Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a bipartisan sense-of-the-Senate amendment that Senator Levin and I are offering. Here is what the amendment does:

We ask that it be the sense of the Senate that up to $20 million of any unused travel or other administrative funds designated, but not obligated, for drug interdiction activities be used for a grant program that helps disseminate innovative anti-heroin medications recently approved by the FDA.

Not one penny of drug interdiction funds will be taken away; our amendment only asks the Senate to go on record as supporting the use of unobligated drug interdiction travel or administrative funds to help distribute and get out the word on a new class of drug addiction treatments.

This amendment builds upon the Drug Addiction Treatment Act that allows qualified doctors the ability to treat a limited number of heroin addicts in an office setting. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment will send a signal to the private sector to invest in developing new drug treatments.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to reject the Breaux amendment to the budget resolution that would reduce the size of the President's growth and jobs plan to $350 billion. I think my colleagues all recognize that such a drastic reduction in the size of the growth package would make it most difficult for the Finance Committee to include the Bush proposal to eliminate the taxation on corporate dividends.

I know that a number of my colleagues have their doubts about the President's proposal to eliminate the double tax on dividends, and I would like to take a few moments to try to persuade them to support the President's proposal. Today, I will address two aspects of this important issue--how ending this double tax will help today's seniors, and how ending the double tax will impact our Nation's economic future.

First, let us talk about how the double taxation of dividends affects older Americans.

Our Nation's seniors have spent decades working long, hard hours, scrimping and saving for a well-deserved retirement, only to find that no matter how old they get, the tax man still has them in his sights. Age brings wisdom, but not tax relief.

Fifteen or 20 years ago, it was common tax-planning wisdom to defer one's income until the retirement years. Why? Because the tax rate faced by seniors was almost always lower then the tax rate paid during one's working years. Unfortunately, this is generally no longer the case. Millions of senior citizens are now paying taxes at as high or higher a rate in retirement than they did during their working years.

This year, I want to help President Bush change all that. The President has a plan for cutting taxes for seniors, and I intend to work with him to put his plan into law. We want to dramatically reduce the marriage penalty for seniors, we want to expand the 10-percent income tax bracket, and we want to speed up all of the rate cuts that are scheduled to be phased in over the next few years.

And on top of all that we want to eliminate the double tax on the dividends that seniors receive. This is the right plan for America's seniors.

All of the items in the President's plan are good ideas, but as I mentioned, today I would like to put particular focus on ending the double tax on dividends.

Over half of all income tax filers over 65 years of age pay tax on dividends, and over one-third of all filers between 55 and 64 have taxable dividends. People saving for retirement, and people close to retirement or working for an early retirement are paying a double tax.

Why do we call this tax on dividends a double tax? This is because under current law, a corporation hands over more than a third of its profits to the Federal Government in taxes, and then when investors get their share of those profits in the form of dividends, we demand that investors have to pay regular income tax on those very same dividends.

As President Bush keeps reminding us, taking income once is fair, but taxing it twice is not.

By the time State taxes are factored in, the combined Federal and State tax rate can exceed 71 percent. This is wrong, and it distorts the economy and correcting it will give many benefits to taxpayers and to the Nation as a whole.

We need to remember that this is not a question of rich versus poor. Older Americans with modest incomes receive substantial stock dividends. In fact, more than half of tax filers over the age of 65 earning between $30,000 and $40,000 per year receive taxable dividend income: 50.9 percent, to be exact. And because our Nation's senior citizens have been so thrifty during their lives, these dividend payments are very often sizable.

Elderly Americans who receive dividends and earn between $30,000 and $40,000 per year in total income receive an average of $2,008 every year of that income as taxable dividends. Even retirees who earn $15,000 to $30,000 per year receive substantial dividends. Forth-four percent of the elderly in this category receive dividends, and these Americans have to pay a double tax on over $1,400 a year in dividends.

Older Americans across the income spectrum pay a double tax on their dividends, and it is time to end it. This will be a great boon to our Nation's elderly who have worked and saved throughout their lives for their retirement.

Now, I would like to turn to our Nation's economic future. A few weeks ago, Chairman Greespan came up to Capitol Hill and told us that ending the double tax dividends was good tax policy, but he wanted us to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. Now, think it is fiscally responsible to end the double tax on dividends. I have no doubt that the static revenue estimate for the President's proposal is far too high.

Over my 27 years in the Senate, I have seen time and time again that tax cuts turned out to cost a lot less than the official estimates. We saw it on the capital gains tax cut and we have seen it in other tax cuts too. And with a policy that is as good for the economy's long-run health as ending the double tax, I am confident that the official revenue estimates are going to be far worse than usual. This tax cut is going to change the way America does business, and it will increase savings and capital formation.

This is not just my opinion. The Heritage Foundation has used a mainstream economic model to look at how ending the double tax is likely to help the economy. They conclude that ending the double tax will be revenue-neutral by year 9. So even if Congress lets spending grow at the projected rate, this proposal is an 8-year investment in our economy's longrun health, and then it starts to pay for itself.

Now I would like to see spending grow slower than the projected rate, so that we can balance the budget faster and so we can increase the size of the private sector, but even if Congress fails to slow down spending, this is still good longrun tax policy. If people think that ending the double tax on dividends will blow a permanent hole in the budget, they are living in a world of pure static-model fantasy.

In addition, I should point out that the Heritage economic model completely ignored the long-term structural reforms that this tax cut will bring about, reforms that will reduce the risk of future corporate bankruptcies. I am going to discuss those reforms in just a moment. So I believe that those 9-year-break-even estimates should be treated as a worst case scenario.

That is why I believe that ending the double tax on dividends is fiscally responsible. I have already addressed how this will help middle-income retirees. Now I would like to delve into why I am convinced this is good for our economy's future. On this issue, I would like to quote Chairman Greenspan. This is what the Federal Reserve Chairman said a few weeks ago:

I have always supported the elimination of the double

taxation of dividends because I think it is a major factor

restraining flexibility in our economy . . . and moving in

the direction of improving flexibility has very large long-

term payoffs.

Flexibility is an issue that Mr. Greenspan has emphasized a lot lately. He has reminded us, again and again, that our Government should do everything it can to make our economy as flexible as possible. Why does he want a flexible economy?

This is what he said, and I quote: ``The more flexible an economy, the greater its ability to self-correct in response to inevitable . . . disturbances, thus reducing the size'' of recessions. In plain English, he believes that if our economy is more flexible, then we will have smaller recessions, and less unemployment.

Further, Chairman Greenspan believes that Congress can do something about this. Congress can make the economy more flexible if we enact good policies, and we can make the economy less flexible if we enact bad policies. He said, and I quote, ``We should be placing special emphasis on searching for policies that will engineer still greater economic flexibility and [we should be] dismantling policies that contribute to unnecessary rigidity.''

And as the Chairman said, the double tax on dividends is a source of rigidity.

You might ask: How is cutting taxes supposed to make our economy more flexible?

Ending the double tax on dividends helps in two major ways: It cuts the risk of bankruptcy and it helps to make sure that investment funds flow to the right companies. Let me address these in order.

Why is it America's corporations load up on debt financing, despite the fact that high debt levels increase the risk of bankruptcy? Because our Nation's tax laws have always given them massive financial incentives to do just that.

The reason is simple. When a corporation pays interest to bondholders, that payment is taxed once--at the shareholder level. But when it pays dividends to stockholders, that payment is taxed twice--to both the corporation and the shareholder.

As leading finance scholars Richard Brealey and Stewart Myers write: ``[T]he . . . United States tax system clearly favors debt over equity financing.'' If you tax stock payments twice but you only tax debt payments once, it is clear what companies are going to do--they will finance most of their business by borrowing.

By loading up on tax deductible bonds and bank loans rather than issuing new shares of stock, corporations, increase their chance of going bankrupt. We have seen this play out with WorldCom, with US Air, and most recently United Airlines. The media's refrain is always the same: ``Today, a Fortune 500 company, burdened with debt, filed for protection from its creditors.''

Our Tax Code should not encourage this behavior.

When corporations load up on debt, they commit too much of their cash flow to making interest payments, and the threat of bankruptcy becomes all too real. Once we change this policy, businesses will find that they have people lined up out the door to buy stocks that pay dividends. When companies see the clamor for dividend-paying stocks, they will have a much stronger incentive to pay for new projects and new factories by issuing new shares of stock rather than running to the bank for a loan.

And then if times get tough, businesses will not be as likely to declare bankruptcy and head to Federal court for a painful reorganization. Instead, many companies will be able to cut their dividend to shareholders, and continue business more or less as usual. Lower dividends are bad news for shareholders, to be sure; but it will spare society the pain of bankruptcy.

Ending the double tax on dividends will not end the business cycle, but it will make it easier to recover from a recession. Bankruptcies spread the

pain of recession over months and years, and it can destroy sound companies that made the mistake of overpromising to banks and bondholders. This will not end bankruptcy, but it will prevent a few big ones now and then.

And this is not some untested pie-in-the-sky theory. All but two of our major trading partners give some kind of relief from the double tax on dividends. And the two countries that do not give relief--Ireland and Switzerland--already have much lower corporate tax rates than we do, so their double tax problem is not as bad as ours.

The mere fact that other countries are doing something does not prove that it is the right thing for the United States. What we want to know is, will our Nation get real, widespread benefits when we get rid of the double tax? Here we have to look at history.

New Zealand used to have a double tax on dividends, but they got rid of it in 1988. And what happened when they did that? When New Zealand completely eliminated the double tax on dividends, corporate debt levels fell, just as you would expect. Ending the double tax on dividends cut corporate debt levels in New Zealand, and ending the double tax on dividends will cut debt levels here, too. And our economy will be safer for it.

The Bush proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends will have a very positive effect on the economy, on seniors, on the tax system, and on taxpayers in general. I urge my colleagues to reject the Breaux amendment on the budget resolution, so that the Finance Committee can accommodate the dividends proposal in the tax bill we will be putting together in a few weeks.

Mr. President, I am pleased to stand here and support our young men and women in the Middle East and the efforts they are making to defend our Nation and, of course, defend against terrorism and to end the intolerant behavior and leadership of Saddam Hussein.

