Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Republic of Cyprus on its April 16 signing of an accession agreement with the European Union, and also to bemoan the failure to reach an agreement to end the nearly three-decade-old division of the island.

The achievement of accession to the European Union marks the last phase of a 30-year enterprise by the Government and people of the Republic of Cyprus, which began with an Association Agreement in 1973 and will culminate in May 2004 with full membership.

Celebration of this historic success, however, is tempered by the absence of a settlement that would have allowed the island as a whole to join the EU. The failure of the parties to reach an agreement through the United Nations process was both regrettable and avoidable.

Although the Cyprus problem has been on the United Nations agenda for almost 40 years, it was the Clinton administration's decision in 1999 to make finding a solution in Cyprus a high priority that brought the two sides of the island back to proximity talks under the good offices of the United Nations Secretary General.

Since 1999, Secretary General Kofi Annan and his special representative Alvaro de Soto have engaged interested parties in an intensive peace effort with international support, including that of U.S. Special Coordinator for Cyprus Ambassador Tom Weston. They worked feverishly with leaders in Nicosia, Athens, Ankara, and Brussels to try to persuade the parties to agree to a draft plan prior to the European Union summit in Copenhagen last December, at which the EU invited Cyprus and nine other countries to join the Union. While that effort did not produce an equitable end to the tragic division of Cyprus, it did produce a realistic framework and concrete text on which to continue discussions to resolve the remaining issues.

After years of frustration and disappointment, the people of Cyprus saw a fragile but real possibility for settlement, and the overwhelming majority of the population in both communities embraced the process.

In the first months of 2003, with the clock running out to reach an agreement before the date for Cyprus to sign the EU accession agreement, the UN Secretary General asked Tassos Papadopoulos, the newly-elected President of the Republic of Cyprus, and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash to submit the plan to a public referendum. On March 10, Mr. Papadopoulos in good faith conditionally agreed to do so. Mr. Denktash refused.

In response, tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots took to the streets to express their support for the UN plan and to entreat Mr. Denktash to participate in the process. But Mr. Denktash did not respond to these calls from the citizens whom he nominally represents. In denying his own people a democratic vote, he bears the primary responsibility for quashing the peace talks.

Since then, Mr. Denktash has chosen to discredit the UN process though overheated rhetoric, calling the UN plan ``full of tricks'' and alleging that it did not take into account the non-negotiable requirements and ``realities'' of the Turkish Cypriot people. He did for the first time allow day-visits across the ``Green Line'' that divides the island, but this welcome conciliatory gesture appears to be more of a diversionary tactic than a return to the negotiating table.

The Turkish Cypriots do have genuine concerns about their status and security, and these concerns must be reflected in any settlement decision. The Greek Cypriots need to acknowledge that before 1974 there was a Cyprus Problem and that members of both communities committed unpardonable violence and murder. Similarly, the Turkish Cypriots need to acknowledge that there has been a Cyprus Problem ever since the Turkish invasion of 1974, with mass human suffering. Both sides must recognize that this is 2003, not 1974 or 1964, and that only a reunited Cyprus as a member of the European Union would have ironclad, international security guarantees for all its citizens.

Yet Mr. Denktash seems incapable of seizing the moment by recognizing that a negotiated settlement requires compromise. As Secretary General Annan stated in his report to the UN Security Council, however, ``except for a very few instances, Mr. Denktash by and large declined to engage in negotiation on the basis of give and take,'' thereby complicating efforts ``to accommodate not only the legitimate concerns of principle, but also the concrete and practical interests of the Turkish Cypriots.''

The window for achieving a settlement is not closed. Secretary General Annan's plan remains on the table as a basis for negotiation. The European Union has affirmed that there is a place in the EU for Turkish Cypriots. Upon the signing of the accession treaty, Cypriot President Papadopoulos restated his commitment to working toward a settlement. Greek Prime Minister and EU Council Term President Simitis invited Mr. Denktash and other Turkish Cypriot political leaders to Nicosia to continue discussions toward a settlement, an invitation which Mr. Denktash to date has rejected. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, with an eye toward his own country's future EU membership once Ankara has met the Copenhagen criteria, endorsed on April 17 the continuation of talks based on the UN plan. I hope that Prime Minister Erdogan, Foreign Minister Gul, and other distinguished leaders in Turkey will prevail on Mr. Denktash to do what is right for all in the region.

EU leaders at the April 16 accession ceremony in Athens declared that the expanded EU represents a ``common determination to put an end to centuries of conflict and transcend former divisions.'' The people in northern Cyprus should not be barred from ``the closer ties of neighborhood'' described by European Commission President Prodi. Nor should they be excluded from the opportunity, now extended to their fellow-citizens in the south, to join the world's most powerful economic association.

A lasting settlement would allow the Turkish Cypriot people to emerge from their isolation and become fully a part of Europe. It would bring opportunities for economic growth, for expanded trade, for travel and for broader educational and cross-cultural exchanges. And it would end the second-class citizenship of the Turkish Cypriot people in which their standard of living is at best one-third that of the people in the south.

If Mr. Denktash does indeed have the interests of the people of northern Cyprus at heart, he should step aside and allow the Turkish Cypriot people to choose their own future. There is too much at stake to allow another opportunity to expire.

Mr. President, James Bryant Conant once said that ``each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy, based on excellence of performance.'' I rise today to pay tribute to a man who is a member of the law enforcement elite, John B. Brown III, the Acting Director of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

John Brown has spent more than three decades as a special agent in the Drug Enforcement Administration. Last year he capped his law enforcement career when he was appointed deputy administrator of the agency. And when former Administrator Asa Hutchinson was appointed as under secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, John Brown was tapped to be Acting Director of the DEA.

John Brown is a dedicated, hard-working government leader. He is known at the DEA and in the larger law enforcement community as a thoughtful, personable administrator and a man of great humility.

His career at the DEA has been a distinguished one. As a young agent he worked in Mexico where he was deeply involved in the investigation into the murder of Kiki Camarena, the brave DEA agent who was tortured and killed by Mexican drug traffickers. During that time as in the rest of his career--whether it was in Miami, the Dallas field division, the El Paso intelligence center or at DEA Headquarters--John Brown rose to the challenge and excelled at each assignment.

But it was John Brown's first job as a teacher that really shaped him as an agent. John is known by the people who worked for him at DEA as a great teacher, someone who took the time to coach them, to motivate them, to counsel them. For that reason, he is one of the most popular administrators at DEA, and one of the most respected.

As a school teacher, John quickly found that many of the problems he saw among students in his classroom involved learning the skills and attitudes and character to cope with life. Drug use was becoming widespread in the early 1970s and prompted John to decide to join DEA as a special agent.

In truth, he never left the classroom. He has said many times that one of his proudest moments at DEA came when a former student--someone who as a young student had listened to one of his talks about the perils of drug use came up to him in an airport years later. He introduced himself, said that he had a great job and a wonderful family--both of which he said would have been impossible had he joined his many friends who used drugs in high school. He credited John Brown's talk on drugs with keeping away from a life of substance abuse.

I would be remiss if I did not mention John's wife, Christine Brown, who has been a source of tremendous support

and strength to John and their family. I know that she and their two children P.J. and Michael are incredibly proud of John and the superior and important work that he has done over the course of his career.

John Brown is a leader of integrity and total dedication. He has served his country well and I wish him all the best.

Up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the country is truly well served by having the Senator from North Dakota as ranking member. I don't know anyone who knows more about facts relating to our budget this year, last year, or in the last decade than the Senator from North Dakota. I am not being solicitous.

A good friend of ours from the State that was much closer to North Dakota than Delaware--from Wyoming, Senator Simpson--used to say in the Senate repeatedly, in his colloquial way: You know, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not entitled to their own facts.

It seems as though some in the Senate think they are entitled to their own facts.

I will repeat some things that have been said here. They are so consequential I don't know how they cannot be repeated because they have not seemed to have broken through the ether, not here necessarily, but even in the country. To state the obvious, these are very serious times, just as they were at the dawn of the atomic age when Einstein observed ``that everything had changed except our way of thinking.'' We face mortal threats to our Nation from terrorists from rogue nations, expanding international commitments, a looming and gigantic democratic transition--a fancy word for saying there is going to be a bulge in the retirement-age people, myself included, and part of this baby boom generation--and our thinking must now change, not just about how we secure our safety in this dangerous new world but how we maintain our economic security, as well.

And we are here today with yet another budget resolution that calls for more than $1 trillion in new taxes.

One definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This budget meets that definition.

Thanks to the people of Delaware, I have been here now for three decades and I have shared this floor with many of my colleagues--well, not that many, actually--who are still here today. How many of my colleagues came to this Chamber back in the 1980s and talked about the need to balance the Federal budget? It was a fervor at the time.

The President of the United States of America, and many on this floor, the most ardent supporters of this outrageous budget deficit, were insisting on--and I remind everybody--a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Does everybody remember that? A constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

When some of us voted for an exception to that amendment for war, our Republican friends, by and large, overwhelmingly our conservative Republican friends, voted it down and said that is a loophole we cannot sustain.

The President, this President of the United States, indicated that. When we said that when there are exceptional economic circumstances requiring us to deficit-spend as an exception to the constitutional amendment, our Republican friends said no, no, we want to enshrine it in the Constitution of the United States of America. I think the leader of the Budget Committee was probably for a constitutional amendment-- without exceptions, we tried to put in.

Now what are we doing? Here we are. Back in the 1980s we were told that

Government needs to run more like a business and like a family; that business and families are under the danger of extending beyond their means and they should stop.

I know it is kind of trite to say it, but I guess we are modeling this after Enron businesses, instead of what we used to know as businesses back in the 1980s.

It took some time, but we eventually took that sound advice and we did balance the budget. As the old political saw goes, ``I have the scars on my back to prove it.'' It took discipline. It took some hard choices that made my constituents angry and my most ardent supporters angry--because we cut their programs.

Here we are again. But this time the Nation is at war--in case someone on this floor hasn't noticed. We are at war. We face ballooning deficits, far larger than anyone could have imaged, especially, I might add, in the wake of our jubilation just 2 years ago about a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years.

This year alone, counting the costs of the war, our deficit, if we pass this budget, will reach, in the unified budget, which means counting the surplus in Social Security, a $350 billion deficit. If you take out Social Security like we all promised you we would do, and don't count the surplus in Social Security, it is a $587 billion deficit this year.

In the face of this $587 billion deficit, or what everybody likes to talk about now, the unified budget, which takes the Social Security surplus and spends it, the $350 billion deficit that this budget resolution calls for in the face of this more than a third of a trillion dollar deficit, for 1 year we are adding another $1.3 trillion tax cut.

In my 30 years in the Senate I can honestly say, from my perspective, I cannot recall a more reckless or irresponsible proposal to come before this Senate.

Where are the deficit hawks now? Where are those who were demanding for decades that we balance the budget; those who said we couldn't sustain our economy in the face of massive deficits? Where are those who were telling me we cannot let our children and grandchildren foot the bill for our excesses? Where are they now? Where have all--not the flowers--where have all the balanced budgeters gone? What happened to them? They all died and were reincarnated as kings. All my conservative Republican friends--where are they? Where have they gone?

Instead of a careful, conservative approach to our finances, instead of caution and a sense of responsibility in these dangerous times, this budget throws caution to the wind and simply dumps the bill for our choices today on our children and our grandchildren.

