable future. While I was pleased that the U.N. approved a resolution yesterday that seemed to signal at least some outreach to the international community and some reciprocal accommodation, many of our allies who voted for the resolution, including France, Germany, and Russia, said that because the resolution did not go far enough, they will not provide any additional resources beyond those already pledged. As a result, American soldiers, and American taxpayers, will continue to bear a grossly disproportionate share of the operation's ongoing costs. That needs to change.

I believe it would be especially appropriate to ask the Iraqi people themselves to help share in the immediate costs of reconstruction, given that Iraq has vast oil reserves that, in the long term, will produce a huge stream of--revenue conservatively estimated $30- to $40 billion per year. As I see it, Iraq should securitize those revenues-- borrowing today, using future oil production as collateral. That securitization would help relieve the huge burden that the President is imposing on American taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the administration has been unyielding in its determination to simply hand out $20 billion in grants to Iraq, with no strings attached. As I see it, that is not a responsible way to manage the people's money. Nor is it an effective way to build long-term public support for the effort in Iraq. That is why I supported the Bayh amendment, which would turn half of the President's requested grants into loans that could be forgiven only if most of our allies agree to forgive debts incurred by the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Another concern of mine about the administration's request is that it failed to include sufficient mechanisms to ensure that reconstruction money is well spent, and well accounted for. The request asks Congress to give the executive branch largely unfettered discretion to shift funding approved by Congress for virtually any other purpose related to Iraq. That is why I was pleased to support amendments by Senator Byrd to eliminate these broad grants of authority, and to improve reporting requirements. I also supported the proposal to establish an inspector general to review related spending. These accountability measures must remain in the final conference report.

Yet better reporting and monitoring of spending in Iraq still does not address the more fundamental need for the administration to develop a long-term plan for operations in Iraq. Some will argue that the administration recently did submit a document to the Congress. But that document contains few details about the number of troops that will be needed, the cost of operations beyond this year, or the process by which power eventually will be shifted from the Coalition Provisional Authority to Iraqis. In my view, it is premature, at best, to appropriate such a massive amount of money until the administration produces a real long-term plan, and until that plan is subject to full public debate.

Having said that, I was pleased that the Senate did approve an amendment I drafted that will require the President to report every 90 days to the Congress about the long-term costs of Iraq operations, including military operations and reconstruction. This requirement would force the administration to think beyond the short-term. And it would give Congress the ability to plan long term. I hope the provision will be retained in the final version of the legislation.

Today I have detailed many of the problems associated with the administration's request for Iraq. Some of those problems have been addressed on the floor through the amendment process, and I am proud to have been part of those efforts. Yet serious shortcomings remain, and the bill before us remains substantially flawed.

At the end of the day, however, I have reluctantly concluded that this flawed bill, for all its problems, is better than nothing. There is no getting around the fact that our troops are in Iraq, and they must be supported. Similarly, we have to accept that, even if we shouldn't have begun this conflict, it is now our Nation's responsibility, and it is in our Nation's interest, to ensure that Iraq is rebuilt and emerges as a modern democratic state in the context of its own culture. We simply can't walk away from Iraq. And it is imperative that we demonstrate to the Iraqi people, and the international community, that Americans across the political spectrum are committed to this cause, and will fully support the Iraqi people as they move toward a free Iraq.

Reluctantly, after balancing these many considerations, I will cast my vote ``aye.''

Mr. President, in a few minutes I will be sending an amendment to the desk. This amendment calls for a bipartisan commission to study the development and use of intelligence related to Iraq. The mission would examine several key issues, including intelligence related to the following questions: Whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; whether Iraq had a link to al-Qaida; whether they attempted to acquire uranium in Africa; whether Iraq attempted to procure aluminum tubes for the development of nuclear weapons; whether Iraq possessed mobile laboratories for the production of weapons of mass destruction; whether Iraq possessed delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. President, this is the same amendment I offered in July. At that time, 45 Senators joined in the effort to establish an independent commission, reflecting broad public concern about the potential misuse of intelligence information leading up to the war.