Last night we began a war that will end Saddam Hussein's threat to his own people, to the Middle East, and to this country. It was a time we chose, and a historic moment for the United States, the Middle East, and the world.

Today, as we vote in support of S. Res. 95, our prayers go with our brave soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. I am proud to say that this includes over 3,000 of my fellow Utahns.

Every attempt was made to find a diplomatic way to disarm Iraq, to make Iraq comply with commitments it began to violate shortly after the first gulf war in 1991. And so, in many ways, the war with Iraq never ended in 1991. A condition of ending the conflict was full and transparent disarmament, and Saddam Hussein has never--never--complied with that condition. Iraq never complied, over a decade of insistence by the international community, over a decade of frustrated inspections regimes, over a decade of resolutions by the United Nations, all of which have been ignored by Iraq. All of them. Throughout this time, the United States has worked with the United Nations. We supported all 17 resolutions. We supported not just what was written, but was intended. We supported not just the words, but the actions they demanded. We wanted resolutions with resolve.

As I said, I believe this administration made every attempt to find a solution without resorting to force. Every attempt, that is, except a commitment to perpetuating the dangerous belief that force would never be an option. Another nation, France, declared that it would veto any resolution requiring the use of force now. That nation did so, arguing it rejected the ``logic of war.'' I have read the history of Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship in Iraq. I have concluded that Saddam Hussein has never--never-- changed his behavior unless confronted with the threat of force. For France to reject the ``logic of war'' in trying to compel

Saddam Hussein's disarmament, it was willfully ignoring this fundamental fact of Saddam Hussein. France is ignoring history; it is ignoring logic.

President Bush said on Monday night that ``we are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater.'' I support the President, and I support this rationale.

In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there remain unaccounted vast amounts of chemical and biological weapons. This is a fact documented, not by some hawks in or out of the U.S. Government but by the international community. In Saddam Hussein, there is a long and established history of association with, and support for, terrorists. All those within reach of a television or newspaper saw, within the past weeks, Palestinian terrorist groups doling out Saddam's largesse. Saddam has trained terrorists, funded suicide operations, and allowed members of al-Qaida to live in his tightly controlled Iraq.

Some opponents of the President's policy have suggested that he failed to make the case that Saddam Hussein caused the attacks on September 11. These critics are disingenuous: The administration has never made this claim. It has asserted, and I believe them, that elements of al-Qaida have been in Iraq since September 11. As we learn more, I also believe that the history of al-Qaida will reveal a long association with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, going back years, and being developed in Iraq, Sudan and Pakistan.

I have said this before. Association is not causation, I know. But when it comes to regimes hiding weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorist organizations dedicated to our doom, I say this: Association is reason enough for alarm, reason enough for action. The President said it clearly last on Monday night:

Responding to such enemies only after they have struck

first is not self-defense, it is suicide.

I commend his administration for searching for every possible solution short of war. That this was not possible does not mean they did not work earnestly and assiduously to avoid conflict. The effort does not guarantee the result. It does not guarantee support of the U.N. Security Council.

On that Security Council, China would rather see a nuclear Korean peninsula than a passive U.S. presence in South Korea. I have seen how Russia would rather see genocide in the Balkans--and Chechnya--than NATO success there. France would rather reject the ``logic of war'' in responding to a dictator who has never been motivated by anything other than the threat of force. These countries have their own self-interest, whether we like it or not. They stand down when outlaw regimes stand defiant with their illicit weapons of mass murder.

I thank God for the patience, wisdom and courage of this administration. I believe I join all my colleagues as we offer our thoughts and prayers for the members of the American military, their families, our allies, and the people of Iraq, who will soon be free of a despicable, murderous regime that has kept the world fearful for far too long. And last night, I prayed to God that our mission in Iraq is blessed with providence and His protection. To our brave military I say: Godspeed and safe home.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about my cosponsorship, with

Senator Lieberman, of the bipartisan Biological, Chemical, and Radiological Weapons Countermeasures Research Act of 2003. Senator Lieberman and I also offered similar legislation, S. 3148, in the 107th Congress.

I think that when our colleagues, the administration, academic biomedical researchers, patient advocacy organizations, and the general public study the ambitious set of incentives contained in the Lieberman-Hatch bill, they will conclude that this measure can materially improve our national security. If adopted, this legislation will allow the families of Utah and in our sister states across America to live with a greater measure of safety.

Although this is a complex piece of legislation, its goal is simple. The Lieberman-Hatch bill will establish a unique public-private sector relationship that will result in stimulating the private sector to increase its scope and pace of research and development activities for a wide range of medical products intended to deter and respond to acts of biological, chemical, or radiological terrorism.

Senator Lieberman and I believe that the best way to discourage and prevent acts of bioterrorism is to be able to demonstrate our capacity to develop, produce, and distribute biological, chemical, and radiological weapons countermeasures.

In short, if our medicine chest is full and we show the world that we have the ability to rapidly discover new countermeasures, we will decrease the likelihood of ever having to deploy these countermeasures in the first place. For example, in the last 18 months we have made great strides in ramping up production of, and our capacity to distribute, smallpox vaccine. In fact, few, in any, countries could respond more effectively than the United States to the introduction of smallpox. Our enemies in Baghdad and those hiding in mountains of Afghanistan might do more harm to themselves and their neighbors if a worldwide smallpox outbreak occurs.

Unfortunately, there are dozens, and perhaps many more, biological and chemical threats for which we have no adequate response. As well, this latest outbreak of antibiotic- and antiviral-resistant pneumonia points out the need to develop responses to new public health threats whether they are spread intentionally or naturally. This bill tries to create a new paradigm for the development of vital bioterrorism countermeasures that could also serve as a model for stimulating private sector drug discovery activities in other important areas such as cancer, heart disease, and infectious and rare diseases.

Senator Lieberman and I praise the work that has already been done to help our nation meet this new type of threat. Senators Byrd, Stevens, Specter, and Harkin made available a substantial amount of new resources immediately in the aftermath of the September 11th and the October, 2001 anthrax attacks.

Last year, Senators Gregg, Kennedy, and Frist led the effort to pass important bioterrorism legislation to improve the public health infrastructure so that our country can better respond to public health emergencies.

The Bush administration is currently working closely with Congress on the Project BioShield program. We salute these efforts. We are pleased that the Administration is now embracing the concept of a guaranteed market that was part of last year's Lieberman-Hatch bill, S. 3148. We urge the Administration and Congress to adopt other critical features of Lieberman-Hatch.

The Lieberman-Hatch bill is a bold attempt to move the ball closer to the goal line. Our bill attempts to complement all the previous efforts to build up the capacity for public sector responses with a set of incentives designed to unleash the creative genius and substantial resources of the private sector actors within our Nation's biomedical research enterprise.

Let me quickly summarize the major features of the bill.

The Department of Homeland Security sets the countermeasures research agenda so that firms know beforehand the research targets. Interested companies register with DHS and become obligated to report their activities and subject their plants to inspection.

The legislation allows a participating company seeking to fund eligible research to elect from among four types of tax incentives. First, we provide for the establishment of R&D limited partnerships. Second, we create the authority for qualified firms to issue a new class of stock that would be subject to no capital gains tax. Third, we create a new tax credit to help fund the research. Fourth, we allow for a special tax credit for research conducted at non-profit and academic research institutions.

Anyone familiar with the current dismal financial state of affairs within the biotechnology industry will understand the attraction of these tax provisions. Many struggling firms might find it prudent to explore the benefits of adjusting their research portfolios to include countermeasure research and development.

The legislation authorizes funding for a program whereby companies successfully developing countermeasures that secure FDA approval can be guaranteed a market at a pre-negotiated price and pre-negotiated quantities.

Our legislation also contains some fundamental revisions in pharmaceutical intellectual property laws. As author of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, I hold these provisions near and dear.

Essentially, the bill adopts a policy of day-for-day patent term restoration for each day lost during FDA review. Under the current provisions of the 1984 Hatch-Waxman law, no patent may be restored by more than five years and then only if the effective patent term does not exceed 14 years regardless of whether the FDA review takes longer than five years.

The legislation also grants a ten year period of marketing exclusivity for any approved countermeasure, regardless of a product's patent status. This means that FDA could not approve a competitor product until that period expires. This provision operates in parallel with patent protections and serves as a floor time period during which generic versions of the pioneer countermeasure product could enter the market. Current U.S. law only provides for a five year marketing exclusivity period while most European Union countries and Japan already provide a ten year marketing exclusivity period.

The Lieberman-Hatch bill also allows certain types of biotechnology companies, specifically those with less than $750 million in paid-in capital, to extend any patent by two years if the firms successfully develop a countermeasure.

I can tell you that these substantial changes in the area of intellectual property will get a positive reaction in corporate boardrooms; resources will flow in the direction of products eligible for these new intellectual property protections and products will be developed to help our country respond to bioterrorist threats.

In addition to the guaranteed market provisions, targeted tax breaks, and intellectual property incentives, the Lieberman-Hatch legislation also contains liability provisions; accelerated FDA approval procedures, and a limited antitrust exemption.

In summary, the Lieberman-Hatch bill contains an array of incentives designed to spur a robust response from the private pharmaceutical sector. If we are going to increase our ability to defend the American homeland, we need to be certain that both the public and private sectors' are fully engaged. That is exactly what our bill will help accomplish by unleashing the energy and resources of those private sector firms engaged in biomedical research and development.

I urge all of my colleagues and others with an interest in homeland security to study the bipartisan Lieberman-Hatch Biological, Chemical, and Radiological Weapons Countermeasures Research Act of 2003. I believe that when our legislation is examined, it will attract broad and strong bipartisan support.

Let me close by commending my friend from Connecticut, Senator Joe Lieberman, for his vision, energy, and leadership in this critically important area. I would also like to commend the efforts of our bipartisan group of partners in the House, Congressmen Tom Davis, Cal Dooley, Curt Weldon, and Norm Dicks.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act. This bill would require the National Park Service to study the Pony Express, the Oregon, the California, and the Mormon National Historic Trails and make recommendations to Congress on possible additions to these trails that were used by the early pioneers of the West.