A lot of people around this place, since I got here--it is a dangerous habit we tend to--and I hope I don't do it--question one another's motives, not just their judgment. I am not questioning the motive of my Republican colleagues here. I believe that, notwithstanding that the rich benefit the most from this--I don't think that is their purpose. It is a result of what they do. I think their purpose is they truly believe somehow, if they go along with this budget, somehow it will cause the economy to grow so significantly that everybody is going to be all right. We are going to be able to pay for everything and balance the budget.

They even went so far--I will do this in a separate speech since I don't have time--they even went so far as to get someone from the President's Council of Economic Advisers and place him, hire him with the Congressional Budget Office to make a case that this could be done.

As I understand it from my Ph.D. economist on my staff, he ran, I don't know how many--two, three, five, a half dozen econometric models, a fancy term for seeing how this would work out under dynamic scoring, and still could not come up with a balanced budget. Even the Republicans can't, through this new voodoo, come up with a balanced budget--not this year but long term.

We are now in a position where we ask, when we are fully engaged on the ground in Iraq in a war that is not truly over and will not be over until the reconstruction and nationbuilding the President rightly calls for is accomplished, where are they now? Where are my deficit hawk friends now when the $75 billion the President has requested is just the first downpayment on the war?

Let me be clear about the numbers at the outset, before we find ourselves under the weight of deficits that will begin to crush us, before we have to have our old ``cut the deficit'' conversation again, because I promise you it is coming up. We are going to have our ``we have to cut the deficit'' conversation when reality finally sinks in, unfortunately probably too late.

In the face of all the new, massive domestic and international commitments that are staring us in the face, this resolution calls for a $1.3 trillion tax cut. The additional interest charges we will pay on the increased national debt as a consequence of the tax cut and the budget deficit will total over $1.5 trillion. It will bring the amount up to $1.5 trillion, the cost of the tax cut; over $1.5 trillion in dollars that will not be available to meet the new commitments we face.

These funds will not be available, to take one example close to home, to give the Adjutant General of the Delaware National Guard, General Vavala, the medivac helicopters he needs or the civil support he needs in case of biological or chemical attacks.

Sadly, there are countless more examples of tax cuts shortchanging vital programs such as the hundreds of thousands of eligible veterans still waiting 6 months to enroll in a health care system, not to mention 400,000 claims by disabled vets that are still backlogged, not to mention no money for the COPS Program, or underfunding nearly $10 billion in the President's own No Child Left Behind education law, signed just last year and heralding the President as the President of Education.

Forget about Social Security. Virtually all of these tax cuts are borrowed straight from the Social Security system on the very threshold of the time when that system will need not just the borrowed surpluses, but even hundreds of billions of dollars more to meet the commitments to a retiring generation of baby boomers.

Let's be clear now at the outset what we are about to do and the choices we are about to make. I remember clearly those conversations with many of my colleagues. You can be sure as I am standing here today we will be having them again soon.

Mark Twain said a lot of things, but one of the things he said is very appropriate today, in my view. He once said:

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Boy, am I hearing a rhyme here today. It does rhyme. It rhymes with all the nonsense of the supply-siders of the 1980s. It rhymes. It rhymes: massive tax cuts and deficits as far as the eye can see. They rhyme.

Mr. President, at its core, a nation's budget reflects its basic values. More than any speech, more than any campaign promise, our budget reveals who we are, what we believe in, what we think is important, what we think is not. It reveals our real values, our real priorities.

I do not say this as a criticism, but my value system and that of the Senator from Oklahoma are fundamentally different. My value system and the value system of my friends who are supporting this massive deficit are very different. And that is legitimate. I am in no way casting an aspersion but stating the obvious.

Budgets reflect our values. In these historic times, in my view, our budget policy should reflect two of our most fundamental American values. The first is facing up to our responsibility.

I love all my friends, Democrats and Republicans, who talk about that we have to have more individual responsibility in this Nation. I just ask the average person listening to this debate: Tell me how responsible you think we are being individually. It means putting together a responsible budget that makes hard but necessary choices, just like they are making in their families right now, as I speak. It means doing what is right. And by that I am not saying my Republican friends are doing what is wrong. They mean well, but I think it is wrong.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 5 more minutes.

I will take the additional few minutes.

It means doing what is right . . . and not handing the bill for our actions to our children and grandchildren.

By returning us to the failed policies of massive deficits this budget does exactly that. It hands it to the generation of young men and women who are fighting in Iraq.

The second value is fairness--a sense that we're all in this together.

In a democratic society like ours, under threats like those we face today, that means having a shared sense that paying our fair share of the bill is not just a partisan buzz-phrase . . . it is not just window dressing . . . It is who we are . . . It is what we are about. It is what this budget should be about, fairness and responsibility.

No one's definition of fairness is a tax cut that gives a taxpayer in the middle income bracket about $250, while those with incomes over a million dollars get a cut of over $90,000.

No one's definition of fairness is a tax cut that gives almost half of all taxpayers a cut of less than $100, while the top one percent of taxpayers get a cut of over $24,000.

Take a look at the income bracket of the men and women who are fighting now in Iraq--the young people who will be handed the bill for the future deficits in this budget. They will be getting less than $100 in tax cuts.

Is there anyone here who will argue that is fair, Mr. President?

In my view, as far as reflecting our values, this budget fails.

It is written as if we faced no new threats to our physical and economic security and it ignores the--small ``d''--democratic standard of fairness that we are fighting for.

I remember when the President was running for office . . . when he was still facing a primary challenge from Steve Forbes and his flat tax, then Governor Bush proposed cutting taxes. The problem back then, as he saw it, was that we were piling up budget surpluses and we were paying off--yes, paying off--the national debt.

So what did he say? He said it would be better to cut taxes, above every other possible use of those resources.

He did not say we should use those resources to fix Social Security, for example, or to restore the integrity of Medicare, or beef up and reorganize the military, or build up homeland defense to meet the new threats we face, or paying for his own priorities such as a missile defense system.

At that time, at the end of the second Clinton Administration, the Federal budget was in surplus. We had actually paid down over 150 billion dollars of the national debt, and we were on schedule to eliminate the national debt altogether by 2010.

Think about that. In seven years, we were going to completely eliminate the national debt . . .

If there was any question about what the government could do if it balanced the budget and ran a surplus--if there was any question why surpluses are better than deficits--it was answered on the morning of September 11.

That morning we learned the nature of the new threats we might face . . . We realized what it would cost to defend the Nation against them . . . It wasn't long before we saw the pricetag for rebuilding Afghanistan . . .

And now we are winding down a war in Iraq that the budget doesn't fully account for . . .

Not to mention the pricetag for nation building which--from the looks of news reports of massive looting this morning--will be substantial.

In his first year in office the President promised that he could cut taxes . . . pay off the national debt . . . add new funds for education . . . launch a missile defense system . . . and--he insisted--take care of any emergency that might come along.

A lot of us were skeptical. We thought the tax cuts were too big . . . that the surpluses were overestimated . . . that the future was too uncertain. But unfortunately it was a vote we lost. He got what he asked for: a tax cut totaling $1.7 trillion, counting interest, over the next decade.

We have seen the results of that mistake--the results are right there in the hundreds of billions of dollars of red ink we are spilling every year.

Simple common sense tells us we must not make the same mistake again.

In ordinary times, these proposals would be bad tax policy, and bad budget policy . . . In these times, they are irresponsible, a failure to confront the challenges we face.

In the face of threats to our security, we are offered weaker Federal finances, with deficits as far as the eye can see . . .

In the face of a weak economy, we are offered a tax cut program that is a windfall for a few instead of jobs for the many who need them . . . In the face of a demographic wave that will overwhelm our Social Security system, we are told to borrow the system's reserves . . .

Let me conclude by suggesting that at a time when our Nation is challenged as never before, we are offered a budget policy that was devised to win a party primary 3 years ago.

Finally, we must be concerned--in these times above all others--about the question of fairness. When we are putting the lives of our men and women in uniform on the line, when we face security threats here at home, in the Middle East, and in Korea, when deficits are once again imbedded in our budget, we have to pull our Nation together.

It does make a difference how we pay for these goals. It is important that America believes we are in this war all together. We cannot send the bill for this to our children and our grandchildren--returning from this war--by returning to another era of deficits. And they are young men and women in their teens and early twenties.

We cannot--in these times above all other times--cut taxes for a small fraction of Americans while we face the unknown costs of reconstructing Iraq and maintaining our security.

Right now, I think the best thing we can do is forego any tax cuts that are not paid for and that are not part of a short-term stimulus package, and forego spending increases, as well, unless they are for homeland security and national defense because anything else--anything else we do, in my view--is just wrongheaded.

In terms of the fairness of this, I will conclude by saying, if one's definition of fairness in a tax cut is to give taxpayers in middle income about $250 this year--with this tax cut--while those with incomes over $1 million get $90,000, and those in the top 1 percent-- meaning people making over $317,000 a year--get $24,000 a year, and the kid coming home--with the average pay being paid for a kid who is fighting over there in Iraq now--their tax cut will be $100 on average, give me a break about how this is fair--beyond being wrongheaded and counterproductive economic policy.

I thank my colleague for the time.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to offer the following section-by-section analysis of Title IX of the ``Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,'' P.L. 107-204, of which I was the primary author along with my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch. Title IX was derived

from S. 2717, the ``White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002,'' which I introduced with Senator Hatch on July 10, 2002. That same day, Senator Hatch and I offered the text of S. 2717 as a floor amendment to the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investment Protection Act of 2002, S. 2673. Our amendment was unanimously adopted by the Senate on July 10, 2002, by a 96-0 vote. S. 2673 was overwhelmingly approved, as amended with the inclusion of S. 2717, on July 15, 2002, by a vote of 97-0. S. 2673 then went to a House-Senate conference. The Biden-Hatch amendment was retained in the final conference report as Title IX, and in substantially identical form to that in S. 2673. The conference report, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, H.R. 3763, was passed by the Senate on July 25, 2002, by a 99-0 vote. The President signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law on July 30, 2002.

As I mentioned, Title IX of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, entitled the ``White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002,'' closely mirrors the original S. 2717. In order to provide guidance in the legal interpretation of these provisions, I have compiled the following analysis and discussion, which are intended to augment, and not supplant, the legislative history and explanatory statements that accompanied passage of H.R. 3763. This legislative history is intended also to supplement my remarks at the time of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's final passage. See S7426-S7425 (July 26, 2002). I ask unanimous consent that this section-by-section analysis be included in the Congressional Record as part of the official legislative history of these provisions.

The content of Title IX was developed partly in response to a series of white-collar crime hearings I held in my capacity as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs. Through those hearings, the subcommittee heard from a wide range of witnesses with expertise in both corporate law and white-collar crime--including current and former high-ranking officials from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the United States Departments of Justice and Treasury, and the Federal Reserve; business and law professors; corporate practitioners; as well as victims of corporate fraud.