Since then, however, additional troubling information has come out and these concerns have grown considerably in many people's minds. These concerns also have grown in the context of a larger intelligence shortcoming. One need only look at our failure thus far to find Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, to know that we have a long way to go to ensure that our intelligence capacities are as strong as they can be.

Time after time we have seen news stories about the administration's selective use of intelligence. Just last night, it was reported in a very troubling report on ``60 Minutes II'' that a former aide to Secretary of State Powell, Greg Thielmann, a senior career State Department official, made serious charges against the Secretary and the administration.

According to Mr. Thielmann, at the time of Secretary Powell's dramatic prewar presentation to the United Nations, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability was so weak that it posed no threat to the United States and little threat even to its immediate neighbors.

According to Mr. Thielmann, the administration adopted a ``faith- based approach to intelligence.'' He went on to say:

They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They

were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing

information the intelligence community would produce.

I have a full transcript of that interview which I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the administration's own search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has borne out the concerns that Mr. Thielmann and others held. After months of searching throughout the country, inspectors still have not found any evidence of such weapons. Several times the administration tried to claim that such evidence had, in fact, been found. But each time the claims have proven empty.

Recently heard again from David Kay, the man leading the CIA's search, that no chemical or biological weapons have been found to date and that Iraq's alleged nuclear program--the one that administration officials regularly raised when discussing the specter of a mushroom cloud--was only at ``the very most rudimentary stage.''

Let me give a couple examples of other claims that may have been intentionally misleading.

Last September, President Bush, surrounded by Members of Congress in the White House Rose Garden, claimed that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological strike within 45 minutes. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer cited this capability as the elusive ``smoking gun'' when it first came to light. Just 2 weeks later, Congress gave the President authority to go to war in Iraq. Yet this claim, the strongest evidence that Iraq represented an imminent threat, was dropped after the administration consulted with the CIA.

One has to ask: Why wasn't that consultation done with the CIA before making the claim and before Congress used the information in deliberations about the war resolution?

Similarly, President Bush and his top advisers repeatedly asserted Saddam and al-Qaida had a strong relationship. On September 25, 2002, President Bush said:

You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.

The implication was clear: There was a connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Only in the last month, after the Vice President repeated a similar assertion strongly disputed by the press and security analysts, did the President admit no such connection existed.

It is now clear that the administration has either been grossly wrong in its interpretation of intelligence or has intentionally misused the intelligence produced by the community.

When I offered this amendment in July, we were focused on a particular assertion that was made in the January State of the Union Address. That is:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein

recently sought significant quantities of uranium from

Africa.

At the time, there was a flurry of press interests in these words, though lately that seems to have largely been forgotten. The power of the President's allegation in those words is difficult to overstate. The Bush administration used legalistic language apparently intended to lead people to believe that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program. The President didn't say the British were claiming anything. He didn't say they alleged anything. He said they learned Saddam was attempting to buy uranium, implicitly accepting the charge as fact.

Although just 16 words, it was a powerful statement that resonated throughout the Nation and the world. It became a key argument in the case of immediate use of force in Iraq. Only after many months did we learn the statement was based on information that the CIA had repeatedly flagged the White House as inaccurate.

We didn't learn about this from the administration. We learned about it from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the media. Only later did the administration spokesperson and the President admit the statement was inappropriate for the State of the Union Address. The administration has yet to fully explain how it got there.

Instead, the administration has turned on those who have reported the truth. Recently, unknown senior administration officials publicly disclosed the name of a covert CIA operative apparently in retaliation for public statements by the operative's spouse that contradicted the administration's claims about Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger.

This wasn't just any operative. It was one of the CIA's elite intelligence officers, a nonofficial cover agent. Releasing the agent's name was a betrayal of intelligence apparatus for political purposes, which has likely harmed our national security and has only contributed to a sense among many that the administration is uninterested in protecting the integrity and objectivity of our intelligence operations.