For various reasons, early settlers often used routes to arrive in the West which were variations of the main routes now recognized as National Historic Trails. These routes were used by large numbers of westward pioneers. Since the enactment of the National Trails System Act in 1968, support has been building to broaden the law to include alternate routes that branch off the main trails. The Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act allows for the feasibility study and designation of side trails and variant routes taken by pioneers otherwise associated with the main trails.

These trails are the highways of our history. They are central to the great story of the West. But unfortunately, because of the confining ``point to point'' wording now found in the Trails Act, many crucial parts of the story are not being told. Not every pioneer embarked on his journey from Omaha or Independence, and not every great or tragic event took place along the main routes. To the contrary, tens of thousands of settlers set out from other places, and many of the memorable, if not most important, events occurred along historical side roads and alternate routes that were chosen because of inclement weather, lack of water, and conflicts with Native American tribes, among other reasons.

Since the original passage of the National Trails System Act, the Park Service has conducted endless hours of research, and now has a more accurate picture of the story of our Western pioneers. There has been a great deal of support shown by State and local communities which want to broaden the act to include this new knowledge. However, the Park Service has determined that legislation is required to do this. The Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act will enable the Park Service to identify those routes most worthy of being included in our trails system. This legislation will highlight our Western history, and it will do so without any infringement of the rights of private property owners.

Mr. President, I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this important issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to clarify and enhance the charitable contribution tax deduction for donations of excess book inventory for educational purposes. This proposal would simplify a complex area of the current law and eliminate significant roadblocks that now stand in the way of businesses with excess book inventory to donating those books to schools, libraries, and literacy programs, where they are much needed.

Unfortunately, our current tax law contains a major flaw when it comes to the donation of books that are excess inventory for publishers or booksellers. The tax benefits for donating such books to schools or libraries are often no greater than those of sending the books to the landfill. And, since it is generally cheaper and faster for a company to simply send the books to the dump, rather than go through the trouble and cost of finding donees, and of packing, storing, and shipping the books, it often ends up being more cost effective and easier for companies to truck the books to a landfill or recycling center.

While there are provisions in the current law where a larger deduction is available for the donation of excess books, many companies have found that the complexity and uncertainty of dealing with the requirements, regulations, and possible Internal Revenue Service challenges of the higher deduction serve as a real disincentive to making a contribution.

This is a sad situation, when one considers that many, if not most, of these books would be warmly welcomed by schools, libraries, and literacy programs.

The heart of the problem is that under the current law, the higher deduction requires that the donated books be used only for the care of the needy, the sick, or infants. This requirement makes it difficult for schools to qualify as donees and also frequently prohibits libraries and adult literacy programs from receiving such deductions. This is because these schools, libraries, and literacy programs often serve those who are not needy or are over the age of 18. Further complicating the issue, the valuation of donated book inventory has been the subject of ongoing disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. The tax code should not contain obstacles that provide disincentives to charitable donations of books that can enhance learning.

The bill I am introducing today addresses the obstacles of donating excess book inventory by providing a simple and clear rule whereby any donation of book inventory to a qualified school, library, or literacy program is eligible for the enhanced deduction. This means that booksellers and publishers would receive a higher tax benefit for donating the books rather than throwing them away and would thus be encouraged to go to the extra trouble and expense of seeking out qualified donees and making the contributions.

My home State of Utah, like the rest of the Nation, has a problem with illiteracy. According to the National Institute for Literacy, between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population of the United States, about 44 million people, are only at Level 1 literacy, meaning they can read a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a food label, or read a simple story to a child. Another 25 to 28 percent of the adult population, or between 45 and 50 million people, are estimated to be at Level 2 literacy, meaning they can usually can perform more complex tasks such as comparing, contrasting, or integrating pieces of information but usually not higher level reading and problem-solving skills. Literacy experts tell us that adults with skills at Levels 1 and 2 lack a sufficient foundation of basic skills to function successfully in our society.

While this bill is not a cure-all for the tragedy of illiteracy, it will increase access to books, both for adults and for children. Our tax code should not encourage the destruction of perfectly good books while schools, libraries, and literacy programs go begging for them.

The Senate is already on record in unanimous support of this bill. During the floor debate on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, I offered this proposal as an amendment, which was accepted without opposition. Unfortunately, the provision was dropped in the conference with the House. Moreover, the Finance Committee has also approved this provision, having included it in S. 476, the CARE Act, which is currently pending on the Senate calendar.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this provision would decrease revenues to the Treasury by $283 million over a ten-year period. This estimate helps demonstrate the extent of the value of the books that are currently being discarded that could be utilized to help America's adults and children.

I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill. It is wrong for our tax code to encourage book publishers to send books to the landfill instead of to the library. Let's correct this problem.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to clarify and enhance the charitable contribution tax deduction for donations of excess book inventory for educational purposes. This proposal would simplify a complex area of the current law and eliminate significant roadblocks that now stand in the way of businesses with excess book inventory to donating those books to schools, libraries, and literacy programs, where they are much needed.

Unfortunately, our current tax law contains a major flaw when it comes to the donation of books that are excess inventory for publishers or booksellers. The tax benefits for donating such books to schools or libraries are often no greater than those of sending the books to the landfill. And, since it is generally cheaper and faster for a company to simply send the books to the dump, rather than go through the trouble and cost of finding donees, and of packing, storing, and shipping the books, it often ends up being more cost effective and easier for companies to truck the books to a landfill or recycling center.

While there are provisions in the current law where a larger deduction is available for the donation of excess books, many companies have found that the complexity and uncertainty of dealing with the requirements, regulations, and possible Internal Revenue Service challenges of the higher deduction serve as a real disincentive to making a contribution.

This is a sad situation, when one considers that many, if not most, of these books would be warmly welcomed by schools, libraries, and literacy programs.

The heart of the problem is that under the current law, the higher deduction requires that the donated books be used only for the care of the needy, the sick, or infants. This requirement makes it difficult for schools to qualify as donees and also frequently prohibits libraries and adult literacy programs from receiving such deductions. This is because these schools, libraries, and literacy programs often serve those who are not needy or are over the age of 18. Further complicating the issue, the valuation of donated book inventory has been the subject of ongoing disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. The tax code should not contain obstacles that provide disincentives to charitable donations of books that can enhance learning.

The bill I am introducing today addresses the obstacles of donating excess book inventory by providing a simple and clear rule whereby any donation of book inventory to a qualified school, library, or literacy program is eligible for the enhanced deduction. This means that booksellers and publishers would receive a higher tax benefit for donating the books rather than throwing them away and would thus be encouraged to go to the extra trouble and expense of seeking out qualified donees and making the contributions.

My home State of Utah, like the rest of the Nation, has a problem with illiteracy. According to the National Institute for Literacy, between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population of the United States, about 44 million people, are only at Level 1 literacy, meaning they can read a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a food label, or read a simple story to a child. Another 25 to 28 percent of the adult population, or between 45 and 50 million people, are estimated to be at Level 2 literacy, meaning they can usually can perform more complex tasks such as comparing, contrasting, or integrating pieces of information but usually not higher level reading and problem-solving skills. Literacy experts tell us that adults with skills at Levels 1 and 2 lack a sufficient foundation of basic skills to function successfully in our society.

While this bill is not a cure-all for the tragedy of illiteracy, it will increase access to books, both for adults and for children. Our tax code should not encourage the destruction of perfectly good books while schools, libraries, and literacy programs go begging for them.

The Senate is already on record in unanimous support of this bill. During the floor debate on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, I offered this proposal as an amendment, which was accepted without opposition. Unfortunately, the provision was dropped in the conference with the House. Moreover, the Finance Committee has also approved this provision, having included it in S. 476, the CARE Act, which is currently pending on the Senate calendar.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this provision would decrease revenues to the Treasury by $283 million over a ten-year period. This estimate helps demonstrate the extent of the value of the books that are currently being discarded that could be utilized to help America's adults and children.

I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill. It is wrong for our tax code to encourage book publishers to send books to the landfill instead of to the library. Let's correct this problem.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my friend and colleague Senator Baucus and a majority of our Finance Committee colleagues from both sides of the aisle today in introducing legislation that would permanently extend and improve the research tax credit.

The 1990s were a great period in American economic history because American workers became more productive. This increase in productivity allowed the economy to continue to grow faster than almost anyone thought possible. Throughout the 1990s, doomsayers said that we had reached the economy's speed limit, but we just kept growing. How did this happen?

The Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and dozens of leading economists have all heralded the increase in our

productivity as a key to those economic good times. A major reason for this increase in productivity, is the flowering of new ideas through research and development. Restoring and increasing that growth is what our bill today is all about.

But why do we need a research tax credit? Are not profitable new ideas their own reward? Is not the promise of future profits from new drug discoveries and new manufacturing techniques its own incentive? Will not companies do large amounts of R&D on their own, without any special tax incentives?

Yes, of course, they will. But they clearly will not do enough. This is because cutting-edge research and development has spillover effects that reach far beyond the company that makes the investment. When companies invent new ideas and new production techniques, those inventions last forever, and help people in the United States and throughout the world. But the company that invests in R&D will only be able to make a sizable profit on its invention for a few years at most. That is because either the patent will expire, or other companies will imitate the new technique and cut the inventor's hoped-for profits.

Now, I am all in favor of vigorous competition--it keeps our companies strong and efficient. But we have to recognize that competition means that innovators will receive only a fraction of the benefits of their innovation. Once the imitators pop up and competition increases, we know that profits will fall, prices will fall, and the benefits of innovation, thankfully, will get passed on to consumers. We need innovation, and fortunately, we have a strong, proven tax incentive that can encourage that innovation. The benefits of innovation reach far beyond the company that invents them. That is why we need to give companies incentives to do more innovation.

I believe the best way to ensure that private-sector investment in research and development continues at the healthy rate needed to fuel productivity gains in the future is to improve and permanently extend the research credit. This tax provision is a proven and a cost- effective incentive to increase private-sector R&D spending.

Studies have shown that the research tax credit significantly increases research and development expenditures. The marginal effect of one dollar of the research credit creates approximately one dollar of additional private research and development spending over the short-run and as much as two dollars of extra R&D spending over the long-run. That, is a good deal for the American taxpayer.