The first hearing, held on June 19, 2002, focused on the disparity in sentences between white-collar offenses, including pension fraud, and federal ``street crimes'' like car theft. Specifically, the hearing explored four broad areas: it focused on the human consequences of white-collar crimes; defined and quantified the problem, including an evaluation of the use of the criminal sanction against white-collar criminals and the severity of penalties typically imposed; explored the reasons that might explain the lighter sentences that white-collar offenders often receive; and discussed recent amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines that purport to address the historic, disparate treatment of economic crimes. The first-panel witnesses included Charles Prestwood, a retiree who lost his retirement savings in the bankruptcy of the Enron Corporation; Janice Farmer, a retiree who similarly lost her retirement savings in the Enron bankruptcy; and Howard Deputy, a former employee of the Metachem Company in Delaware who was at risk of losing a portion of his pension in Metachem's bankruptcy. The second-panel witnesses included James B. Comey, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Glen B. Gainer, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National White Collar Crime Center and West Virginia State Auditor; Bradley Skolnik, Chief of the Enforcement Section of the North American Securities Administrators Association and Securities Commissioner for the State of Indiana; Frank O. Bowman, Associate Law Professor at the University of Indiana School of Law; and Paul Rosenzweig, Senior Legal Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

The second hearing, held on July 10, 2002, also addressed the adequacy of criminal penalties for white-collar crimes and evaluated the use of the criminal sanction to deter wrongdoing and encourage corporate responsibility. We were particularly interested in learning whether the current federal criminal law, as opposed to civil enforcement mechanisms, was sufficient to address the range of corporate scandals that were then unfolding. Specifically, the hearing addressed the issue through the lense of the recent accounting scandals--exploring the pattern of corporate irresponsibility and the cultural and economic conditions that made the scandals possible; the impact of the scandals on investor confidence and economic health; and the need for investor protection and anti-fraud legislation which includes stiffened criminal penalties. The first-panel witnesses included Michael Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the United States Department of Justice; and William W. Mercer, United States Attorney for the District of Montana and head of the United States Attorneys' White-Collar Crime Working Group. The second-panel witnesses included John C. Coffee, Jr., Adolf A. Berle Professor of Law at Columbia University School of Law; Thomas Donaldson, Mark O. Winkelman Professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania; Charles M. Elson, Edgar S. Woolard, Jr. Chair at the Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware; George Terwilliger, former Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice; and Tom Devine, Legal Director at the Government Accountability Project.

The third hearing, held on July 24, 2002, continued the discussion initiated in the earlier hearings and featured three former, high- ranking officials in the Executive Branch who commented on a host of suggested reforms--including S. 2717 which, by that time, had been amended to the Senate precursor to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investment Protection Act of 2002, S. 2673). The witnesses included G. William Miller, former Secretary of the Treasury under President Carter and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; Roderick Hills, former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under President Ford; and James Doty, former General Counsel to the Securities and Exchange Commission and head of the corporate and securities practice at Baker Botts LLP.

On a final note, the legislation was introduced and subsequently enacted against the backdrop of the Sentencing Commission's ongoing efforts in the area of economic crime. We are aware of the ``Economic Crime Package,'' which was approved by the Commission in April 2001 and went into effect in November 2001. These amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines consolidated the guidelines for theft, property destruction, and fraud offenses; revised the definition of ``loss,'' which largely informs the range of sentencing available for an offense; increased penalties for offenses involving moderate and high-dollar losses and reduced penalties on some lower-level offenses; and revised the loss table for tax offenses to provide for higher penalty levels for offenses involving moderate and high tax losses. Title IX was developed and enacted with full awareness of these new amendments to the guidelines.

I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is considering the conference report to accompany S. 151, the Protect Act. As a member of the conference committee tasked with reconciling the differences between the House and Senate bills, I am gratified to see action being taken on this measure today. The conference report before us addresses one of the most important issues in America--protecting our kids from sexual and physical abuse. Enactment of this measure could literally save lives.

This bill will expand the nationwide AMBER Alert System to ensure maximum coordination between state and local law enforcement in their efforts to catch predators that kidnap kids. ``Amber alerts''-- typically distributed through radio and television broadcasts and electronic highway signs--gained prominence after last summer's unfortunate and high-profile child abduction cases. These bulletins proved invaluable in their ability to disperse information about the missing children quickly and broadly--and they remain a critically important law enforcement tool.

The conference report that we consider today will expand and improve the program by establishing an AMBER Coordinator within the Department of Justice to enhance and centralize the operation of the communications system. It will establish minimum standards for coordination between various AMBER plans, particularly between state plans. And, perhaps most important, it will authorize two grants--one in the Department of Transportation to help sustain the AMBER alert programs themselves and a second in the Department of Justice to fund education, training, and related equipment. This common-sense legislation has been delayed far too long. We know that the AMBER Alert System helps save abducted children, and we should not let a single additional day pass before voting this measure into law. With this legislation, safeguards will soon be in place to protect children and their families.

The conference report also includes a negotiated version of the PROTECT Act, which this body unanimously adopted in February. The measure responds to last year's Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition by writing a tough new child pornography law that, we hope, will allow prosecutors to go after those who traffic in child pornography--while not running afoul of the Court's first amendment holdings. Importantly, in addition to prohibiting the production and distribution of pornographic material depicting children, this bill achieves a range of other improvements to the law:

First, it strengthens penalties against repeat offenders. Second, it protects the privacy of children victimized by pornographers by preventing the introduction of any non-physical identifying information--like the child's name or social security number--into evidence at court. Third, it facilitates information-sharing between internet providers, who report incidents of child pornography and exploitation on their sites, and State law enforcement officers. And finally, it provides a civil remedy for victims of child pornography-- including injunctive relief to stop immediately the bad conduct. These important improvements put children and their needs first. Is the legislation perfect? No. But it will move us substantially down the road to protecting out kids from predators, while preserving important first amendment principles.

I am pleased that several bipartisan proposals which I sponsored in the Senate will be included in this conference report. Like the AMBER Alert and child porn provisions, these additional initiatives will also protect our kids from child predators. I would like to take a moment to explain several of the provisions that I worked to see included in this conference report.

Section 108 establishes the Child Safety Pilot Program, an initiative that for the first time will permit groups like the Boys and Girls Clubs to apply directly to the Justice Department for background checks for their volunteers. It is a proposal that has been a long time in the making, and I am very pleased the conferees agreed to its adoption.

This section is drawn from legislation that I authored along with Senator Thurmond in the 107th Congress, the National Child Protection and Volunteers for Children Improvement Act. That bill passed the Senate unanimously but was not acted upon by the other body. I first raised concerns about the current state of background checks for volunteers in 2000 with the introduction of S. 3252. That bill and the bill that passed the Senate last year would have markedly simplified the current process for background checks for volunteers who work with kids.

Today, 87 million of our children are involved in activities provided by child and youth organizations which depend heavily on volunteers to deliver their services. Millions more elderly and disabled adults are served by public and private service organizations. Organizations across the country, like the Boys and Girls Clubs, often rely solely on volunteers to make these safe havens for kids a place where they can learn. The Boys and Girls Clubs and others don't just provide services to kids--their work reverberates throughout our communities, as the after-

school programs they provide help keep kids out of trouble. This is juvenile crime prevention at its best, and I salute the volunteers who help make these programs work.

Unfortunately, some of these volunteers come to their jobs with less than the best of intentions. According to the National Mentoring Partnership, between 1 and 7 percent of children in child care settings, foster homes and schools are sexually abused. Organizations have tried to weed out bad apples, and today most conduct background checks on applicants who seek to work with children. Regrettably, these checks can often take months to complete, can be expensive, and many organizations do not have access to the FBI's national fingerprint database. These time delays and scope limitations are dangerous: a prospective volunteer could pass a name-based background check in one state, only to have a past felony committed in another jurisdiction go undetected.

Effective December 20, 1993, the National Child Protection Act, NCPA, P.L. 103-209, encouraged States to adopt legislation to authorize a national criminal history background check to determine an employee's or volunteer's fitness to care for the safety and well-being of children. On September 13, 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) expanded the scope of the NCPA to include the elderly and individuals with disabilities.

As envisioned by Congress, the NCPA was to encourage states to have in effect national background check procedures that enable a ``qualified entity'' to determine whether an individual applicant is fit to care for the safety and well-being of children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities. The procedures permit this entity to ask an authorized state agency to request that the Attorney General run a nationwide criminal history background check on an applicant provider.

``Qualified entity'' is defined at 42 U.S.C. 5119c as ``a business or organization, whether public, private, for-profit, not-for-profit, or voluntary, that provides care or care placement services, including a business or organization that licenses or certifies others to provide care or care placement services. . . .''

The authorized agency should access and review state and Federal criminal history records through the national criminal history background check system and make reasonable efforts to respond to an inquiry within 15 business days. Congress addressed this issue again in 1998 through enactment of the Volunteers for Children Act, Sections 221 and 222 of P.L. 105-251, ``VCA''. The VCA amended the NCPA to permit child care, elder care, and volunteer organizations to request background checks through state agencies in the absence of state laws implementing the NCPA.

Thus, the NCPA, as amended by the VCA, authorizes national fingerprint-based criminal history background checks of volunteers and employees (including applicants for employment) of qualified entities who provide care for children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and those who have unsupervised access to such populations (regardless of employment or volunteer status), for the purpose of determining whether they have been convicted of crimes that bear upon their fitness to have responsibility for the safety and well- being of children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities.

Three years ago, organizations seeking to conduct background checks on their employees and volunteers made me aware of serious problems with the current background check system, problems that were jeopardizing the safety of children. Groups like the Boys and Girls Clubs of America alerted me that, despite the authorities provided in the NCPA and the VCA, national check requests were often delayed, in some jurisdictions they were never processed, and that the prohibitive costs of some of these checks were discouraging entities from seeking the reviews.

Under current law, whether they want a state or national criminal background check, organizations must apply through their state- authorized agency. The state agency then performs the state check and forwards the request to the FBI for a national check. The FBI responds back to the state agency, which then forwards the information back to the volunteer organization. In Delaware, the State Police Bureau of Identification works with groups to fingerprint prospective workers and check their backgrounds.

A patchwork of statutes and regulations govern background checks at the state level; there are currently over 1,200 State statutes concerning criminal record checks. This has led to widely different situations in each state: different agencies are authorized to perform the checks for different types of organizations, distinct forms and information are required, and the results are returned in various formats that can be difficult to interpret. States have not been consistent in their interpretation of the NCPA and VCA. Put simply, the current system is extremely cumbersome, particularly for those organizations that must check criminal records in multiple states, and for those groups employing seasonal workers, such as summer camps, for whom time is of the essence when seeking the results of background checks.

After careful study of this issue it became clear to me that the concerns of groups such as the National Mentoring Partnership and the Boys and Girls Clubs are not merely anecdotal. In 1998, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services, CJIS, Division performed an analysis of fingerprints submitted for civil applicants purposes. CJIS found that the average transmission time from the point of fingerprint to the state bureau was 51.0 days, and from the state bureau to the FBI was another 66.6 days, for a total of 117.6 days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. The worst performing jurisdiction took 544.8 days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. In a survey conducted by the National Mentoring Partnership, mentoring organizations on average waited 6 weeks for the results of a national criminal background check to be returned.

The danger these delays post to mentoring groups and others cannot be overstated. Suppose a group seeks to hire a volunteer who grew up in a neighboring jurisdiction to work with children. The group has the volunteer fingerprinted at their local police department, forwards those prints along to the agency designated by state statute or procedure to receive such requests, and then waits for the national results. FBI data indicates they will wait close to four months, on average, for the final results of the background check. That's too long. It forces groups to choose between taking a risk on someone's background, not making the hire at all, or seeking out only candidates from their jurisdiction for whom a full national background check may not be necessary.