In this case, the administration continues to resist efforts to appoint a special counsel to investigate this criminal act.

Nor has this been the only example of opposition to independent, nonpartisan reviews on national security matters. The administration also seems unwilling to openly share information with the commission established by Congress to investigate the events of September 11. The commission was established on a bipartisan basis. It is charged not only with investigating the events leading up to 9/11 but with producing recommendations to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Their mission is critical. I can tell you as a Senator who comes from a State where 693 people died on September 11--10 in my hometown--this is a serious investigation and review of the failures that led to 9/11. Yet, according to recent statements by several commission members, the administration has been stonewalling. Too many of their requests are being ignored. Too much evidence is being withheld. And the commission has been frustrated in its efforts to get the information it needs to do the job.

Again, just yesterday, the commission was forced to issue subpoenas to officials at the FAA for documents that the administration should have been handing over voluntarily. By the way, this was not the CIA, not the Pentagon, but the FAA.

The question of accurate intelligence is central to Congress's ability to make decisions about national security. It is especially important now that the Bush administration has endorsed a doctrine of preemptive war, a doctrine the administration reiterated today preceding its trip to the Far East.

As we confront ongoing threats to U.S. interests, particularly with regard to weapons of mass destruction, we must be sure that what we are told is true.

Last October, for example, during the Iraqi debate, Secretary James Kelly was in Pyongyang meeting with the North Koreans. At that meeting--a meeting that occurred a full week prior to the Senate vote on the resolution authorizing force in Iraq--the North Koreans admitted to Mr. Kelly that they had an active nuclear program. Yet despite the importance of such information from the North Koreans, admitting a nuclear weapons program, and its relevance to debate regarding Iraq and America's national security posture generally, administration officials waited until after Congress had voted on the resolution to authorize the use of force before revealing the details of the North Korean disclosure to most Members of Congress and certainly the American people.

As I see it, that information was both relevant and timely to the debate on whether to go to war in Iraq. What should have our priorities been? What was the information that should have been factored in when we made that judgment?

Was the information withheld because it might affect Congress's debate on the war resolution? I cannot be sure. But the American people have a right to know.

While matters such as these may be beyond the scope of the commission I am proposing, a thorough review of intelligence questions related to Iraq is necessary if we are to successfully address other threats and we are to have credibility and confidence in those judgments--including North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states and international terrorist networks.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope some of those who initially opposed it will see that the time has come for a thorough, independent, nonpartisan review, structured so there would not be any partisan bias. David Kay's report finding no weapons of mass destruction after a 6-month search, the statements from former administration insiders charging that intelligence was misused, a willingness of administration officials to retaliate against one such insider by revealing the identity of a key CIA operative, the administration's refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate the crime, the administration's failure to cooperate fully with the commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks, all highlight the need for an independent, nonpartisan commission to examine what are already acknowledged deficiencies in how intelligence related to Iraq was presented to the American people prior to the war.

The goal of this commission is not to assign blame. The goal is to understand what happened and then use those findings to recommend improvements in our intelligence operations and make certain intelligence is used for policy formulation, not policy justification.

I say to my colleagues, why would anybody be afraid to let an independent commission find the truth? If the administration was acting in good faith, they should want the facts to come out. If there were systemic problems in our intelligence establishment, its relationship with the White House, we all have an interest in identifying them and correcting them. The commission would not prejudge anything. It would simply provide a mechanism to find the truth and bring it to light.