One of the greatest strengths of the research credit has always been that it gave good incentives for more innovation. This year's proposal to extend the credit is no exception. This year, we have added a third way to qualify for the credit, an elective ``alternative simplified credit.'' We propose to base this new alternative credit on how much a company has increased its R&D spending compared to the last three years. Companies will average their R&D spending over the previous three years, and cut that number in half. For every dollar they spend over that amount, they get a 12 percent tax credit. If they spend less than that amount, they get no credit at all. This is why this credit is so effective--it gives benefits to companies that do more, and gives no benefits to companies that do less. That is good tax policy, and good growth policy.

Once again, I want to ask my colleagues to make this credit permanent. I think we all know that this credit is going to be extended, again and again, every few years. It takes time and energy for my colleagues to revisit this issue every few years. Can we not just, once and for all, make this provision permanent? We know this is good policy, and it is one of the most effective tax incentives in the code. As I stated earlier, even under today's permanently temporary credit, every dollar of tax credit is estimated to increase R&D spending by one dollar in the short run and by up to two dollars in the long run. And if we make this permanent, those incentives will only improve.

As it stands, companies have to take account of the fact that Congress could allow the credit lapse for a few months, as it did a number of years ago. So companies hedge their bets, they spend a little less on R&D, and our economy suffers as a result. By contrast, permanence helps planning. The sooner we make this permanent, the sooner companies can begin to enlarge and expand their research and development units, and the sooner their innovations will strengthen economic growth.

A permanent extension of this credit may seem costly in terms of lost revenue. However, when you consider the value that this investment will create for our economy, it is a bargain. In fact, one study estimates that a permanent research credit would result in our Gross Domestic Product increasing by $10 billion after five years and by $31 billion after 20 years.

By making our workers more productive, this credit will also increase wages. That is because study after study shows an iron-clad link between worker productivity and worker wages. Findings from a study conducted by Coopers & Lybrand show that workers in every state will benefit from higher wages if the research tax credit is made permanent. Payroll increases as a result of gains in productivity stemming from the credit have been estimated to exceed $60 billion over the next 12 years.

My home State of Utah is a good example of how State economies benefit from the research tax credit. Utah is home to a large number of firms that invest a high percentage of their revenue on research and development.

In Utah, five percent of the workers--51,000 people--work in the research-intensive high technology sector. That includes over 10,000 people working just to design computer systems, and over 6,000 producing medical equipment. And there is a lot of R&D taking place outside of Utah's high tech sector.

Just to give one example, more than 7,000 people work in Utah's chemical industry, and workers in that industry benefit from research and development taking place in Utah and throughout the country. Aerospace and the drug and pharmaceutical industries are two more examples of big Utah employer groups that reap the benefits of R&D. And even in the midst of my state's currently weak job market, two industries that increased employment in 2002 were the medical equipment and the scientific research and development services industries.

So, the point I want to make is not that Utah needs to do all of the research in order to reap the benefits of that research. Instead, the point I want to make is that workers in my state will become more productive and earn higher wages both when they invent new ideas, and when they use new ideas, wherever those new ideas come from.

I want Utah companies to be able to buy better manufacturing equipment, more reliable electronics, and have access to more efficient quality control techniques. The workers who use new inventions will get just as many benefits as workers who create those new inventions. And the evidence clearly shows, that the research credit will increase creation.

In short, there are tens of thousands of employees working in Utah's thousands of technology based companies, with tens of thousands more working in other sectors that engage in R&D. Beyond that, practically all of Utah's hundreds of thousands of workers benefit from higher productivity coming from the innovations that researchers both inside and outside of Utah produce. Research and development is clearly the lifeblood of our economy.

During the ten times in the past 20 years that Congress has extended the research credit for a short time, the ostensible reason has been a lack of revenue. The excuse we give to constituents is that we didn't have the money to extend the bill permanently. Ironically, it costs at least as much in terms of lost revenue, in the long run, to enact short-term extensions as it does to extend it permanently.

A permanent research credit has wide support in both the Senate and the House. A few years ago, this body passed by a vote of 98-1 an amendment that would have permanently extended the credit. Unfortunately, all amendments were ultimately stripped from the underlying bill. Moreover, the permanent extension of the credit is a major provision in President Bush's tax plan, and was supported by both former President Clinton and by Al

Gore. Again in 2001, this body voted to include a permanent research credit in the President's tax plan.

In conclusion, making the research tax credit permanent will increase the growth rate of our economy. It will mean more and better jobs for American workers. Making the tax credit permanent will speed economic growth. And new technology resulting from American research and development will continue to improve the standard of living for every person in the U.S. and around the world. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and in the Senate as a whole to create a permanent, improved research and development tax credit.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my friend and colleague Senator Baucus and a majority of our Finance Committee colleagues from both sides of the aisle today in introducing legislation that would permanently extend and improve the research tax credit.

The 1990s were a great period in American economic history because American workers became more productive. This increase in productivity allowed the economy to continue to grow faster than almost anyone thought possible. Throughout the 1990s, doomsayers said that we had reached the economy's speed limit, but we just kept growing. How did this happen?

The Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and dozens of leading economists have all heralded the increase in our

productivity as a key to those economic good times. A major reason for this increase in productivity, is the flowering of new ideas through research and development. Restoring and increasing that growth is what our bill today is all about.

But why do we need a research tax credit? Are not profitable new ideas their own reward? Is not the promise of future profits from new drug discoveries and new manufacturing techniques its own incentive? Will not companies do large amounts of R&D on their own, without any special tax incentives?

Yes, of course, they will. But they clearly will not do enough. This is because cutting-edge research and development has spillover effects that reach far beyond the company that makes the investment. When companies invent new ideas and new production techniques, those inventions last forever, and help people in the United States and throughout the world. But the company that invests in R&D will only be able to make a sizable profit on its invention for a few years at most. That is because either the patent will expire, or other companies will imitate the new technique and cut the inventor's hoped-for profits.

Now, I am all in favor of vigorous competition--it keeps our companies strong and efficient. But we have to recognize that competition means that innovators will receive only a fraction of the benefits of their innovation. Once the imitators pop up and competition increases, we know that profits will fall, prices will fall, and the benefits of innovation, thankfully, will get passed on to consumers. We need innovation, and fortunately, we have a strong, proven tax incentive that can encourage that innovation. The benefits of innovation reach far beyond the company that invents them. That is why we need to give companies incentives to do more innovation.

I believe the best way to ensure that private-sector investment in research and development continues at the healthy rate needed to fuel productivity gains in the future is to improve and permanently extend the research credit. This tax provision is a proven and a cost- effective incentive to increase private-sector R&D spending.

Studies have shown that the research tax credit significantly increases research and development expenditures. The marginal effect of one dollar of the research credit creates approximately one dollar of additional private research and development spending over the short-run and as much as two dollars of extra R&D spending over the long-run. That, is a good deal for the American taxpayer.

One of the greatest strengths of the research credit has always been that it gave good incentives for more innovation. This year's proposal to extend the credit is no exception. This year, we have added a third way to qualify for the credit, an elective ``alternative simplified credit.'' We propose to base this new alternative credit on how much a company has increased its R&D spending compared to the last three years. Companies will average their R&D spending over the previous three years, and cut that number in half. For every dollar they spend over that amount, they get a 12 percent tax credit. If they spend less than that amount, they get no credit at all. This is why this credit is so effective--it gives benefits to companies that do more, and gives no benefits to companies that do less. That is good tax policy, and good growth policy.

Once again, I want to ask my colleagues to make this credit permanent. I think we all know that this credit is going to be extended, again and again, every few years. It takes time and energy for my colleagues to revisit this issue every few years. Can we not just, once and for all, make this provision permanent? We know this is good policy, and it is one of the most effective tax incentives in the code. As I stated earlier, even under today's permanently temporary credit, every dollar of tax credit is estimated to increase R&D spending by one dollar in the short run and by up to two dollars in the long run. And if we make this permanent, those incentives will only improve.

As it stands, companies have to take account of the fact that Congress could allow the credit lapse for a few months, as it did a number of years ago. So companies hedge their bets, they spend a little less on R&D, and our economy suffers as a result. By contrast, permanence helps planning. The sooner we make this permanent, the sooner companies can begin to enlarge and expand their research and development units, and the sooner their innovations will strengthen economic growth.

A permanent extension of this credit may seem costly in terms of lost revenue. However, when you consider the value that this investment will create for our economy, it is a bargain. In fact, one study estimates that a permanent research credit would result in our Gross Domestic Product increasing by $10 billion after five years and by $31 billion after 20 years.

By making our workers more productive, this credit will also increase wages. That is because study after study shows an iron-clad link between worker productivity and worker wages. Findings from a study conducted by Coopers & Lybrand show that workers in every state will benefit from higher wages if the research tax credit is made permanent. Payroll increases as a result of gains in productivity stemming from the credit have been estimated to exceed $60 billion over the next 12 years.

My home State of Utah is a good example of how State economies benefit from the research tax credit. Utah is home to a large number of firms that invest a high percentage of their revenue on research and development.

In Utah, five percent of the workers--51,000 people--work in the research-intensive high technology sector. That includes over 10,000 people working just to design computer systems, and over 6,000 producing medical equipment. And there is a lot of R&D taking place outside of Utah's high tech sector.

Just to give one example, more than 7,000 people work in Utah's chemical industry, and workers in that industry benefit from research and development taking place in Utah and throughout the country. Aerospace and the drug and pharmaceutical industries are two more examples of big Utah employer groups that reap the benefits of R&D. And even in the midst of my state's currently weak job market, two industries that increased employment in 2002 were the medical equipment and the scientific research and development services industries.

So, the point I want to make is not that Utah needs to do all of the research in order to reap the benefits of that research. Instead, the point I want to make is that workers in my state will become more productive and earn higher wages both when they invent new ideas, and when they use new ideas, wherever those new ideas come from.

I want Utah companies to be able to buy better manufacturing equipment, more reliable electronics, and have access to more efficient quality control techniques. The workers who use new inventions will get just as many benefits as workers who create those new inventions. And the evidence clearly shows, that the research credit will increase creation.