Delay is not the only problem with the current system. The NCPA/VCA caps the fees the FBI can charge for national background checks at $24 for employees. For state fees, the NCPA/VCA requires States to ``establish fee systems that insure that fees to nonprofit entities for background checks do not discourage volunteers from participating in child care programs.'' In a survey of mentoring organizations, the National Mentoring Partnership found that organizations were paying on average $10 for a State records check, plus the fee for a national check. For organizations utilizing hundreds of volunteers and employees, the costs of conducting thorough background checks can be exorbitant. Small, community-based organizations with limited funding often must choose between funding services to children and checking the criminal history records of prospective volunteers.

Section 108 does three things. First, subsection (a)(2) establishes a State Pilot Program that will facilitate the ability of youth-serving organizations in three States designated by the Attorney General to check the backgrounds of their volunteers. The intent of this provision is for State Pilot Program to operate as the Congress intended the National Child Protection Act to operate. That is, youth-serving organizations who attempt to check the backgrounds of volunteers under this section shall be able to access the FBI's national criminal history database when necessary. The requesting process will go through the appropriate State agency. The State will review its criminal history records, and then forward the organization's request along to the FBI if a national check is required. Under 108(a)(2)(D), all criminal

history records will be provided to the State agency. The language in that section which reads ``consistent with the National Child Protection Act'' is intended to result in that State agency then making a determination of the potential volunteer's fitness to work with children. While (a)(2)(D) does permit the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to access the criminal history records of the potential volunteer under (a)(2)'s State Pilot Program, it is my view that the Conferees intended this section result in fitness determinations being made by the appropriate State agency as under current law. Subsection (a)(2)(F) ensures that this determination will be provided to the organization in a timely fashion.

Second, subsection (a)(3) establishes a Child Safety Pilot Program. Under this subsection, three youth-serving organizations will be permitted to allocate a number of Federal background checks to their members or affiliates over an 18-month period. Current law does not permit these organizations to provide fingerprint cards directly to the FBI's criminal history records system in order to check the backgrounds of potential volunteers. This subsection changes that. Ninety days after the date of enactment of this conference report, the Attorney General will notify the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Council of Youth Sports that they have been statutorily designated to make 100,000 background check requests of the FBI. Allocations of these checks are set out in (a)(3)(C). The three eligible organizations may not accept fingerprint cards under this Pilot Program from any of their members or affiliates located in the three States designated by the Attorney General to participate in the State Pilot Program described in (a)(2). The organizations are required to obtain a signed statement from the potential volunteer along with the volunteer's fingerprints. Once the Attorney General receives fingerprint cards from the volunteer organizations, subsection (a)(3)(F) gives him 14 business days to provide any resulting criminal history records information to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Attorney General shall charge these three organizations no more than $18 to perform these checks. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will work with the three organizations to develop standards to determine how to evaluate the criminal history records information provided by the FBI, and to set standards to guide the fitness determination described in (a)(3)(G)(i). Nothing in this subsection requires the NCMEC to make such a fitness determination; the language of (a)(3)(G)(i) is discretionary. It is my view that the conferees intended this subsection to permit NCMEC to work with the eligible organizations in determining the fitness of prospective volunteers to work with children. However, it is my view that the conferees did not intend for NCMEC to perform this function unless adequate appropriations are allocated to it pursuant to subsection (c)(1). NCMEC shall not be liable for any fitness determination made pursuant to (a)(3)(G)(i), consistent with the limitation on liability set forth in section 305(a) of the conference report.

Third, subsection (d) requires the Attorney General to report to Congress on the implementation of the pilot programs at their conclusion, and to make legislative recommendations to Congress on whether the National child Protection Act requires amendments to ensure that organizations like those described in section 108 have access to prompt, effective, and affordable national criminal history background checks. It is important to point out that section 108 establishes only a pilot program for 100,00 checks. Members of the National Mentoring Partnership alone rely upon close to one million volunteers. The boys and Girls Clubs have close to 150,000 volunteers. Hundreds of thousands more volunteer with little leagues, soccer leagues, and other youth sports leagues affiliated with the National Council of Youth Sports. We should be doing more than establishing a pilot program, and I am disappointed the department of Justice continues to maintain that enactment of my legislation that passed the Senate last year, S. 1868, could overburden its fingerprinting infrastructure. Ensuring that those who volunteer to work with out kids in an investment that we should be willing to make. I intend to work to expand this Child Safety Pilot Program until ultimately all of those who want to access the FBI's criminal history records system are able to do so, consistent with the privacy protections provided by current law.

I thank Robbie Callaway and Steve Salem of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for their strong support for my original bill and for this section would not be included in this conference report we take up today. Margo Pedroso of the National Mentoring Partnership has been extremely helpful to me and my staff in terms of educating Congress concerning the extent of the current problem, and I thank her and her organization for their support for this section. John Walsh with America's Most Wanted provided effective, timely advocacy for this provision and I am extremely grateful for his tireless commitment to protecting the Nation's children from criminals. I am also thankful for the efforts of Sally Cunningham of the National Council of Youth Sports for her organization's support for this program this year.

This bill also contains a provision I sponsored that reauthorizes Child Advocacy Centers. Child Advocacy Centers bring together law enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services and medical and mental health professionals to provide comprehensive, child-focused services to child victims of crimes. They provide immediate attention to young victims of sexual and physical abuse so that they are not ``twice abused,'' first by the perpetrator and second by a system which used to shuttle them from a medical clinic to a counseling center to the police station to the D.A.'s office.

Operating in all 50 states, Child Advocacy Centers served over 116,000 child victims last year. Of these victims, 26,934 received onsite medical exam, 27,684 received counseling and 69,443 went through a forensic interview process especially designed for children. Seventy- six percent of the children they serviced were under the age of 12. In Delaware, there are currently two operational Centers. Last year, Child Advocacy Centers in Delaware handled 1,000 cases where child victims as young as three alleged physical or sexual abuse.

Widely cited as an efficient, cost-effective mechanism of handling child abuse cases, Child Advocacy Centers are widely supported by police, prosecutors and the courts. Not surprisingly, communities with centers report increased successful prosecution of perpetrators, more consistent follow-up to child abuse reports, increased medical and mental health referrals for victims, and more compassionate support for child victims. It is also worth noting that in a May 1998 publication titled, New Directions from the Field, the Department of Justice included Children's Advocacy Centers as their number one recommendation for improving services to children who directly experience or witness violence--number one.

Mr. President, in 1994, this body passed the Violence Against Women Act, which I authored. This act made it clear that victims of domestic violence were victims in need of the full extent of this nation's medical and legal resources. My child advocacy provision is designed to bring this same type of concentrated focus, general awareness, and coordinated response to victims of child abuse

Section 607 is of the conference report includes my Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense Act of 2003, also known as the ``SAFE ID'' Act. I would also like to thank Senator Hatch for joining me in introducing this legislation as a stand-alone bill and for helping to ensure that it became part of this conference report.

Mr. President, two of the terrorists who perpetrated the acts of 9/11 held false identification documents, which they purchased from a broker of false IDs. That broker was convicted under State law, but sentenced merely to probation. The judge and the prosecutor publicly lamented that the law did not subject such a person to harsher penalties.

These events focused new attention on an existing, growing problem-- the ease with which individuals and organizations can forge and steal IDs and use

them to harm our society. These circumstances weaken our efforts in the fight against terrorism; identity theft; underage drinking and drunk driving; driver's license, passport and birth certificate fraud; even child abduction. In the post-9/11 era, we must do more to prevent the creation of false, misleading or inaccurate government IDs. This has become an issue of national importance and therefore merits a national response.

In recent years, the ability of criminals to produce authentic- looking fake IDs has grown immensely. Today, unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly common for criminals to either steal or forge, and traffic in, the very items that issuing authorities use to verify the authenticity of their IDs.

These ``authentication features'' are the holograms, watermarks, and other symbols, letters and codes used in identification documents to prove that they are authentic. Unfortunately, today ID's carrying authentication features can be purchased on the Internet or through mail order outfits. In addition, breeder documents, such as birth certificates, are desk-top published, with an illegitimate embossed or foil seal. Put another way, not only do crooks forge identification documents, they also now illegally fake or steal the very features issuing authorities use to fight that crime.

Under current law, it is not illegal to possess, traffic in, or use false or misleading authentication features whose purpose is to create fraudulent IDs. That is why I have authored the SAFE ID Act. The SAFE ID Act would prohibit the fraudulent use of authentication features in identity documents. Specifically, the SAFE ID Act adds authentication features to the list of items covered by an existing law prohibiting fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents. In addition, the act requires forfeiture of any violative items, such as false authentication features and relevant equipment.

The act defines ``authentication feature'' as ``any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified.''

Holograms have long been used on credit cards, and are beginning to be deployed in identification documents. The term ``hologram'' is meant to include diffractive optical gratings and other optically variable devices, regardless of their manner of fixation to, or formation in, a document substrate.

Watermarks take a variety of forms including fabricated paper watermarks and digital watermarks. Watermarks have a long history of use as authentication features in paper, and were traditionally fabricated during the wet paper phase of the paper-making process by varying the thickness of paper fiber. Such conventional watermarks are now fabricated in a number of other ways, including chemical treatment. Generally, the watermark pattern--e.g., a logo--is revealed by viewing the document at an angel, or subject to certain illumination.

A second type of watermark is a digital code, sometimes referred to as a digital watermark. This code is secretly conveyed by an identification document using a number of steganographic technologies. In one, artwork on the document is altered in very slight respects to effect changes to the luminance, chromaticity, or reflectance at different locations across the artwork. This pattern is imperceptible to the human eye, but can be revealed by digitally scanning the document, examining the resulting data for these slight variations, and interpreting these variations to discern the digital code. The artwork encoded in this fashion can be a photograph, a logo--e.g., a seal of the issuing authority--or ornamentation--e.g., guilloche patterning. In other steganographic techniques, the background of the card is tinted with a subtle patterning, or a patterned texture is formed on the document. Again, such patterns are too slight to be recognized by human observers as conveying the digital watermark code, but the code can be discerned by scanning, and then analyzing the scan data.

This type of watermark finds application in detecting counterfeit, altered, and otherwise falsified documents in a number of different ways. For example, a photograph on a driver's license may steganographically convey a digital watermark code that identifies the issuing authority (e.g., the State of New Jersey). If the license is altered--by substituting a different photo--then analysis of the license will reveal the substitution because the photograph will not convey the expected digital code. Likewise, the blank stock on which driver's licenses are printed may convey, e.g., in a tint pattern, a digital code that identifies the issuing authority. If a suspect driver's license is found not to convey the expected code, it will be recognized as non-authentic.

In still other documents, the watermark can serve as a logical cross- check of other data or security features on the card. For example, the digital watermark code with which a driver's license is steganographically marked can convey a ``hash'' of the ASCII characters forming the lawful owner's name that is originally printed on the license. If the name on the license is altered, the hash resulting from that name will be different, and will not longer match the hash conveyed by the digital watermark code. Likewise, the birthdate printed on the license can be hashed and serve as the watermark. If the printed birthdate is altered, its hash will no longer match that conveyed by the steganographic encoding. By such arrangements, alteration of text and other elements of an identification document can readily be discerned by reference to digital watermarks.