Again I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. In the end, the safety and security of the American people are at stake and so, by the way, is the safety and protection of our men and women in uniform. They deserve unbiased, nonpolitical, actionable intelligence to be able to do their job and do it well. Just as much as they need financial support, just as much as they need the support of all of America, they need to have unbiased, nonpolitical intelligence to do their job.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can offer this amendment which I send to the desk.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Michael Gayle during consideration of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, this amendment I have offered, along with Senators Lautenberg and Durbin, would reduce the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. This change would allow an estimated 92,000 reservists currently age 55 to 59 to retire with full benefits, honoring their service and respecting the drastic

demands we put on them in the post-cold-war era and the age of terrorism.

As we reflect on the demands placed on our soldiers in Iraq and other parts of our world because of terrorism, particularly our reservists-- roughly 20,000 are in the theater--it is time we actually make this important change in the benefits that our reservists and guards receive.

This chart shows how we were deployed in 1992. We had 1 million total man-days per year from reservists and guards. It jumped to 13 million in 2001. It was 41 million in 2002. It will be up again in 2003. We are using our reservists dramatically differently than in previous years. It is time to recognize that and make sure they are treated appropriately.

This request is at the top of the requests of the Reserve Officers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Air Force Sergeants Association, American Legion, a variety of folks. It will make a difference in making sure our people want to continue their career as reservists and guards. It will potentially reduce the cost of declining enlistment and retention forces, promote an overall package of incentives to meet recruiting and retention goals. It will make a difference in our people's lives.

We need to move forward on this parity between reserve and civilian retirement age. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act for purposes of the pending amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering legislation designed to prohibit discrimination in health insurance and employment based on genetic information.

In the last decade, biomedical researchers have made great strides in genetic research. While these discoveries are critical to researching treatments and, ultimately, discovering cures for many diseases, this information also has the potential to be used to deny health care insurance or employment to an individual who has a genetic predisposition to an illness. That is why we must make it illegal for employers and health insurers to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their genetic information.

S. 1053 is an important step, but it is only a first step. Any legislation addressing this issue must include strong enforcement and deterrence mechanisms. As this legislation moves forward, I hope its enforcement provisions will be strengthened. Without strong accountability provisions, there is little to deter employers and health insurers from using genetic information inappropriately.

In addition, I hope that when this legislation is conferenced, the conferees will find ways to strengthen the privacy provisions. It is essential that our laws keep pace with technological advances and that we continue to protect the privacy of our citizens. Advances in technology cannot place fundamental American rights at risk.

Despite my concerns about the enforcement and privacy provisions, I believe this legislation is a critical first step and look forward to working with my colleagues to continue addressing the important issue of genetic discrimination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1811.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Durbin, and hopefully others, this amendment is designed to reduce the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserves from 60 to 55. This change would allow for an estimated 92,000 reservists, currently age 55 to 59, to retire with full benefits and would restore parity between the retirement systems for Federal civilian employees and reservists.

Just to refresh my colleagues' memory, regular military personnel can retire after 20 years of service regardless of their age--38, 48, 55, or 60--and receive their retirement benefits at the time of retirement. As we reflect on the demands placed on our soldiers in Iraq, particularly our Reserve and Guard forces--of which there are roughly 20,000 in theater--there is no more appropriate time to consider this important proposal to support these brave men and women.

As a matter of basic fairness, it is only right to restore parity between the retirement age for civilian employees and their Reserve counterparts.

When the Reserve retirement system was created in 1947, the retirement age for reservists was identical to the age for civilian employees. At age 60, reservists and Government employees could hang up their uniforms and retire with full benefits. However, since 1947, the retirement age for civilian retirees has been lowered by 5 years while the retirement age has not changed for reservists and guards.

The disparate treatment of Federal employees and reservists would have been serious enough had the nature of the work performed by the reservists been steady over the past five decades, but today this country places an increasingly heavy demand on its Ready Reserve, more of a demand than has ever been the case in our Nation's history. Today more than 200,000 reservists have been called up to serve their country in the war on terrorism, and 170,000 of these reservists and Guard troops are now on active duty, here at home and abroad. America's dependence on our Ready Reserve has never been more transparent to the American people. Reservists are now providing security at our Nation's airports, and they patrol the air over our major cities. They provide caps, protection.