In short, there are tens of thousands of employees working in Utah's thousands of technology based companies, with tens of thousands more working in other sectors that engage in R&D. Beyond that, practically all of Utah's hundreds of thousands of workers benefit from higher productivity coming from the innovations that researchers both inside and outside of Utah produce. Research and development is clearly the lifeblood of our economy.

During the ten times in the past 20 years that Congress has extended the research credit for a short time, the ostensible reason has been a lack of revenue. The excuse we give to constituents is that we didn't have the money to extend the bill permanently. Ironically, it costs at least as much in terms of lost revenue, in the long run, to enact short-term extensions as it does to extend it permanently.

A permanent research credit has wide support in both the Senate and the House. A few years ago, this body passed by a vote of 98-1 an amendment that would have permanently extended the credit. Unfortunately, all amendments were ultimately stripped from the underlying bill. Moreover, the permanent extension of the credit is a major provision in President Bush's tax plan, and was supported by both former President Clinton and by Al

Gore. Again in 2001, this body voted to include a permanent research credit in the President's tax plan.

In conclusion, making the research tax credit permanent will increase the growth rate of our economy. It will mean more and better jobs for American workers. Making the tax credit permanent will speed economic growth. And new technology resulting from American research and development will continue to improve the standard of living for every person in the U.S. and around the world. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee and in the Senate as a whole to create a permanent, improved research and development tax credit.

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

Mr. President, as you all know, we are going to vote on the Estrada nomination one more time with regard to cloture. The fact of the matter is, I am very concerned about this because I think the Senate is placing itself into a serious procedural set of problems that literally could come back to haunt the Senate for many years to come. You see, this is the first filibuster in history of a circuit court of appeals nomination.

It is a shame that there has to be a filibuster against one of the leading Hispanic legal thinkers in America--especially since I don't believe there has been a glove laid on Miguel Estrada from the beginning of this debate right up until today.

Everybody knows this man is highly qualified, having received the highest rating from the American Bar Association of unanimously well- qualified. Very few judgeship nominees receive that type of unanimously well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association.

Miguel Estrada has lived an American dream life. He came here from Honduras at age 17. He hardly understood English, and taught himself English. He graduated from high school and went on to Columbia University where he graduated magna cum laude. He then went on to Harvard Law School and graduated magna cum laude. He was editor of the Law Review at Harvard. Miguel Estrada became a law clerk to Judge Amalya Kearse on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most coveted spots for young law graduates who are of exceptional ability, and then he became a law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Certainly, one of the most coveted jobs any young law graduate can have is to clerk for a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Miguel Estrada became a prosecutor in the Manhattan office and tried appeals there for the prosecutor's office. He went on to become a member of the Solicitor General's Office as Assistant Solicitor General. He worked there for 5 years--4 years for the Clinton administration, 1 year for the Bush administration--where, according to performance reviews, he was given the highest ratings one could possibly receive from his superiors and where he argued cases before the Supreme Court. This man has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 10 of them. Most attorneys never have an opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court, let alone have the experience Miguel Estrada had.

He went through one of the most detailed hearings on record before the Senate Judiciary Committee last September, conducted by the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. My friends on the other side have said this hearing was conducted fairly; it was a decent hearing. They had every opportunity to ask any questions they wanted. If they wanted to go longer, they could have gone longer. They did not. Afterwards everyone had the opportunity to file written questions. Only two Democrats filed written questions: Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Durbin of Illinois.

Now we find ourselves, because the Republicans have taken control of the Senate, with a nominee before the Senate who probably would never have gotten here had it been left up to my colleagues on the other side and whose nomination now hangs in the balance because of a first-time filibuster in history against a circuit court of appeals nominee. In fact, we have only had one successful filibuster in the history of this country against a judicial nominee, and that was Abe Fortas back in 1968 when it was a bipartisan filibuster; both Republicans and Democrats filibustered Fortas. I did not agree with that filibuster then. I do not think it was right then, and I certainly do not agree with the filibuster now. I think it is very dangerous.

More importantly, if we continue to filibuster this nominee, it will show once and for all that the Senate is broken with regard to Executive Calendar nominees and, in particular, judicial nominees. If we are going to filibuster nominees we do not care for on either side of this august room, if the Democrats received a Democrat President and we filibuster his nominee because our nominee has been filibustered, then I think this system will be totally broken, will break down, and be very hard to repair.

I hope my colleagues on the other side will think through what they are doing. I hope there are a number of clear-thinking people on the other side who will realize that this is a dangerous procedure to do. It flies in the face of the Constitution because the President has the nomination power, and he has the appointment power, and we have the advise and consent power. But advise and consent means an up-or-down vote. It means once a person comes to the floor, there comes a time when debate has to end and there should be an up-or-down vote. In this case, that vote has been prohibited by our colleagues on the other side through this mechanism of a filibuster for the first time in history.

I believe what they are doing is blatantly unconstitutional because by requiring 60 votes to have an Executive Calendar nominee pass through the Senate, we are diminishing the executive branch of Government and the judicial branch of Government vis-a-vis the legislative branch of Government. All three are supposed to be coequal branches of Government.

This practice is dangerous. In my view, it is unconstitutional. We have to face this one way or the other, and all because my colleagues on the other side claim they do not know enough about Miguel Estrada, after all of these experiences, all of this knowledge we have about him, after one of the longest hearings on record in the history of circuit court of appeals nominations. In addition they are hiding behind a red herring, a false demand to go on a fishing expedition through all of the appeals certiorari and amicus curiae recommendations that Miguel Estrada worked on while at the Solicitor General's Office for 5 years. That has never been allowed before, it should never be allowed, and, frankly, I do not believe any self-respecting administration will ever allow that type of a fishing expedition into the most confidential, privileged papers in the Justice Department itself.

Seven former living Solicitors General, four of whom are Democrats, three of whom worked with Miguel Estrada as Democrat Solicitors General in the Clinton administration, have said it is highly inadvisable to allow this type of a demand by the Democrats to be approved by anybody because it would certainly damage the information on which so many of our Solicitors General have come to rely.

Yet this day people are saying they just do not know enough about this man. There has hardly been a nominee to any circuit court of appeals in this country in history who is more well known than Miguel Estrada.

The problem really comes down to this: He is conservative, and I think my colleagues on the other side believe he is pro-life. I personally do not know what he is with regard to the abortion issue, but I can tell you this, Mr. President: I do believe he is basically a good, strong conservative but a conservative who worked in the Clinton Justice Department for 4 solid years with the highest recommendations of his supervisors while he was at the Clinton Justice Department in the Solicitor General's Office. So this phony red herring issue is exactly that.

If we continue to filibuster this man, I believe we will have a Senate that is broken, a system that is broken, and we are going to have to do whatever we have to do to see that Executive Calendar nominees get up-or-down votes when they come before the Senate. Presidents of the United States deserve that consideration and they should have it.

If one reads the advise and consent clause in article II of the Constitution, just a few lines above it, it was made clear that you can have supermajority votes, and I think there are seven mentioned in the Constitution. But just a few lines above the advise and consent clause is a requisite two-thirds vote for ratification of treaties. If the Founding Fathers wanted to allow or require supermajority votes with regard to the advise and consent clause, they would have said so. They did not. The natural conclusion from any constitutional scholar would be that we are entitled to an up-or-down vote as the exemplification of the advise and consent clause.

The fact is, that is not being allowed because of a filibuster on the other side with the phoniest of excuses that they do not know enough about this very well-known young Hispanic man of high quality, high ability, with the highest recommendation possible, not only from the American Bar Association but from Democrat attorneys as well, such as Seth Waxman, for whom I have great affection and respect, a former Solicitor General of the United States.

I hope our colleagues will think it through and we vote for cloture so we can have an up-or-down vote on Mr. Estrada, and if they do not, we will have to see what happens in the future.

With this third cloture vote, we will have reached the most cloture votes ever given or ever required in the history of the Senate for an executive calendar nominee. Should cloture not be invoked, we will still go to further cloture votes, as we should. We need to

fight for this nominee because he deserves the right to sit on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield on that?

Yes. Is the Senator aware that there has never been a cloture vote to prevent somebody from having an up-or-down vote for the circuit court of appeals or the district court in this country, and further, no one has ever been stopped by a cloture vote in this country prior to this other than Abe Fortas?

Further, let me ask the Senator this additional question: If the Senator is referring to me as misstating the facts, I was the one who put Paez through. I was the one who put Berzon through. I was the one who put through a whole raft of them who were criticized on our side. I hope the Senator is not referring to me on this matter.

Does the Senator know of anyone, other than Abe Fortas, who was stopped by a filibuster who did not, once they got to the floor, have an up-or-down vote?

Will the Senator yield on that?

Will the Senator yield?

I think the Senator has a splendid record with regard to voting for Federal judges, and I personally appreciate that.

Is the Senator aware that no true filibuster has ever succeeded against any Federal court nominee, other than Abe Fortas, in the history--

Let me ask my full question--of this country?

Secondly, is the Senator aware that Mr. Estrada, and the White House, have not only offered to come up and speak personally and answer every question of any Senator, they have offered to answer any questions in writing. He has answered all of those questions in writing for this body. And is the Senator aware that we have also offered to even have another day of hearing, as long as we get an up-or-down vote, where any Senator who wants to can ask any question he wants to on the committee?

I would even go broader than that. I invite any Senator on the Democrat side who wants to ask any question to come to the committee and ask him. But we would want a vote certain in order to do that. No candidate nominated in the history of this country has ever made that offer, and I am just saying I think he has answered the questions and I think the Senator just is not aware of it.

Which he has done.

Will the Senator yield one more time?

He has answered the questions in writing as well as orally in a very lengthy hearing. Is the Senator aware at any time in history--I am sure he is not--where a fishing expedition has been allowed into the Solicitor General's confidential privileged memoranda, on all appeals, certiorari, and amicus curiae recommendations? That has never happened in the history of this country.

I have offered to the side of the distinguished Senator to make available, if there are specific questions, I would go to the White House and see what I can do. But never has there ever been allowed a fishing expedition into all of these very privileged documents without some reason for authorizing it, and there is no reason offered by my colleagues on your side.