Sometimes authentication features are used in the creation of so- called ``novelty IDs.'' These are documents that appear to be identification documents from recognized issuing authorities, but in fact are not. (An Internet search on the term reveals hundreds of web sites.) Sometimes such documents follow the exact layout of text, photo, and design elements used in authentic identity documents. However, such mimicry is not essential for such a ``novelty ID'' to be accepted as legitimate (e.g., a liquor store owner in California may not know what a genuine Vermont driver's license looks like). Such non- identical documents commonly make use of features that are relied upon by others in ascertaining the genuineness of an identification document. The definition of ``authentication feature'' thus embraces such features, and provisions elsewhere in the amended statute prohibit the use of such features on so-called ``novelty IDs.''

Subpart (4) extends the former statutory definition of ``false identification document'' from documents that are counterfeit ab inito, to also include documents that were originally issued lawfully, but subsequently altered for a purpose of deceit.

In like manner, subpart (5) makes clear that ``false identification document'' includes both features that were never genuine, but appear to be genuine, as well as features that originally were genuine but were subsequently (i) tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit; or (ii) diverted, or intended for diversion, without the authorization of the issuing authority.

Subpart (6) is amended to define ``issuing authority.'' This term includes ``quasi-governmental organizations,'' such as The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and governmentally chartered entities (e.g., the United States Postal System and the U.S. Federal Reserve System).

Mr. President, this section will give law enforcement officials a powerful tool to crack down on identity thieves. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, up to 700,000 people in the United States may be victimized by identity bandits each year, costing the average victim more than $1,000. Additionally, banks lost at least $1 billion to identity thieves last year. The SAFE ID Act will also go a long way toward combating the nationwide problem of underage drinking. Underage drinking is a serious problem with dangerous, and sometimes deadly consequences. The SAFE ID Act will help prevent underage drinking by making it harder for fraudulent criminals to provide young people with fake IDs. It perhaps goes without saying that legislation such as this, which makes it

harder to obtain fake IDs, will also make it harder for those who abduct innocent children to mask their identity and thereby avoid detection.

Mr. President, it is rare that we have before us legislation that would effectively address problems as disparate as homeland defense, identity theft, underage drinking, and child abduction. The SAFE ID Act would do just that, by cutting the legs out from under those who would misuse technology to mislead government authorities.

I am pleased that we were also able to include in the conference agreement the text of the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, a bill which I introduced with Senator Grassley in the Senate as S. 226, and that Representatives Coble and Smith introduced in the House of Representatives.

This legislation arose out of a series of hearings Senator Grassley and I held in the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control on the risk that the so-called ``club drug'' Ecstasy poses to young people and the predatory behavior of some promoters of all-night dance parties--known as ``raves''--in distributing the drug to them.

The bill provides federal prosecutors the tools needed to combat the manufacture, distribution or use of any controlled substance at any venue whose purpose is to engage in illegal narcotics activity.

Rather than create a new law, it merely amends a well-established statute to make clear that anyone who knowingly and intentionally uses their property--or allows another person to use their property--for the purpose of distributing or manufacturing or using illegal drugs can be held accountable, regardless of whether the drug use is ongoing or occurs at a single event.

The bill is aimed at the defendant's predatory behavior, regardless of the type of drug or the particular place in which it is being used or distributed. One problem that we are facing currently involves so- called ``club drugs'' and raves. According to the Partnership for a Drug Free America, teens who report attending a rave are seven times more likely to have tried Ecstasy than teens who report not attending a rave. I find this statistic quite troubling and I hope that the changes made by the conference report before us today will make promoters think twice before endangering kids in this manner.

Despite the conventional wisdom that Ecstasy and other club drugs are ``no big deal,'' a view that even the New York Times magazine espoused in a cover story, these drugs can have serious consequences, and can even be fatal. Earlier this year we got some encouraging news: after years of steady increase, Ecstasy use is finally beginning to decrease among teens. That said, the rate of use remains unacceptably high and we still have quite a bit of work to do to counter the widespread misconception that Ecstasy is harmless, fashionable and hip.

At a 2001 Drug Caucus hearing, witnesses testified that rogue rave organizers commonly go to great lengths to portray their events as safe so that parents will allow their kids to attend. But the truth is that some of these raves are drug dens where use of Ecstasy and other ``club drugs''--such as the date rape drugs Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine--is widespread.

We know that there will always be certain people who will bring drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of activity that my bill would address. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a high bar. The coalition of Licensed Beverage Associations and the International Association of Assembly Managers, who initially expressed concerns that my bill would make their members liable for the actions of their patrons, have endorsed my legislation because they realized that my bill was not aimed at responsible party promoters.

I am confident that the overwhelming majority of promoters are decent, law abiding people who are going to discourage drug use--or any other illegal activity--at their venues. But there are a few promoters out there who are taking steps to profit from drug activity at their events. Some of these folks distribute drugs themselves or have their staff distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales, have thinly veiled drug messages on their promotional flyers, tell security to ignore drug use or sales, or send patients who need medical attention to a hospital across town so that people won't link emergency room visits with their club.

My bill has met fierce resistance from a number of groups who have not felt the need to be constrained by the facts. Earlier this week the Drug Policy Alliance, a group whose goal is to end criminal penalties for marijuana, sent out an alert to get people to call their Senators and Representatives to register their disapproval of my bill. The background information they provided on the issue discussed my bill interchangeably with a House bill that I have never had any association with, have never supported, and was not being discussed by the conference committee. Rather than quoting the legal standard in my bill--which makes clear that an individual would have to knowingly maintain a place for the purpose of drug use--the Drug Policy Alliance chose to quote from the House bill that (1) has a legal standard--that the individual ``knows or reasonably ought to know'' that a controlled substance will be used at their event--that is far lower than that in my bill and (2) is specifically targeted at raves and promoters. What is more, on their web site, the Drug Policy Alliance makes the outlandish claim that:

The ``RAVE'' Act threatens free speech and musical expression while placing at risk any hotel/motel owner, concern promoter, event organizer, nightclub owner or arena/stadium owner for the drug violations of 3rd parties--real or alleged--even if the event promoter and/or property owner made a good-faith effort to keep their event drug-free. It applies not just to electronic-music parties, but any type of public gathering, including theatrical productions, rock concerns, DJ nights at local bars, and potentially even political rallies. Moreover, it gives heightened powers and discretion to prosecutors, who may use it to target events they personally don't like--such as Hip-Hop events and gay and lesbian fundraisers.

The law that my bill amends, 21 U.S.C. 856, has been on the book for nearly two decades and I am unaware of it ever being used to prosecute a legitimate business. My bill would not change that fact.

The reason that I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill the ``rave scene'' or silence electronic music--all things of which I have been accused. Although this legislation grew out of testimony I heard at a number of hearings about 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. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertised--as places for people to come dance in a safe, drug-free environment--then they have nothing to fear from this law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression--it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids.

Again, I am glad that this measure was included in the conference report. I believe it is a fitting addition to a bill whose purpose is to protect children.

I am pleased that we were also able to include in the conference agreement section 10 of S. 152, the ``DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003,'' a bill which I introduced with Senators Specter, Cantwell and Clinton, along with 20 bipartisan cosponsors, in the Senate and that Representatives Green and Maloney introduced in the House of Representatives. This bill unanimously passed the Senate in the 107th Congress as S. 2513.

Section 611 would amend Title 18 to encourage federal prosecutors to bring ``John Doe/DNA indictments'' in federal sex crimes. Specifically, the provision amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3282 to authorize explicitly federal prosecutors to issue an indictment identifying an unknown defendant by this DNA profile within the 5-year statute of limitations. If the indictment is issued within the 5-year statute of limitations, the statute is then tolled until the perpetrator is identified through his or her DNA profile at a later date. The John

Doe/DNA indictment would permit prosecution at anytime once there was a DNA ``cold hit'' through the national DNA database system.

While the Justice Department is permitted currently to bring John Doe/DNA indictments under Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, see, e.g., United States v. Fawcett, 115 F.2d 764, 767 (3d Cir. 1940) (an indictment is an accusation against a person, not against a name, and hence the name is not of the substance of the indictment), they have not been frequently used in federal sex offenses. Accordingly, section 611 in no way should be construed, by negative implication, as suggesting that a DNA profile is the only alternative method of identification in criminal indictments.

Joe Doe/DNA indictment strike the right balance between encouraging swift and efficient investigations, recognizing the durability and credibility of DNA evidence and preventing an injustice if a cold hit happens years after the crime if law enforcement did not promptly process forensic evidence. Providing incentives for law enforcement to test quickly crime scene DNA from sexual assaults will also help identify sex offenders (who are often recidivists) to permit their speedy apprehension and prosecution.

In conclusion, Mr. President, this conference report will do a lot to protect our kids. I commend the Chairman of the Judiciary committee Senator Hatch for his efforts. Our ranking member Senator Leahy dedicated himself to passing a meaningful Amber Alert bill. The staffs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees worked long hours to get us to this point today. I am especially grateful for the efforts of Makan Delrahim, Mike Volkov, Reed O'Connor and Jennifer Wagner of Senator Hatch's staff. Thanks also to Bruce Cohen, Ed Pagano, Julie Katzman, Steve Dettelbach, Tim Lynch, Tara Magnere and Jessica Berry of Senator Leahy's staff. The majority and minority staffs of the House Judiciary Committee worked equally hard to produce this conference report. I am appreciative of the efforts of Phil Kiko, Steve Pinkos, Will Moschella, Jap Apperson, Sean McLaughlin, Beth Sokul and Katy Crooks of Congressman Sensenbrenner's staff. Also I would like to thank Ted Kalo with Congressman Conyers and Bobby Vassar and Greg Barnes with Congressman Scott for their working during the conference committee.

Finally, and most importantly, I thank my Judiciary Committee staff for their efforts on behalf of this conference report. Neil MacBride, Eric Rosen, Tonya Robinson, Marcia Lee, Jonathan Meyer, Louisa Terrell and my very able law clerk Tracy Carney each ensured that many of my legislative priorities were included in this conference report and in so doing they helped to ensure our kids will be safer tomorrow then they are today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report.

Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment of a good friend of mine, Senator Ensign from Nevada. He introduced an amendment that maybe I should have been aware of but was unaware of until just a few minutes ago that reads:

No funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this

Act for purposes of reconstruction of Iraq may be obligated

or expended to pay any person who is a citizen of a country

named in a subsection.

It goes on to name in the subsection France and Germany.

I don't want to speak for the Senator, but that view is an expression of the frustration of an awful lot of Americans and some anger at the failure of the Germans and the French to support our effort to disarm Saddam Hussein.

I begin by saying, I have just spoken with the White House and the State Department. They are adamantly opposed to this amendment. France and Germany are providing support for our effort to disarm Saddam that exceeds that of many countries who were formally members of the coalition. There are overflight and basing rights, and many of our wounded are being flown first to Germany before they come here, not to mention their absolutely critical support in the war on terrorism.

Again, I understand the motivation and the frustration and the anger that may be behind some who want to support the amendment. Our decision to use force in Iraq has created deep divisions within the Security Council. Nonetheless, America need not and cannot take sole responsibility for the challenges of postwar Iraq. That is exactly what this would produce. We can't allow the Security Council and our Atlantic alliances to become casualties of this war.

I am happy to.

I am.

Absolutely not. Any more than they should be in Iraq. This amendment is a disaster. I understand the frustration. But this is a case where, as my dear mother would say--and my friend from Arizona has met my mom--she would look at me when we were both young--neither the Senator from Arizona nor I have a temper any longer, but when we were young we were alleged to have tempers. My mother, every time I would lose my temper, would look at me and say: Joey, don't bite your nose off to spite your face.