With call-ups that last several months and take reservists far from home in serving our Nation, it is increasingly clear that reservists are performing the same role as those on active duty and any other service. Before the war on terrorism, reservists were performing 13 million man-days each year--get the idea of how big that is--more than a tenfold increase over the 1 million man-days the Reserves averaged just 10 years ago. It has moved dramatically, even before the war on terrorism began.

In fiscal year 2002, reservists contributed 41 million man-days. And this year, in fiscal year 2003, that number will be up again. So we are using our Reserve Forces dramatically more than was ever the case in the history of the Reserve and Guard units. These people are on active duty for an increasing amount of time, particularly as we justify and move forward with the war on terrorism. These are staggering increases. Those defenders of the American people should have that recognized by shortening their time before they are eligible for retirement. In my view, with additional responsibility should come additional benefits.

I know this proposal is not without cost. But not improving the reservists' benefits also will have a cost, potentially a severe cost. After all, in recent years we have seen our military struggling to meet recruitment and retention goals. It has been even more severe sometimes with our Guard and Reserve. That has improved somewhat after 9/11. But unless the overall package of incentives is enhanced, there is little reason to believe we will be able to attract and retain highly trained Reserve personnel over the long run, particularly as their deployments and the number of man-hours has increased.

Active-duty military personnel have often looked to the Reserves as a way to continue to serve their country while being closer to their families. We have been drawing people out of the active military into the Reserve. With thousands of dollars invested in training active-duty officers and enlisted soldiers, the United States benefits tremendously when personnel decide to continue with the Reserves. But with Reserve deployments increasing in frequency and duration, pulling reservists away from their families and civilian life, imposing real hardships on those families, the advantage in joining the

Reserves has been dramatically reduced. There is no question about that.

The more we depend on the Reserves, the greater chance we have of losing highly trained former active-duty service men and women and a number of people who have just joined the Active Reserve because they thought it was a way they could supplement income and be involved in supporting our Nation.

In my view, the added incentive of full retirement at 55 might provide just the inducement some of them need to stay on despite the surge in deployments. By the way, to illustrate, in the period 1953 to 1990, there were 11 deployments of reservists and guards. Between 1991 and 2001, there have been 50 deployments of reservists and guards. Now those numbers are accelerating as we take on this war on terrorism.

It is an enormous change in how we are utilizing our Reserve Forces. I hear from the guards and reservists in New Jersey to whom I spoke directly that one of those things they are most interested in is seeing a shortening of the period before they have access to retirement benefits. It will make a big difference in their lives. They consider it important.

Enacting this legislation will send a clear message that our Nation values the increased sacrifice of our reservists during this trying time. This proposal has been endorsed by key members of a broad military coalition, including the Reserve Officers Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, and Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Naval Reserve Association, and the National Guard Association. All of the groups that represent these individuals in our system are strongly supporting this initiative. It would restore parity between the Reserves retirement system of our Guard and Reserve and the civilian retirement system, acknowledge the increased workload of reservists, and provide essential personnel with the inducement to join and stay in the Reserves until retirement.

I do hope my colleagues will support this amendment. This is the appropriate time given what kind of challenge we are laying down for our National Guard and Reserve across this country. We have increased their responsibilities. We have put severe challenges in front of them and their families, and it is our responsibility, in my view, to recognize that and to address it. I think one of the best ways to do that is to reduce the retirement age for the Reserve and the Guard.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss my opposition to the voucher provision in the D.C. appropriations bill.

Our government promises every child in the United States a free and appropriate public education. The very idea that Federal funds that should be going to our Nation's public schools to fulfill that promise will instead be siphoned away to private schools is of great concern to me.

As a product of public schools, and the child of a public school teacher, I am a strong supporter of the public school system. I often say that while we cannot be a Nation of equal outcomes, we can and must be a Nation of equal opportunities. Our public schools are the key to equal opportunity for all American children.