Mr. President, it is disturbing to me that much of the debate regarding the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has focused on previous nominations considered by this Senate. In particular, the nominations of Judge Richard Paez and Judge Marsh Berzon, who now sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have been raised over and over again by Senators opposed to Mr. Estrada.

The discussion of previous nominations is troubling for a number of reasons. First, Judge Paez and Judge Berzon were confirmed by the Senate. They were not subjected to a filibuster as is the case for Miguel Estrada. Second, on a personal level, it is disappointing to me that these two judges should be used as examples of alleged Republican obstructionism, when I worked hard for their confirmation, argued against delay, and supported their nominations.

To continue to inject prior nominations into the Estrada debate indicates to me that the opposition is more interested in some sort of retribution for misperceived wrongs rather than fulfilling the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent. I have heard it stated on the Senate floor, referencing the so-called filibuster of Judge Paez, ``what goes around comes around.'' I certainly hope that it is not the case that the refusal to give a vote to Miguel Estrada is some sort of payback.

The distinguished Minority Leader described the Senate's responsibility very well nearly three years ago as we were concluding debate on the nominations of Judge Paez and Judge Berzon. He stated on March 9, 2000, `` . . . [T]here is a time and a place for us to consider any nominee and, once having done so, we need to get on with it.''

I agree with the Democratic leader. We have considered the nomination of Mr. Estrada and now we need to get on with the vote--up or down, as Senators choose to cast their vote.

Senator Daschle continued, ``I do not know who is going to be President next. I do not know who is going to be in the majority in the next Congress. But let's just assume that the roles are reversed . . . and we have a Republican President--which I do not think is going to happen. Do we want to pay back our colleagues for having made these people wait as long as they have? . . . I do not want to hear about that in this body. There is going to be no payback. . . . Will we have votes and vote against nominees on the basis of whatever we choose? Absolutely.''

So again, as the Democratic leader stated, Senators are free to vote against the nominee on the basis of whatever they choose, but let us have a vote.

Now, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I worked hard for the ultimate confirmation of Judge Paez and Judge Berzon. Nevertheless, there were some significant difficulties with their nominations which took time to resolve. I agree that they took too much time. However, these nominees did receive a vote, they were confirmed, and they now sit on the Ninth Circuit. These two nominees were not filibustered as Mr. Estrada is now being filibustered. It is true that cloture motions were filed on the nominations. Let me emphasize that it was the Republican Leader who filed a cloture petition, so there would be limited debate and a vote up or down. Furthermore, those cloture motions passed by wide margins, 86-13 in the case of Judge Berzon, and 85-14 in the case of Judge Paez. The record is clear that a true filibuster did not occur with regard to these nominations.

Following the cloture votes, the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, made the following comments: ``As you know, cloture was just invoked on two Ninth Circuit judges. I still hope we have not set a precedent. I don't believe we have because it was such an overwhelming vote to invoke cloture and stop the filibuster. We should not be having filibusters on judicial nominations and having to move to cloture. But we had to, and it was an overwhelming vote.''

Senator Leahy's response to the Majority Leader's statement is noteworthy. He said: ``I was struck by the comments of the distinguished leader in saying we should not have the precedents of filibusters and requiring cloture. I commend him for supporting the cloture motion and moving this forward so we would not have that precedent.''

As I have said, the confirmations of Judge Paez and Judge Berzon were not without delay. There was considerable opposition to their nominations. But that delay did not amount to anything sort of a filibuster of these nominees.

The debate on both Judge Paez and Judge Berszon took place on March 7, 8 and 9 under time agreements. The final day of debate, when they were confirmed, was 4\1/2\ hours total. The Republican leadership did file cloture to get time agreements and to ensure a final vote on these two nominees of President Clinton. I have asked for similar treatment for Miguel Estrada--a time agreement and an up or down vote but this has been denied repeatedly.

So the record is clear that this was not a true filibuster. There was limited debate with time agreements. Cloture was filed as a floor management tool and was overwhelmingly approved. The nominees did receive an up or down vote both were confirmed. Let's give Miguel Estrada that same courtesy.

Now with regard to the nominations of Judge Paez and Judge Berzon, I do not want to rehash the debate on these nominees, but I do want to put their confirmation into some perspective, since my Democratic colleagues keep bringing them up.

Judge Paez's opponents were very concerned about statements he made in

1995, while a sitting federal district judge, regarding two California ballot initiatives--Proposition 187 to limit public assistance to illegal immigrants, and Proposition 209 to end racial and gender preferences in California. Legitimate questions were raised concerning whether his comments were consistent with the Judicial Canon governing judges' extra-judicial activities. There was genuine concern about these remarks on matters that would likely be the subject of litigation. Many of my colleagues viewed this as evidence of his inability to render fair decisions on these issues.

A second area of concern regarding Judge Paez involved what some saw as his activist views of the judiciary. Judge Paez had stated, ``I appreciate the need for courts to act when they must when the issue has been generated as a result of the failure of the political process to resolve a certain political question. There is no choice but for the courts to resolve a question that perhaps ideally and preferably should be resolved through the legislative process.'' Now, this statement did raise concerns that Judge Paez would use his position to legislate from the bench.

A third issue regarding Judge Paez was his rulings in certain cases. In particular, there was legitimate concern over the judge's role in two cases related to illegal fundraising during the 1996 presidential campaign--those of John Huang and Maria Hsia. You may recall Ms. Hsia was associated with fundraising and money laundering through Buddhist nuns, while Mr. Huang was associated with illegal campaign fundraising, mostly from foreign sources. Judge Paez was assigned to both of these cases.

In the case of John Huang, Judge Paez accepted a very lenient plea agreement. Mr. Huang pled guilty to a felony charge of conspiracy to violate Federal election law and was sentenced to no jail time. He was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and was required to serve 500 hours of community service.

Many of my colleagues found it suspicious that Judge Paez would be assigned to both of these cases. There was criticism about the handling of these cases. At a minimum, there was concern about the propriety of his involvement in these cases, which pointed back to the Clinton-Gore campaign.

Despite all the concerns regarding the involvement of Judge Paez in these cases, my own view was there was no reasonable basis to further delay the vote on Judge Paez. I was vigorous in my call for an independent prosecutor to investigate all alleged illegalities in the 1996 campaign. However, I also did not believe Judge Paez was implicated and I pressed forward with his nomination. I am asking the same treatment for Miguel Estrada--give him a vote.

There were also questions over Judge Paez's ruling on a Los Angeles city ordinance prohibiting aggressive panhandling at specified public places and passed in response to the death of a young man who refused to give a panhandler 25 cents. Judge Paez found the ordinance unconstitutional under the California constitution because the law constituted ``content-based discrimination.'' The Supreme Court of California, asked by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on the holding, held that the Los Angeles ordinance was constitutional and valid.

Another troubling case was a decision issued by Judge Paez in 1997, John Doe I v. Unocal, in which he ruled that American companies can be held liable for human rights abuses committed by foreign governments or overseas companies owned by the foreign governments with which they do business. These cases, and others, persuaded many of my colleagues that Judge Paez was well out of the mainstream.

With regard to Judge Berzon, I voted for her confirmation, finding her to have the intellect, integrity, and impartiality to serve as a Federal judge.

Those opposed to Judge Berzon pointed out that her entire legal experience was in one narrow field--labor law. Her opponents also pointed out that she had been very vocal in the expression of her political views, with membership and leadership in several organizations that many considered activist.

The fact remains that, regardless of the opposition and careful scrutiny of these nominees, both Judge Berzon and Judge Paez each were given an up or down vote. In the case of Judge Paez, he was confirmed by a vote of 59-39. Judge Berzon was confirmed by a vote of 64-34. Miguel Estrada deserves the same courtesy. If Senators are opposed, let them vote no. But to refuse a vote is unfair to the nominee, harmful to the Senate, and destructive to the notion of an independent judiciary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I use be charged against the resolution.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the medical liability and litigation crisis in our country.

This is a crisis that is preventing patients from accessing high- quality health care--or, in some cases, any care at all--because doctors are being driven out of practice. It is a crisis that is needlessly increasing the cost of health care for every American.

This is not the first time we have addressed this issue. As many of you will recall, we debated, and passed, medical litigation relief in the Commonsense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act back in 1995. Unfortunately, the language we passed was stripped from that bill in conference.

I am sorely disappointed that--in the ensuing eight years--we have not addressed this problem. As a result, the situation has become worse, not better; the problem has expanded, not shrunk. We must act now if we are to fix the crisis in health care delivery this has caused in many parts of our country.

I was pleased last summer when President Bush announced his desire to address this issue. I am even more pleased that the President has continued to emphasize the importance of the problem and the need for reform in speeches around the country, and in his State of the Union Address. We in the Senate welcome the President's support in this effort.

Make no mistake. We have a health care crisis in this country, one that is due in large part to litigation that is out of control. But not all Americans may be aware of just how serious are the ramifications of this crisis.

This map, with data supplied by the American Medical Association, shows the states that currently are experiencing a medical liability crisis and those that are showing signs of developing a crisis. The 18 red states are in crisis. The 27 yellow states are showing problem signs. Only five states are currently ``ok''. On a map with last year's data, only 12 states were in crisis. The problem is growing and it reaches from coast to coast.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a July 18, 2002, Associated Press article, ``Soaring Malpractice Insurance Squeezes out Doctors, Clinics,'' that highlights some of the problems faced by patients and doctors.

The article points to the ``national problem that doctors say is obliging many of them to flee certain states or give up certain specialties--or the entire profession--because of skyrocketing insurance premiums linked to soaring jury awards.''

The article notes, as I am sure my colleagues from Nevada are acutely aware, that the University Medical Center trauma clinic in Las Vegas-- the only Level one trauma center in Nevada--closed on July 3 last year.

The 58 doctors who were associated with the trauma center had requested, but had not received, much-needed relief from soaring medical liability insurance costs.

Let me give you just one example of the havoc this wreaked. On the 4th of July, the day after the center closed, Jim Lawson could not access the Level one trauma care that he needed. Mr. Lawson was the victim of a serious traffic accident, and on that day, the closest Level one trauma center was more than an hour away by air!