We are about to, in the colloquial phrase, bite our nose off to spite our face if, in fact, we were to ever allow this amendment to become law.

Absolutely, positively not. Because of the, as some view them, arcane rules of the Senate, the Senator has to make his point by asking me questions. I would be delighted to yield him some time to speak to this directly as well.

What we are both saying is, this is a fool's errand. This is a foolish undertaking. Let me lay it out, if I may. And then I will be delighted to save some time for my friend from Arizona, who is not only a good personal friend, but a person for whom I have great respect on all matters, particularly foreign policy.

The first reason this would be such a profound mistake is that rebuilding Iraq an Iraq that is secure and self-sufficient, whole and free is going to require tens of billions of dollars over many years. While Iraq's long-term economic promise is good, its short-term prospects are bleak.

This is something we don't focus on. Iraq's annual oil revenues in the first 5 years after Saddam is out--God willing--are projected to be no more than $15 billion. Iraq is saddled, as they should be, with U.N. sanctions, an estimated $61 billion in foreign debt, and $200 billion in reparation claims through the U.N. Compensation Committee. So the idea that we can thumb our nose at the rest of the world and say, we don't need you in there helping us, is profoundly mistaken.

Many Senators think that what happens once Saddam is down, once the war is over, is that the oil is going to flow and there will be plenty of money for the Iraqis to move toward democracy, reconstruct their country, all from their oil revenues.

The fact is, the estimates are, if all goes well, there will be no more than $15 billion a year, and they sit now with obligations that exceed $61 billion in foreign debt and $200 billion in claims.

Experts who have testified before the Foreign Relations Committee put the price tag at post-conflict security--a fancy phrase for saying after the war is over--humanitarian assistance and reconstruction to be between $20 and $25 billion per year for the next 10 years.

My point is, the United States should not take on that obligation alone. Yet if we bar the companies of friendly countries who did not support us in the war from taking part in the peace, what incentive will there be for their governments to help pick up the tab? I respectfully suggest it would be zero.

Secondly, as pointed out to me by the State Department and my staff-- and it is self-evident when you think about it--this is going to require the so-called ``iffies,'' the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other international banking institutions, to be part of this reconstruction. We are taking a country that has been decimated by a guy named Saddam for

the past several decades, and we are going to try to make it a member of the family of nations on the road to democracy. We know how hard that is, even where there has been no war. We know how important it is to have international institutions part of the process of helping fledgling democracies come into being.

Now, what prospect do you think there is that the World Bank will get involved, or the IMF, if in fact the two leading members who make decisions on those boards are German and French and they are prohibited, in an almost spiteful way, from having any German or French individuals, let alone any companies, participating in anything having to do with the reconstruction of Iraq?

Third, we need military forces of those countries to be in on the peace. That is what the Secretary of State is doing right now. He is meeting with NATO. The Associated Press published an article today entitled: ``Powell Says U.S. Will Lead Postwar Effort in Iraq.'' And I quote:

Powell and the Europeans did reach a tentative agreement,

however, that NATO should consider deploying peacekeepers to

Iraq.

I want someone else in the deal besides the United States. I don't want it merely to be for the next year or 2, 3, 4 or 5 years that there is a young American woman or man standing at every checkpoint, guarding every border crossing, guarding every oil field, and becoming the target of every malcontent and terrorist in the world.

I want the world to take on this responsibility with us. That is what the Secretary of State is trying to do. A military occupation, even temporary, that includes only Americans and British soldiers could fuel resentment throughout the Middle East, bolster al-Qaida's recruitment, make America the target for terrorists and malcontents everywhere. If the military mission stretches beyond several months or years, as is predicted, the failure to include other countries would compound these problems and, I predict, if history is any teacher, turn us from liberators into occupiers.

We need to make peace in Iraq the world's responsibility, not just our own. If we bar their companies from the peace, we may as well forget about their help on the security side. Let's not undermine our diplomacy here by passing such an ill-conceived amendment.

Four, if the United States alone selects a new Iraqi government--even an interim one--that will call into question the government's legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people, the region, and the world. Iraqis who have lived through the brutality of Saddam Hussein's rule should be given the time, the space, and the support to choose their own leaders and to develop the institutions of a stable representative government. We should work with the international community to help achieve that. Who is going to be involved with us if, in fact, we take these punitive measures because they disagreed about the course of action to begin with?

Fifth, many around the world, even long-time allies, question our motives in Iraq. They believe, wrongly, that the President was driven by a quest for oil, driven by commercial interests, or imperial designs. They are dead wrong. But barring foreign companies in the industrialized world--particularly from France and Germany--from taking part in the peace, would only go a step further to confirm the misconception that we are in this for economic gain. We are not. That is not why the President moved. If we allow that to happen, I believe we risk further erosion of those alliances and institutions that have been essential to American security and global cooperation for more than 50 years. It would undermine our interests because we cannot contend with all the threats around the world, including the unfinished war on terrorism, the dangerous nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, and the spread of infectious diseases, such as SARS, without the cooperation of others in the world. Making friends and allies who oppose the war our partners in Iraq's peace can go a long way to repair the hard feelings that have been emerging in recent months.

Six, if we start blackballing foreign companies, we better be prepared for retaliation against the many American companies operating in France, Germany, and other countries. These American companies bring in billions of dollars that support tens of thousands of jobs in the United States of America. If we were to blackball those who disagreed with us, including France and Germany, from participating in any way in the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe you would see retribution from that which will have impacts beyond anything I am sure my friend from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, intended. This amendment would put a lot in jeopardy.

Let me conclude--because I see the chairman on the floor--by reiterating what I said at the outset, which is that the Ensign amendment is opposed by the White House. I spoke to Dr. Rice, and I am authorized to say the White House opposes this amendment because it would deny the President of the United States the flexibility he needs. I spoke to the State Department, the Deputy Secretary of State, who pointed out that this would significantly undermine the other projects, the other issues we are trying to negotiate with our allies.

The last point I will make is this: Some will say, why do we have to reconstruct Iraq at all? If we fail to secure the peace in Iraq, then we will fail to honor those young marines and soldiers and airmen and Navy pilots who have been killed in Iraq. The purpose of this endeavor is not only to deny Saddam Hussein those weapons of mass destruction, but to begin the process of stabilizing in that region so we don't have to send, in the future, our children--young American men and women--to Iraq to give their lives to secure our freedom.

I am not in any way suggesting the motive of my friend from Nevada, Senator Ensign, is not a pure one. I am suggesting that it is dangerously misguided.

I am prepared to yield the floor. I am looking to the leadership here to determine whether I should suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I believe will bring renewed focus to the battle against child abuse and the services we provide child victims of crimes. Today, I am introducing the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 2003, which reauthorizes the Children's Advocacy Centers. These centers bring together law enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services and medical and mental health professionals to provide comprehensive, child-focused services to child victims of crimes. Operating in all 50 States, Children's Advocacy Centers served over 116,000 child victims last year. Of these victims, 26,934 received onsite medical exams, 27,684 received counseling and 69,443 went through a forensic interview process specially designed for children. Seventy-six percent of the children they serviced were under the age of 12.

In 1994, this body passed a piece of legislation that I authored and had been advocating for a number of years, the Violence Against Women Act. When we passed this landmark legislation, what we said as a Congress, and were saying as a Nation as a whole, was that domestic violence is not a family problem to be dealt with quietly behind the scenes, but a national crisis in need of a coordinated response from law enforcement, courts and the medical community. Backed by a nearly $1\1/2\ billion commitment of Federal funds, the Violence Against Women Act spurred a sea change on the Federal, State and local levels in how police, prosecutors, judges, medical personnel and others, process and handle cases of domestic abuse. The Violence Against Women Act made it clear that victims of domestic violence were, in fact, victims: Victims in need of the full extent of this nation's medical and legal resources. The bill I am introducing today is designed to bring this same type of concentrated focus, general awareness, and coordinated response to victims of child abuse, the most heinous and incomprehensible form of violence against the most vulnerable and innocent people in our lives.

In 1987 Congressman Bud Cramer, then District Attorney of Madison, County, AL, founded the Nation's first Children's Advocacy Center. As stated earlier, these centers bring together law enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services and medical and mental health professionals to provide comprehensive, coordinated services to child victims of crimes. Congress responded several years later. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I

sponsored, along with Senator Thurmond, the Crime Control Act of 1990, P.L. 101-647, which created the Court Appointed Special Advocates, (CASA), program, to provide for the appointment of advocates on behalf of abused and neglected children. Two years later, Congress created the Children's Advocacy Centers as part of the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, P.L. 102-586. The 1992 legislation amended the Victims of Child Abuse Act to include Child Advocacy Centers with a fiscal year 1993 total authorization level of $20 million and such sums as necessary for fiscal years 1994 through 1996. In particular, Senator Nickles and Representative Cramer were instrumental in championing the Children's Advocacy Centers. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1996, P.L. 104-235, reauthorized the Children's Advocacy Centers through fiscal year 2000 but made no substantive changes to the program, nor did it provide specific authorization levels.

The Children's Advocacy Centers were a logical complement to the CASA program I authored in 1990, by bringing together law enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services and medical and mental health professionals to provide comprehensive, child-focused services to child victims of crimes. The centers provide immediate attention to the young victims of sexual and physical abuse, so that they are not ``twice abused,'' first by the perpetrator and second by a system which used to shuttle them from a medical clinic to a counseling center to the police station to the D.A.'s office.

Communities with Children's Advocacy Centers report increased successful prosecution of perpetrators, more consistent follow-up to child abuse reports, increased medical and mental health referrals for victims, and more compassionate support for child victims and their families. Widely cited as an efficient, cost-effective mechanism of handling child abuse cases, these centers are widely supported by police, prosecutors and the courts. In a May 1998 publication titled, New Directions from the Field, the Department of Justice included Children's Advocacy Centers as their number one recommendation for improving services to children who directly experience or witness violence in their homes, neighborhoods and schools--number one.

Today in my state of Delaware, there are two operational Children's Advocacy Centers. One is located in Wilmington and one is located in Milford. A third center is scheduled to open in Dover. These centers provide a safe, comfortable setting in which cross-trained professionals interview alleged victims and begin initial investigation and evidence collection. Like other centers they offer on-site physical exams by specially trained pediatricians, prosecutors on hand to make immediate contact with victims and families, referrals to mental health services and most importantly, one-time minimally intrusive taped interviews of child victims. This last service, one-time minimally intrusive taped interviews, is particularly important. Let me read to you from a letter I received from John Humphrey, a retired police officer who now acts as executive director of the Delaware Children's Advocacy Centers, to demonstrate why:

I am a retired New Castle County Police Lieutenant that for

12 of my 21 years investigated child abuse and child death

cases. One of the most important pieces of the entire case is

the interview of the child victim. . . . Often times I saw

children subjected to at least 3-4 interviews by 3 or 4

different interviewers, all with varying levels of

interviewing expertise. The end result is three or four

versions of events . . . answers vary because of the manner

in which questions are asked and the skills of the

interviewer. . . . Defense attorneys use that alone to poke

holes in a child's story. . . . Children's Advocacy Centers

bring all of the involved parties to the table at the same

time to work as a team. . . . We use forensic interviewers

specially trained in interviewing children. . . . This

results in video taped interviews of such quality that most

defense attorneys are asking for pleas to escape trial. We

are getting good pleas with good sentences. Most importantly,

this process minimizes the trauma a child victim and witness

must endure by doing one interview of such quality that the

child may be spared from walking into a courtroom full of

strangers to tell what happened. I would have given anything

as a police detective to have a children's advocacy center.