Although the voucher program we are discussing today would only impact the District of Columbia, it clearly would have national implications. It is a calculated first step toward broader voucher programs, which would drain resources from our public schools--the very schools that are free and open to all children, and accountable to parents and taxpayers.

Simply put, vouchers are not the answer to our educational ills--they are bad education policy driven by ideological goals.

Wouldn't our energy be better focused on strengthening our public schools, which can and do succeed with adequate resources? To succeed, schools need high-quality teachers, a rigorous curriculum, high expectations, parental involvement, and effective management. All of these require adequate resources.

In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which was intended to reform public education by establishing high standards for every student, providing Federal incentives to boost low-performing schools, and creating accountability.

Unlike vouchers, which even supporters acknowledge would reach only a small fraction of children, No Child Left Behind was intended to implement proven, effective reforms in all schools not just for a few students, but for all students.

But the administration and this Congress are not living up to the promise of No Child Left Behind and are underfunding it by over $8 billion. This leaves millions of children behind and places additional burdens on already burdened State and local education budgets.

And, on top of underfunding No Child Left Behind, we are now considering giving funds to schools that are not even subject to its provisions.

As we know, No Child Left Behind would ensure oversight and accountability, including testing standards and teacher qualification standards. But the voucher program we are considering today does not provide the same system of accountability or oversight of these private schools, nor does it set the same criteria for the very people that will be teaching our children.

In fact, this bill allows any private school to apply to participate in the program, but there is no evaluation process before they are accepted to participate. This leaves D.C. children vulnerable to poor- performing schools.

I ask proponents of the bill: How can we ask our public schools to fulfill the significant mandates of No Child Left Behind, when we are refusing those schools adequate funds and at the same time giving Federal money to schools that are not even required to abide by many of its mandates?

Proponents of the voucher program say that it provides parents with ``choice'' that they do not currently have. This is simply not true. The District of Columbia already offers three alternatives to traditional public schools. First, D.C. has the largest number of public charter schools per capita in the Nation. If we pass this voucher program, these charter schools will remain underfunded. Yet we still want to give private schools money.

Second, D.C. has established 15 public transformation schools that have, for the first time ever, succeeded in raising the scores of low- income children in low-performing schools. Again, however, the very programs in these transformation schools that have succeeded are now seeing cuts in funding. Yet we still want to give private schools money.

Finally, D.C. allows parents who are not content with their neighborhood school to send their child to out-of-boundary schools that are accountable to public education standards. Yet we still want to give private schools money.

If this is not school choice, then what is? Why can't we give these types of

schools a chance to succeed rather than undermining them and draining funds from their already successful programs?

Proponents of vouchers also claim that the program in this bill is a pilot program and should be given a chance. But Milwaukee and Cleveland both tried to implement a voucher program, and a GAO study of the programs in these two cities found no or little difference in voucher and public school students' performance.

Our cities have tried vouchers and have not succeeded. Our children should not be guinea pigs for programs that have simply not been proven effective at raising academic achievement.

I am not the only one opposed to this program. My friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with the majority of the D.C. City Council and School Board, also oppose any voucher program. In addition, the residents of the District of Columbia are overwhelmingly opposed to private school vouchers.

Let's not turn D.C. into a laboratory for school vouchers. Vouchers are not the solution to improving educational opportunity in D.C. or anywhere else in America. Let's instead focus on fulfilling the promise of No Child Left Behind by fully funding it, and giving our public schools the resources they need to truly succeed.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Economic Development Expertise Enhancement Act of 2003.

This regulation would provide funding for nonprofit, community-based economic development organizations and for the establishment of partnerships between these organizations. Most importantly, the legislation would authorize grants to promote the use of mentors to improve the operational capabilities of community-based organizations in the areas of project development, personnel management, legal services, and financial management. These and other eligible uses of the funding would increase the capacity of these organizations to expand community development activities throughout the country.