Unfortunately, Mr. Lawson did not survive. The trauma center was hurriedly reopened on July 13, but with only 10-15 doctors working on a temporary basis, with limited liability. Commenting on the trauma center's closure, its director, Dr. John Fildes, stated, ``The standard of care in our community was set back 25 years.''

Mr. Lawson's family spoke at a press conference here in the Senate last week. His death was a tragedy to his family and to his community. No one knows whether Mr. Lawson could have been saved had he been treated at the nearby trauma center. But would any of us want that to happen to one of our loved ones? To be forced to bypass the nearest trauma center, and travel an hour to receive emergency care?

I certainly would not. And, the Senate should take the necessary steps to ensure that it does not happen to anyone else. But this crisis is not limited to emergency services. Ensuring the availability of adequate obstetric care is also an increasing problem.

According to the same Associated Press article, one Arizona hospital, a clinic in Oregon, and two Pennsylvania hospitals closed their obstetrics units recently. Several counties in upstate New York have no obstetricians covering night shifts.

What does that say to the expectant mother whose child comes into the world at night . . . ``There's no room at the inn''?

The crisis is particularly acute in the farming and ranching communities of rural America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a Washington Post article from February 3, 2003, titled ``Insurance Crisis Hits Hard on Prairie; Denied Coverage, Obstetrician for 3 Wyoming Counties Ends Practice.''

Mr. President, the article describes the plight of the people of Platte County, WY, population 9000, where the only obstetrician has been forced to give up delivering babies because obstetrics liability insurance is unavailable.

The article states:

As the only ``baby doctor'' serving a three-county swath of

the . . . Wyoming prairie for the past quarter-century, (Dr.)

Woods has delivered about 2,500 infants, including almost all

the high school athletes in Wheatland, Douglas, Chugwater and

other rural communities. But this winter, Woods ended his

obstetrical practice. ``I love delivering babies,'' the

intense (56-year-old) physician said. ``I really love

delivering the babies of women I delivered a couple of

decades ago. And I know this community needs an obstetrician.

But you can't practice without (malpractice) insurance. And I

can't get coverage for deliveries any more.''

This is not news to the rural West. There is an increasing shortage in my home state of Utah as well. Studies by both the Utah Medical Association and the Utah Chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists underscore the problem in my state. According to the Utah Medical Association:

50.5 percent of Family Practitioners in Utah have already

given up obstetrical services or never practiced obstetrics.

Of the remaining 49.5 percent who still deliver babies, 32.7

percent say they plan to stop providing OB services within

the next decade. Most plan to stop within the next five

years.

The Utah Medical Association study also relates:

Professional liability concerns [were] given as the chief

contributing factor in the decision to discontinue

obstetrical services. Such concerns include the cost of

liability insurance premiums, the hassles and costs involved

in defending against obstetrical lawsuits and a general fear

of being sued in today's litigious environment.

Mr. President, ensuring the availability of high-quality prenatal and delivery care for pregnant women and their babies, the most vulnerable members of our society, is imperative. But these are not the only members of society who have difficulty in accessing healthcare.

According to the July 2002 Department of Health and Human Services report, ``Confronting the New Health Care Crisis: Improving Health Care Quality and Lowering Cost by Fixing our Medical Liability System,'' the indigent are finding it increasingly difficult to access care also.

The HHS report states that ``[m]any doctors cannot volunteer their services for a patient who cannot pay, and the proportion of the physicians who provide charity care at all has declined, because doctors cannot afford the required liability coverage.''

The July, 2002 report and the Department's report released this month, ``Addressing the New Health Care Crisis: Reforming the Medical Litigation System to Improve the Quality of Health Care,'' describe the economic consequences of rising insurance costs also.

While many Americans have experienced problems accessing healthcare due to excessive litigation, all Americans are paying for it. This is a national problem and one that requires a national solution.

In my letter of March 12 to Budget Committee Chairman Nickles and ranking Democrat Conrad, I emphasized the important implications of medical liability litigation on the Federal budget.

In that letter, I wrote:

The Federal Government pays directly for health care for

members of the armed forces, veterans, and patients served in

the Indian Health Service. The Federal Government provides

reimbursements for the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services

March 3, 2003, report . . . the Federal Government spends

$33.7 billion-$56.2 billion per year for malpractice coverage

and the costs of defensive medicine. That report states,

``reasonable limits on non-economic damages would reduce the

amount of taxpayers' money the Federal Government spends by

$28.1 billion-$50.6 billion per year.''

I continued to write:

In my view, federal legislation that would decrease costly

frivolous medical liability lawsuits and limit awards for

non-economic damages is necessary, not only to ensure patient

access to health care, but to curb increasing Federal health

care costs. Because of the substantial and important

budgetary implications, particularly to the Medicare and

Medicaid programs, we request that the budget resolution

include language calling for medical liability legislation

reform.

I am pleased to report that the budget resolution we are considering today recognizes the tremendous impact of medical liability costs. In fact, the budget resolution as reported includes $11.3 billion in savings over 10 years as a result of medical liability reform, based on CBO calculations. The Medicare program alone will save $7.9 billion, while Medicaid will save $2.9 billion. The remaining savings will occur in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and the Department of Defense.

Medical liability litigation directly and dramatically increases health care costs for all Americans. But, skyrocketing medical litigation costs also increase health care costs indirectly by changing the way doctors practice medicine. In an effort to avoid frivolous suits, doctors often feel compelled to perform diagnostic tests that are costly and unnecessary.

This defensive medicine is wasteful, but for doctors it has unfortunately become necessary. According to a recent Harris poll, fear of being sued has led 79 percent of doctors to order more tests than are medically needed, 74 percent to refer patients to specialists more often than necessary, 51 percent to recommend invasive procedures that they thought were unnecessary, and 41 percent to prescribe more medications, including antibiotics, that they did not think were necessary.

Defensive medicine increases health care costs, but the real risk of the current medical liability system and the resulting practice of defensive medicine is that it also puts Americans at risk. Every test and every treatment poses a risk to the patient. Every unnecessary test, procedure, and treatment potentially puts a patient in harm's way. According to the Harris poll, 76 percent of the physicians are concerned that malpractice litigation has hurt their ability to provide quality care to patients.

And so, that brings us to the big question: What can we do to address this crisis? The answer is plenty. There are excellent examples of what works. The March, 2003 Department of Health and Human Services report describes how reasonable reforms in some states have reduced health care costs and improved access to quality health care. According to the report, over the last two years, in states with limits of $250,000 to $350,000 on non-economic damages, premiums have increased at an average of 18 percent compared to 45 percent in States without such limits.

California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, also known as MICRA, over 25 years ago in 1975. MICRA slowed the rate of increase in medical liability premiums dramatically without affecting negatively the quality of health care received by the State's residents. As a result, doctors are not leaving California. Furthermore, between 1976 and 2000, premiums increased by 167 percent in California. But, believe it or not, they increased three times as much, an incredible 505 percent, in the rest of the country. Consequently, Californians were saved billions of dollars in health care costs

and Federal taxpayers were saved billions of dollars in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The March, 2003 report goes on to state:

A leading study estimates that reasonable limits on non-

economic damages such as California has had in effect for 25

years, can reduce health care costs by 5-9 percent without

``substantial effects on mortality or medical

complications.'' With national health care expenditures

currently estimated to be $1.4 trillion, if this reform were

adopted nationally, it would save $70-126 billion in health

care costs per year.

I would guess that no one in this body--with perhaps the exception of our colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Bill Frist, our majority leader--is more keenly aware of the defects in this system than I. Before coming to Congress, I litigated several medical liability cases as a defense lawyer. I have seen heart-wrenching cases in which mistakes were made. But, more often, I have seen heart-wrenching cases in which mistakes were not made and doctors were forced to expend valuable time and resources defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits.

It has been estimated that 66 percent of all medical liability lawsuits brought are frivolous. They are brought by plaintiff's attorneys who seek to obtain the costs of defense, costs that approach $100,000 per case.

Let me take a moment to address the unfortunate incident that occurred recently in North Carolina. As the country is so painfully aware, Jesica Santillan, a young girl who needed a heart and lung transplant, received organs of the wrong blood type. Her death was a tragedy and our hearts go out to everyone involved.

Some are seizing on Jesica's most unfortunate death to argue that we should not proceed with medical liability reform legislation. I would argue just the opposite: Jesica's death shows the need for reform of the current system. Let me make clear that we do not know all of the facts surrounding Jesica's case. We are not the doctors, the family, the Duke personnel or their lawyers. But we do know that the current medical liability system did not prevent Jesica's death. In fact, many experts believe that the current system, by discouraging communication between doctors, nurses, and hospitals, increases the likelihood that medical errors will occur.

The recent Institute of Medicine report, ``To Err is Human'' described the impact of preventable medical errors in America's health care system. One of the report's main conclusions was that:

The majority of medical errors do not result from

individual recklessness or the actions of a particular group

this is not a ``bad apple'' problem. More commonly, errors

are caused by faulty systems, processes, and conditions that

lead people to make mistakes or fail to prevent them.

We do not know all of the facts of Jesica's case. But, we do know that more lawsuits cannot prevent medical errors from occurring. Her death should not be used by those who oppose medical litigation reform to prevent other patients from receiving access to the care they deserve. No, Jesica's death does not indicate that medical liability reform is unnecessary. If anything, cases such as this support the need for reform.

We need reform to identify better and more efficiently when malpractice has occurred and which patients should be compensated. We need reform to identify better when malpractice has not occurred. The reform that I envision would address litigation abuses in order to provide swift and appropriate compensation for malpractice victims, redress for serious problems, and ensure that medical liability costs do not prevent patients from accessing the care they need.

Jesica's death was a tragedy. But it would be a greater tragedy if we let her death prevent other little boys and girls from receiving access to the life-saving care they need. That is what is happening in many parts of America today. And that is what will continue to happen if we do not address this crisis in this Congress.