It expedites the process, minimizes the problems associated

with duplicative and unnecessary interviews, opens the lines

of combination between agencies, and provides the best

professional assessment of a case.

Last year Children's Advocacy Centers in Delaware handled 1,000 cases where child victims as young as 3 alleged physical or sexual abuse. Mr. Humphrey estimates that the centers eliminated 2,500 unnecessary interviews by using the multidisciplinary approach.

The child abuse and crime statistics in this country are outrageous. Nationally, 3.9 million of the nation's 22.3 million children between the ages of 12 and 17 have been seriously physically assaulted and one in three girls and one in five boys are sexually abused before the age of 18. We have to do more to protect our children, by reauthorizing Children's Advocacy Centers we can.

I want to believe that we are doing everything we can to prevent crimes against children and, if God forbid they do occur, that we are doing everything we can to treat the victims. This piece of legislation would do just that.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to give congratulations to one of the great local fire departments in Delaware, the Georgetown Fire Company, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this month. This anniversary is a tribute to those who had the vision to found the fire department and to those volunteers who have carried on this tradition all the way through today.

We are very lucky in Delaware to have such a rich history of volunteer community fire departments. With the addition of the Georgetown Company, we have had 15 fire companies in our state celebrate 100 years of service. In fact, we have even had 3 companies-- Lewes, Carlisle of Milford, and Good Will of New Castle--celebrate 200 years of service.

With such successes though, it is easy to forget the humble beginnings of many of these departments. On April 11, 1903, the town commissioners of Georgetown announced in a town meeting that it would be forming a fire company to bring down the cost of fire insurance. Before the establishment of a fire company, the community had relied on so-called bucket brigades and a hand-drawn ladder wagon.

When it was founded, there were fourteen charter members of the Georgetown Fire Company and only one piece of fire equipment. Today, there are almost one hundred members of the company and an entire fleet of state of the art fire equipment.

And as a testament to the unceasing dedication of the volunteers who serve in this company and to the respect and veneration it has in the community, almost half of the members of the Georgetown Fire Company are life members or honorary members. Many members of the company who have served their town as volunteer firefighters for decades never stop serving.

The Georgetown Fire Company has become an integral part of the community it has served. It has saved the lives and the property of many. In the town of Georgetown, everyone knows who the real heros are.

It is my privilege to share the company's great history with my colleagues and with our fellow citizens today. We honor the company's 100th anniversary and the extraordinary commitment that it has never stopped showing to its community. Congratulations to all of the officers, members, and friends of the Georgetown Fire Company. It is very well deserved.

Mr. President, I am going to make a longer speech about Pat Moynihan, who was a close personal friend. That sounds almost presumptuous to say. He was such a towering intellect and profound political figure, to claim a personal friendship with him seems to be somewhat presumptuous. But he was.

Of all that I recall Pat Moynihan said and did, there is one thing that sticks in my mind that seems particularly appropriate on the day after his passing.

He once said, and I am paraphrasing but it is close to a quote, about John Kennedy's death:

There is no sense in being Irish unless you understand the

world is eventually going to break your heart.

I want Mrs. Moynihan to understand that there are a lot of us--Irish and non-Irish--who have a broken heart today because of the passing of a man who was truly, truly a giant in 20th-century American politics.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the chairman of the committee, in support of S. Con. Res. 30, which commends and expresses the gratitude of the United States to the other nations participating with us in the Coalition to Disarm Iraq. The American people and this Congress stand with our Commander in Chief and behind our men and women in uniform. It is their responsibility, and the Commander in Chief's, to prosecute this war in Iraq, but it is our responsibility to give them the support they need and deserve.

There may be difficult days ahead, but I am confident of the extraordinary skill and ultimate success of our endeavor. As we gather here today, the sons and daughters of four countries--the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark--are fighting alongside our troops. Our purpose today is to thank them from the bottom of our hearts for the courage they are demonstrating. It is to tell their families and loved ones of our gratitude for their sacrifice and to express to their leaders our profound admiration for their determination to join other nations, including ours, in a common and just cause.

Several dozen nations are supporting this coalition in other ways-- politically, diplomatically, and strategically. They, too, have our deep appreciation. The Senator from Indiana has read the names of those nations.

Let me say a word to the leaders and the people from friendly countries and allies who do not support our effort to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime. This Senator and many others disagree profoundly with the choices they have made. But this Senator, at least, respects-- equally profoundly--that that choice is the right of a sovereign nation to make, to differ with us.

I think it is time that we move beyond the finger-pointing and recriminations that have been flying across the Atlantic and around the world. We need one another. We will need one another in other endeavors. It is time to, again, heal the differences. We could not come together in war, but we are going to have to come together in peace.

This resolution expresses that hope. By its words, it ``welcomes and encourages the active involvement of [the countries in this coalition], other nations, and key international organizations in the reconstruction and civil administration of Iraq after the conflict.''

When this war ends--hopefully, that will be soon--we will face a tremendous responsibility and an equally important opportunity in terms of Iraq's future. Even as our thoughts and prayers are with our President, our troops, and our allies, we need to think about and act on that future now.

Why is this so important? I believe it is important because it is profoundly against the interests of the United States to be left the sole responsibility for Iraq. As my friend, and the friends of many here, Tom Friedman, has put it: We may have to rent this country for a time; but it is not our desire to own it.

There are three reasons for that:

First, it will cost tens of billions of dollars and take years to rebuild an Iraq that is secure, whole, free, and governed by its own people. We should not bear that burden or responsibility alone.

Second, an indefinite American military occupation of Iraq would fuel resentment throughout the Middle East, bolster al-Qaida's recruitment, and make Americans a target for malcontents everywhere. We need to make the peace in Iraq the world's responsibility, not just our own.

Third, failure to engage the U.N. and as many countries as possible in post-Saddam Iraq would miss an opportunity to repair the damage that has been done to the U.N., to our alliances, and international cooperation--all of which we will need to win the war against terrorism, to contend with North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs, to slow the spread of weapons of mass destruction, to deal with outbreaks of disease, and to contend with so many other threats that have no respect for borders.

I hope the administration will spare no effort in securing the sanction of the United Nations for everything that will have to be done to keep the peace in Iraq after the war, to provide humanitarian aid, to rebuild the country, and to help put Iraq back into the hands of its own people.

By gaining the U.N.'s approval, we would help political leaders around the world whose people oppose the war justify their participation--including financial participation--in building the peace. It has not been lost on any of our colleagues in the last several days of debate, nor upon our fellow Americans; it is dawning on them that in the last gulf war, we paid between 17 and 20 percent of the cost of the war. For this gulf war, we are lucky to pay the totality of the bill--if not 100 percent, very close to it. The meter is just beginning to run. The chairman of the committee and I have held hearings over the last 10 months on this issue. We don't have any firm number, but we have estimates that it is going to cost--after we win-- anywhere from $19 billion a year to numbers well in excess of that. It is in our interest--our direct interest--that other nations participate in making Iraq secure.

By gaining U.N. approval, as I said, we would help the political leaders around the world who know that is in their interest as well-- whose people oppose the war--to justify their participation, including financial participation. And we would demonstrate a U.S. commitment to rebuild ties to the U.N., which will be important in our long-term security.

I personally think Kosovo provides a powerful precedent for such a course of action. In Kosovo, we chose not to pursue a use of force resolution at the U.N. that we knew Russia would veto. I was in this Chamber urging that we bypass the U.N. and go directly to a coalition of the willing--in this case, the EU and NATO--to gain support for what many of us here strongly believed was in the interest of the United States, the interest of Europe, and in the humanitarian interests of hundreds of thousands of people. We moved.

But even before the first bombs fell, we worked closely with the Security Council on an agreement to put the U.N. and other countries front and center in Kosovo for humanitarian aid and civil authority once the peace was made. As a result, we did not have to build the peace alone. Our motives were not questioned alone, and we did not bear the costs alone. Evidence the fact that we were carrying roughly 15 percent of the freight, 15 percent of the personnel, after Milosevic was defeated.

I know there is tension between those who see the efficiency of an American military occupation and those who seek the legitimacy of a U.N.-led effort.

I have made close to a dozen trips, during and after the war in Bosnia and Kosovo, to the Balkans. I can tell you, there is no U.N. organization, there is no multilateral organization, there is no organization in the world that can deliver with the speed and efficiency whatever is needed that equals that of the U.S. military; it doesn't exist--whether it is building a road, digging a well, or securing a neighborhood. But the fact is, we have to find a place between that efficiency and the need for legitimacy.

In the immediate weeks after the war, our military will have to be in charge of the country, and long term, we will have to be in charge of the security side of the equation in the country. Longer term, our goal--working with our allies and the international community--must be to put Iraq back in the hands of the Iraqi people, and this, again, in order for it to have legitimacy and, in my view, the prospect of succeeding, will have to be viewed by the region and the rest of the world as having been and gotten the imprimatur of the international community. The last thing we need to do is look as though we are putting in a puppet government--which is not our intention--in Baghdad in order to serve our purposes. There will be no legitimacy, and it will commit us much longer and in a more costly way.

During this critical interim period, we must achieve a very difficult balance. On the one hand, we have to avoid prolonging American military occupation, and, of course, for as long as our troops are there, security must be their responsibility--U.S. responsibility, not the responsibility of the U.N. or any other organization. We also had a bite out of that apple in the Balkans, in Bosnia. It did not work. It was a mistake. We corrected that mistake in Kosovo. But it should not be their role long term to administer Iraq or to choose its future leaders.

We don't want the American military having to make political decisions day in and day out and being blamed for every grievance. That would fuel resentment and turn us from liberators into occupiers. We do not want the American military putting in place a new Iraqi government, in my view. It would be seen as a puppet and, I believe, with no legitimacy.

On the other hand, we must not leave too quickly or hand over power to the Iraqis who lack the ability, the authority, and the institutions to govern their country--and risk Iraq coming apart at the seams.

Again, this is a different circumstance in Iraq than it was in Bosnia and in Kosovo, but we had a piece of that in both those countries.

This is a difficult balance. I am not suggesting any absolute formula, but I am suggesting that, to the degree the American military commander is seen to be handpicking and/or putting in place a new Iraqi regime, a new Iraqi government, it will diminish its legitimacy. To the degree to which an American sergeant, lieutenant, or captain has to stand someplace in Kirkuk and tell a returning Kurd, who was expelled through ethnic cleansing 15 years ago, whether he can go into his home and expel the Arab Sunni living there, that is a problem for us. I do not want some American GI having to make that decision, although they are qualified to make it. They should not have to be the ones to make each of those decisions.

Again, the handoff in the transition will be difficult, but as long as we move toward involving the international community without yielding any of our security interests, that is the way to go.

How would they deal, for example, as I said, with the Kurds, the Turkmen, and Arabs literally fighting over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, trying to claim that city? How will they contend with uncooperative ethnic leaders bent on revenge instead of reconciliation?

We are the ones who will have to provide the military muscle for the coalition to interface between those groups, but we should have the rest of the world in on the deal and the responsibility. Instead, someone must be given the authority to resolve the incredibly complicated problems that will arise, and we should look to those experiences, as I said, in the Balkans, some of it good, some of it not so good, and draw from that experience.