Over the past several decades, our Nation has seen the emergence of community-based organizations that have helped break the cycle of poverty for millions of families. Today, according to the National Congress of Community Economic Development, there are more than 3,600 of these organizations, many of which serve some of our Nation's most economically challenged communities. These include both urban and rural areas, as well as suburban regions.

Typically, community development corporations have annual budgets ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 and staffs averaging about six members. Their lack of personnel, expertise and financing often creates real constraints on their ability to make even greater contributions to their community.

This legislation would expand our investment in these organizations, and expand their capacity to build homes, create jobs, improve public safety, provide critical social services, increase access to capital, and turn around communities now filled with despair. The bill would serve a wide range of communities with different economic, geographic, and social characteristics.

I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2003, that will improve access to affordable housing for families living in high cost areas where there is a shortage of such housing. This bill was introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Gary Miller (R-CA) and Barney Frank (D-MA) and was recently approved by the House Financial Services Committee.

The Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2003 is supported by housing and community advocates and has also been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Manufactured Housing Institute, and the National Affordable Housing Management Association.

The Federal Housing Administration's Multifamily Housing programs are among HUD's most successful. The Federal Government has tried a number of different approaches to providing housing over the last 50 years. The most successful of these rely heavily on a public/private partnership that encourages the private sector to produce housing with support from the Federal Government. The FHA mortgage insurance programs have been extremely successful in producing new and rehabilitated housing with little or no cost to the Federal Government.

As you know, rising construction costs have resulted in a shortage of moderately priced affordable rental units. Rent increases now exceed inflation in all regions of the country, and new affordable rental units have become increasingly harder to find. Because of the current dollar limits on loans, FHA insurance cannot be used to help finance construction in high-cost urban areas such as the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, Philadelphia and San Francisco.

HUD statistics demonstrate this--in 2002 and 2003, no multifamily loans have been FHA insured in New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Seattle, Massachusetts, or New Jersey.

Increasing the limits on loans for rental housing would create more incentives for public/private investment in communities through America and spur the new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for the elderly and new construction or substantial rehabilitation of apartments by for- and non-profit entities.

The National Association of Home Builders estimates that increasing the limits in high cost areas will allow for an additional 6,000 units of rental housing to be built each year in the cities limited by the current law. These 6,000 units will generate $318 million in new income to the residents and businesses in these cities, $38 million in added revenues to the local governments, and 6,720 new jobs. Over a ten year period, the cumulative effects of the additional building will contribute $9 billion in new income to the cities where the limits currently constrain new rental production.

While Congress approved legislation I introduced in 2001 to increase the statutory limits for FHA-insured multifamily project loans to account for inflation, we failed to act on a key provision in my bill to raise the loan limits for high cost areas. I am reintroducing that portion of my bill gain, with the hope that two years later, we can finally achieve the increases we need to make the FHA multifamily programs succeed in all our communities, particularly in those high costs areas that so desperately need additional affordable rental housing.

There is currently no HUD program designed to provide rental housing for working families from 60 percent to 100 percent of median income who are unable to find decent, affordable housing near where they work. Yet, the most recent Census data reveals that these working families, including vital municipal workers like teachers and police officers, are increasingly vulnerable and the lack of decent, affordable housing is increasingly being seen as a significant impediment to local economic growth. This is one reason why the FHA multifamily programs are so important.

Without this much-needed adjustment to the FHA multifamily loan limits, access to affordable housing for our working-citizens will continue to lag, thousands of more families will join the 14 million people who currently face severe housing needs and our nation's economy will suffer.

I hope my Senate colleagues will support the legislation and help ensure that America's working families have access to affordable housing.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Economic Development Expertise Enhancement Act of 2003.