We should empower an international civil servant to be the country's high commissioner or representative at some point as this transition goes forward. He or she should be backed up by an international civilian administration that empowers Iraqis, by a credible international security force with American forces at its core, American forces in the lead.

God willing, this war will continue to go well. Casualties on all sides, God willing, will be few, and, God willing, a victory will be sooner than later. And working with the international community, God willing, we will put Iraq on the path to a democratic society.

Even if we succeed in these difficult endeavors, we should not expect Iraq's promise that will come from this new government to automatically trigger progress throughout the region. Indeed, we will not truly win the peace unless we adopt and pursue a broader strategy for the Middle East. I believe the President has recognized that by underscoring and endorsing the road map between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Now we must follow through and show a consistent commitment to its implementation.

Finding a solution to this problem would exponentially increase our ability to promote and support democracy and democratic reform throughout the region. We must do that for the sake of its people and for the safety of our own. For when there are no democratic outlets, dissent moves underground, it turns into resentment, and it is ventilated by extremism and even terrorism. So we must make it clear to our friends in that region that their future and their future with us requires--requires--a move toward democratization.

If we listen to the voices of Arabs themselves, if we heed the wisdom of the U.N.'s Arab development report that ties progress to empowering women, reforming economies, and expanding political participation, we can

and will help infuse a sense of hope in a region that lacks hope.

Mr. President, by refusing to disarm, a defiant Saddam has made the fateful choice between war and peace. This is not an exercise of a doctrine of preemption. This is an exercise of enforcing a peace agreement. This is an enforcement action, enforcing an agreement a defeated president made in the early nineties to the whole world at the United Nations saying: If you let me remain in power, I commit to keep the following conditions to this peace agreement. That is what this was.

If this had been 1919, we would have been in Versailles having to sign an agreement. It was 1991, and it was at a time when the United Nations was available to us.

He made this choice. He made the choice between war and peace. Let us make sure that in winning the war, we also win the peace.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time on the resolution.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Hatch, to introduce the Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense Act of 2003, also known as the ``SAFE ID'' Act. My good friend, the Senior Senator from Utah, is joining me on this important piece of legislation.

Two of the terrorists who perpetrated the acts of 9/11 held false identification documents, which they purchased from a broker of false IDs. That broker was convicted, but sentenced merely to probation. The judge and the prosecutor publicly lamented that the law did not subject such a person to harsher penalties. These events focused new attention on an existing, growing problem--the ease with which individuals and organizations can forge and steal IDs and use them to harm our society. These circumstances weaken our efforts in the fight against terrorism; identity theft; underage drinking and drunk driving; driver's license, passport and birth certificate fraud, among others. In the post-9/11 era, we must do more to prevent the creation of false, misleading or inaccurate government IDs. This has become an issue of national importance and therefore merits a national response.

In recent years, the ability of criminals to produce authentic- looking fake IDs has grown immensely. Today, unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly common for criminals to either steal or forge, and traffic in, the very items that issuing authorities use to verify the authenticity of their IDs. These ``authentication features'' are the holograms, watermarks, and other symbols, letters and codes used in identification documents to prove that they are authentic. Unfortunately, today IDs carrying authentication features can be purchased on the Internet or through mail order outfits. In addition, breeder documents, such as birth certificates, are desk-top published, with an illegitimate embossed or foil seal. Put another way, not only do crooks forge identification documents, they also now illegally fake or steal the very features issuing authorities use to fight that crime.

Under current law, it is not illegal to possess, traffic in, or use false or misleading authentication features whose purpose is to create fraudulent IDs. That is why I am today introducing the SAFE ID Act.

The SAFE ID Act would prohibit the fraudulent use of authentication features in identity documents. Specifically, the SAFE ID Act adds authentication features to the list of items covered by 10 U.S.C. 1028(a), an existing law prohibiting fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents. In addition, the Act requires forfeiture of any violative items, such as false authentication features and relevant equipment.

It is rare that we have before us legislation that would effectively address problems as disparate as homeland defense, identity theft and underage drinking. The SAFE ID Act would do just that, by cutting the legs out from under those who would misuse technology to mislead government authorities.

I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and my other colleagues, to secure consideration and passage of this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Hatch, to introduce the Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense Act of 2003, also known as the ``SAFE ID'' Act. My good friend, the Senior Senator from Utah, is joining me on this important piece of legislation.

Two of the terrorists who perpetrated the acts of 9/11 held false identification documents, which they purchased from a broker of false IDs. That broker was convicted, but sentenced merely to probation. The judge and the prosecutor publicly lamented that the law did not subject such a person to harsher penalties. These events focused new attention on an existing, growing problem--the ease with which individuals and organizations can forge and steal IDs and use them to harm our society. These circumstances weaken our efforts in the fight against terrorism; identity theft; underage drinking and drunk driving; driver's license, passport and birth certificate fraud, among others. In the post-9/11 era, we must do more to prevent the creation of false, misleading or inaccurate government IDs. This has become an issue of national importance and therefore merits a national response.

In recent years, the ability of criminals to produce authentic- looking fake IDs has grown immensely. Today, unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly common for criminals to either steal or forge, and traffic in, the very items that issuing authorities use to verify the authenticity of their IDs. These ``authentication features'' are the holograms, watermarks, and other symbols, letters and codes used in identification documents to prove that they are authentic. Unfortunately, today IDs carrying authentication features can be purchased on the Internet or through mail order outfits. In addition, breeder documents, such as birth certificates, are desk-top published, with an illegitimate embossed or foil seal. Put another way, not only do crooks forge identification documents, they also now illegally fake or steal the very features issuing authorities use to fight that crime.

Under current law, it is not illegal to possess, traffic in, or use false or misleading authentication features whose purpose is to create fraudulent IDs. That is why I am today introducing the SAFE ID Act.

The SAFE ID Act would prohibit the fraudulent use of authentication features in identity documents. Specifically, the SAFE ID Act adds authentication features to the list of items covered by 10 U.S.C. 1028(a), an existing law prohibiting fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents. In addition, the Act requires forfeiture of any violative items, such as false authentication features and relevant equipment.

It is rare that we have before us legislation that would effectively address problems as disparate as homeland defense, identity theft and underage drinking. The SAFE ID Act would do just that, by cutting the legs out from under those who would misuse technology to mislead government authorities.

I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and my other colleagues, to secure consideration and passage of this bill.

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

Mr. President, our Nation is at war. Our Federal budget faces unprecedented deficits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, counting the cost of that war, the deficit will be $587 billion this year alone. And we are on the threshold of a crisis in the funding of our Social Security system as the baby boom generation begins to retire in the next decade.

Yet this budget resolution calls for fully $850 billion in tax cuts, all of which will be borrowed from that Social Security system. In my 30 year career in the Senate, I cannot recall a more reckless or irresponsible proposal.

Instead of a careful, conservative approach to our finances, instead of caution and a sense of responsibility in these dangerous times, this budget throws caution to the wind and simply dumps the bill for our actions today on our children and grandchildren.

These are no ordinary times. We are now fully engaged in a war in Iraq, a war that will not be truly over until the reconstruction of that nation is accomplished. The $75 billion that the President has just requested is just the first installment on that commitment. We cannot know the full costs of that undertaking, which could take many years to complete. At the same time, the global war on terrorism must be fought here at home as well as in the farthest corners of the globe. The costs of that commitment will be substantial and could well represent a permanent change in the way we do business.

This budget simply ignores those new realities and treats the Social Security system like a broken piggy bank, grabbing the savings the system will soon need for its own obligations to paper over the costs not only of our new security responsibilities, but hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts as well. But those bills will come due, as the baby boom generation retires, and this budget plants a time bomb in a Social Security system that already faces a serious future imbalance.

Beyond those profound problems, the massive loss of revenues called for in this budget means that we do not have the funds available for such fundamental priorities as homeland defense, health care, or education.

I was glad to see that we fixed some of the problems in this resolution. Senator Feingold's amendment rescued $100 billion from those tax cuts to set aside to pay for the war now being fought in Iraq. That will be just the beginning of the resources we will need to fully cover the cost of that conflict and the massive reconstruction that will follow.

I am glad that we were able to reduce by half the size of the tax cuts that will be protected by a special budget fast-track procedure. We need to stimulate our sagging economy and restore the growth and job creation we have lost in the past 2 years. But at $350 billion, half the original amount that was protected by budget rules, that tax cut is still far too large given the other obligations that we face.

But on top of the $350 billion in tax cuts protected by special budget rules, this resolution still contains an additional $500 billion in other tax cuts, for a total of $850 billion in revenue losses. Counting the additional interest we will have to pay on the debt we will pile up, that is another trillion dollars that will not be available for our national security and homeland security obligations, not available for health care, for education, for law enforcement. Nor will it be there when we need to restore balance to Social Security.

We have made some progress during this debate to restore funding in some of those areas, but not enough to meet the needs and priorities of the vast majority of Americans. This budget resolution is the first step in our consideration of priorities this year, and it is a big step in the wrong direction, one that I fear we will regret.

I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this resolution. We can and must do better. We can hardly do worse.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the designation of March 25, 2003, as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.

As in previous years, I welcome the opportunity to honor the democratic values and lasting friendship that bind our nations. Our common struggle to protect freedom and democracy at home and around the world has forged a strong partnership between Greece and the United States, a partnership which is critical to meeting today's challenges.

On the international front, Greece has played an important role in Operation Enduring Freedom and is now working with its European Union partners to support the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Greece continues to be a leader in bringing stability to the Balkans and in guiding the countries of this former region of conflict toward the community of democracies in Europe. Greece has been a steadfast ally in the fight against international terrorism, responding to every request for assistance in tracking and disrupting terrorist networks.

Greece has been actively pursuing security on the home front as well. In the last year, we welcomed the arrest in

Greece of 19 suspected members of ``November 17,'' a terrorist group responsible for approximately 120 criminal acts over a 27-year period, including the murder of Greeks, Americans, and citizens of other countries. For too many years, this case remained unsolved and the criminals unpunished. I am heartened by the efforts of the Government of Greece to move quickly to prosecute the suspects. The authorities in Greece must now accelerate efforts to bring charges against those suspects responsible for the 1983 killing of CAPT George Tsantes, USN, who is survived by his wife Thalia Panos; his sons George K. Tsantes, III, and Nicolas P. Tsantes; and by his daughter Stephanie Tsantes, a distinguished citizen of the State of Delaware. Prosecution of this and other such cases will, I hope, bring a measure of closure and justice to all the families of the victims of ``November 17.''

Greece is now preparing to host the Summer Olympics in 2004--a challenge under the best of circumstances, a Herculean task in today's security environment. Working with the international community, including the United States, Greece has made unprecedented efforts to provide for safe and secure Olympic Games in 2004. And it has done so with great attention to preserving its 3,000 year-old cultural patrimony, the glory of the Hellenic past and present.

Greece has wisely chosen the theme ``Our Europe: Sharing the Future in a Community of Values'' to define its current term in the rotating Presidency of the European Union. In emphasizing the enlargement and transformation of the European Union, Greece will lead the efforts to create an even stronger European partner of the United States, a partner committed to protecting and promoting the fundamental values of freedom and democracy.

In designating March 25, 2003, as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy, we honor both a proud heritage and our commitment to continued partnership and cooperation.