This regulation would provide funding for nonprofit, community-based economic development organizations and for the establishment of partnerships between these organizations. Most importantly, the legislation would authorize grants to promote the use of mentors to improve the operational capabilities of community-based organizations in the areas of project development, personnel management, legal services, and financial management. These and other eligible uses of the funding would increase the capacity of these organizations to expand community development activities throughout the country.

Over the past several decades, our Nation has seen the emergence of community-based organizations that have helped break the cycle of poverty for millions of families. Today, according to the National Congress of Community Economic Development, there are more than 3,600 of these organizations, many of which serve some of our Nation's most economically challenged communities. These include both urban and rural areas, as well as suburban regions.

Typically, community development corporations have annual budgets ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 and staffs averaging about six members. Their lack of personnel, expertise and financing often creates real constraints on their ability to make even greater contributions to their community.

This legislation would expand our investment in these organizations, and expand their capacity to build homes, create jobs, improve public safety, provide critical social services, increase access to capital, and turn around communities now filled with despair. The bill would serve a wide range of communities with different economic, geographic, and social characteristics.

I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the FHA Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2003, that will improve access to affordable housing for families living in high cost areas where there is a shortage of such housing. This bill was introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Gary Miller (R-CA) and Barney Frank (D-MA) and was recently approved by the House Financial Services Committee.

The Multifamily Housing Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2003 is supported by housing and community advocates and has also been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Manufactured Housing Institute, and the National Affordable Housing Management Association.

The Federal Housing Administration's Multifamily Housing programs are among HUD's most successful. The Federal Government has tried a number of different approaches to providing housing over the last 50 years. The most successful of these rely heavily on a public/private partnership that encourages the private sector to produce housing with support from the Federal Government. The FHA mortgage insurance programs have been extremely successful in producing new and rehabilitated housing with little or no cost to the Federal Government.

As you know, rising construction costs have resulted in a shortage of moderately priced affordable rental units. Rent increases now exceed inflation in all regions of the country, and new affordable rental units have become increasingly harder to find. Because of the current dollar limits on loans, FHA insurance cannot be used to help finance construction in high-cost urban areas such as the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, Philadelphia and San Francisco.

HUD statistics demonstrate this--in 2002 and 2003, no multifamily loans have been FHA insured in New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Seattle, Massachusetts, or New Jersey.

Increasing the limits on loans for rental housing would create more incentives for public/private investment in communities through America and spur the new production of cooperative housing projects, rental housing for the elderly and new construction or substantial rehabilitation of apartments by for- and non-profit entities.

The National Association of Home Builders estimates that increasing the limits in high cost areas will allow for an additional 6,000 units of rental housing to be built each year in the cities limited by the current law. These 6,000 units will generate $318 million in new income to the residents and businesses in these cities, $38 million in added revenues to the local governments, and 6,720 new jobs. Over a ten year period, the cumulative effects of the additional building will contribute $9 billion in new income to the cities where the limits currently constrain new rental production.

While Congress approved legislation I introduced in 2001 to increase the statutory limits for FHA-insured multifamily project loans to account for inflation, we failed to act on a key provision in my bill to raise the loan limits for high cost areas. I am reintroducing that portion of my bill gain, with the hope that two years later, we can finally achieve the increases we need to make the FHA multifamily programs succeed in all our communities, particularly in those high costs areas that so desperately need additional affordable rental housing.

There is currently no HUD program designed to provide rental housing for working families from 60 percent to 100 percent of median income who are unable to find decent, affordable housing near where they work. Yet, the most recent Census data reveals that these working families, including vital municipal workers like teachers and police officers, are increasingly vulnerable and the lack of decent, affordable housing is increasingly being seen as a significant impediment to local economic growth. This is one reason why the FHA multifamily programs are so important.

Without this much-needed adjustment to the FHA multifamily loan limits, access to affordable housing for our working-citizens will continue to lag, thousands of more families will join the 14 million people who currently face severe housing needs and our nation's economy will suffer.

I hope my Senate colleagues will support the legislation and help ensure that America's working families have access to affordable housing.

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