And so, we need to move ahead with legislation to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors. I agree that we need to find an appropriate way to address egregious cases. No one believes more than I that victims of malpractice should be compensated swiftly and appropriately for their losses. But that is not what is happening in our current medical legal system. Patients are forced to meander through a complicated legal system and often are awarded damages only after years of legal bickering. Juries are awarding astounding and unreasonable sums for pain and suffering. A sizable portion of those awards goes to the attorney rather than the patient. The result: Doctors cannot get insurance and patients cannot get the care they need.

As Chairmen of the HELP and Judiciary Committees, Senator Gregg and I held a joint hearing earlier this month in an attempt to identify the root causes of the crisis. We heard from a patient who experienced an adverse outcome due to a medical error. But, we also heard from a patient and a patient's wife who were victims of the current crisis, unable to find the medical care they or their loved ones desperately needed because medical liability insurance costs had driven doctors out of practice.

We heard from a lawyer who believes that insurance reform is the answer. But, in addition, we heard from the Texas State Insurance Commissioner and also from the president of Physician Insurance Association of America, representing provider-owned or operated insurance companies that provide insurance for the majority of American doctors. These gentlemen face this crisis and its consequences every day. Their data and their studies as well as those from the Department of Health and Human Services show that increasingly frequent frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing awards are responsible for rapidly rising premiums.

Has the recent downturn in the economy and the stock market affected medical liability premiums? Possibly, but this does not appear to be a major cause of the current crisis. Insurance companies invest conservatively, primarily in bonds and State insurance commissioners monitor and regulate insurance business practices closely. Moreover, insurance companies are precluded from increasing premiums to make up for past losses.

As a matter of fact, they have to cover these losses. The country's largest medical liability insurance company, St. Paul, no longer provides this insurance. Now doctors are forming their own nonprofit corporations to handle these matters and one can imagine that they are doing their best to reduce costs.

It seems to me that the insurance reform discussed at the hearing not only misses the mark badly; it would do nothing to address the cause of the crisis and it would prevent State Insurance Commissioners from performing the job they were appointed to do. I have to say that I came away from our hearing convinced that out-of-control medical litigation is the major cause of the crisis and that we must do something to stop it.

The current medical litigation system resembles a lottery more than it does a justice system. This system harms patients in many ways and raids every American's wallet. All Americans deserve the access to care, the cost savings and the legal protections that States like California provide their residents. This problem has reached crisis proportions and it is high time that we act. The task before us is to design a system that protects both the patient and the provider. It is important that we take steps to benefit both patients and health care providers, not the trial lawyers. Or else, we are in danger of losing access to necessary healthcare.

Let's put some sense into the system by passing medical litigation improvement legislation this year that gives patients access to their doctors and enables doctors to provide high quality cost-effective medical care. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have all been devastated by the repeated news flashes of violent crimes being committed against children across the Nation. In June 2002, Elizabeth Smart, a 14 year old from my home State of Utah was kidnapped at gun point from her home in Salt Lake City. Just this past week, the entire Nation rejoiced with the Smart family after Elizabeth was found alive and reunited with her loved ones.

Five year old Samantha Runnion was not so lucky. Just one month after Elizabeth Smart's abduction, Samantha was kidnapped while playing with a neighborhood friend down the street from her home in Stanton, CA. The following day, her body was found along a highway, nearly 50 miles from her home. California authorities have charged Alejandro Avila with Runnion's abduction, sexual assault and murder. Reportedly, Avila was acquitted two years ago of molesting two young girls under the age of 14.

Elizabeth Smart and Samantha Runnion are just two, among many, recent child victims. The list of tragic cases involving minor victims goes on and on.

These horrific incidents illustrate the need for comprehensive legislation--at both the State and national level--to protect our children. We need to ensure that federal and state law enforcement officers have all the tools and resources they need to find, prosecute, and punish those who commit crimes against our youth.

Today, I rise to reintroduce the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' which enhances existing laws, investigative tools, criminal penalties and child crime resources in a variety of ways. I introduced this important bill with Senator Feinstein last year, but it failed to go anywhere. My unwavering commitment to this issue compels me to introduce it again this year. Let me elaborate on the Act's specific provisions.

By broadening existing laws, the Act enhances the ability of child victims to pursue and prevail in criminal proceedings against their predators.

First, the Act extends the statute of limitations period that applies to offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse of children under 18 years of age. Current law permits such cases to be brought until the victim reaches the age of 25 years. This amendment will allow meritorious cases of child sexual and physical abuse to be brought up until the date the minor reaches the age of 35 years.

It is well-documented that child abuse victims often do not come forward until years after the abuse occurred. Victims fail to come forward because they fear their disclosures will lead to further humiliation, shame, and even ostracism. Abusers should not benefit from the lasting psychological harms they have inflicted on innocent children.

I believe that there should rarely, if ever, be a time when we say to a victim who has suffered as a child at the hands of an abuser: you have identified your abuser; you have proven the crime; yet the abuser will remain free because you, the victim, waited to long to come forward. Our criminal justice system should be ready to adjudicate all meritorious claims of child abuse. This amendment is meant to recognize that the arm of the law should be long in the prosecution of crimes of this heinous nature.

Second, the Act amends an existing Federal evidentiary rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 414, to permit the admission into evidence of prior offenses involving child molestation, or the possession of sexually explicit materials containing actual or apparent minors. The current evidentiary rule permits such evidence to be admitted only where the victim was under 14 years of age. This amendment extends the rule to apply to any minor--any victim who was under 18 years of age at the time the offense was committed.

In addition, the amendment makes clear that even where an individual possesses what may be virtual, as opposed to actual, child pornography, and therefore, may have a valid defense against prosecution in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002), such evidence is nonetheless admissible under Rule 414. Like the possession of actual child pornography, the possession of virtual child pornography is highly probative evidence that should be admissible in a case involving child molestation or exploitation.

Third, the Act also limits the scope of the common law marital privileges by making them inapplicable in a criminal child abuse case in which the abuser or his or her spouse invokes a privilege to avoid testifying. Where a child abuser is charged with a crime against the child of either spouse, or a child under the custody or control of either spouse, neither the abuser nor his or her spouse should be permitted a marital privilege to avoid providing critical evidence.

The marital privileges exist because we in society believe that forcing a person to testify against his or her spouse, or permitting a spouse to testify about confidential marital communications, may jeopardize a marriage. While we value trusting, harmonious marriages, our societal interest in the proper administration of justice far exceeds our interest in preserving marital harmony where a spouse has chosen a vulnerable, defenseless child in the home as his or her victim. In my view, it is more important to prosecute and punish child abusers than it is to minimize the potential risk to the life of a marriage in which child abuse is occurring.

The Act increases the investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies in several significant ways.

First, the Act amends the DNA Analysis and Backlog Elimination Act by increasing the categories of offenses that are included in the database of convicted offender DNA profiles, the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS. Without question, DNA--which is unique to each individual and maintains its evidentiary integrity for long periods of time--is a valuable investigatory tool. Time and again DNA evidence has aided in solving difficult criminal cases by linking suspects to crimes and by eliminating others.

This Act expands the class of offenses that are included in CODIS by adding all federal felony offenses to the database. Currently, the DNA Analysis and Backlog Elimination Act includes only select Federal offenses. The successful experiences of approximately 19 States, including Utah, which currently authorize the collection of DNA samples for all felony offenses illustrate the need for this extension. These States have solved numerous crimes where DNA has been found--frequently based on an offender's conviction for a nonviolent offense--such as burglary, theft or a narcotics offense.

Remarkably, not all States currently authorize the collection of DNA samples from all types of child offenders. Thus, the Act also expands the definition of qualifying offense to include all state offenses against children, such as those involving child kidnapping or abuse. This expansion will increase law enforcement's ability to solve such crimes where DNA evidence is found.

Second, the Act extends the Federal wiretap statute by adding sex trafficking, sexual abuse, exploitation, and other sex-related offenses as predicate offenses to the statute. As we all know, the Internet is becoming an increasingly popular means by which sexual predators make contact with child victims. Although predators typically initiate a relationship online, they ultimately seek to make personal contact with the child--both over the telephone and through face to face meetings. But as the law exists today, investigators are restricted in their ability to investigate such predators. This provision will enable investigators, who meet the statutory requirements of the Federal wiretap statute, to obtain court authorization to monitor such communications. This amendment will not only aid investigators in obtaining evidence of these crimes, it will also help

stop these crimes before a sexual predator makes contact with a child.

To obtain a wiretap, law enforcement authorities will still need to meet the strict statutory guidelines of the wiretap statute and obtain authorization from a court. Thus, the legislation will not undermine the legitimate expectations of privacy of law-abiding Americans. This expanded tool will be particularly useful to investigators who track sexual predators and child pornographers.

The Act also strengthens criminal penalties by extending the supervised release period that applies to certain offenders, increasing the maximum penalties that apply to offenses involving transportation for illegal sexual activity, and directing the United States Sentencing Commission to review the guidelines that apply to criminal offenses with which child predators are frequently charged to determine whether they are sufficiently severe.

The Act grants Federal judges the discretion to impose up to lifetime periods of supervised release for individuals who are convicted of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, transportation for illegal sexual activity, or sex trafficking offenses. Under current Federal law, a judge can impose no more than 5 years of supervised release for a serious felony, and no more than 3 years for a lesser categorized offense. This amendment to the general supervised release statute will not require judges to impose a period of supervised release longer than 5 years; it will simply authorize them to do so where a judge sees fit based on the nature and circumstances of the case.

In my view, if there is any class of offenders on which our criminal justice system should keep a close eye, it is sexual predators. It is well documented that sex offenders are more likely than other violent criminals to commit future crimes. And if there is any class of victims we should seek to protect from repeat offenders, it is those who have been sexually assaulted. They suffer tremendous physical, emotional and psychological injuries. By ensuring that egregious sexual offenders are supervised for longer periods of time, we will increase the chance that they will be deterred from and punished for future criminal acts.

The Act increases the maximum penalties that apply to certain offenses, including sexual offenses that involve the trafficking of children and transportation. Stiffer penalties are needed to punish and deter individuals who commit such offenses.

The Act also directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review the sentencing guidelines that apply to various offenses that apply to kidnappers, sexual abusers and exploiters, to ensure that Federal sentences are sufficiently severe where aggravating circumstances exist, such as where the victim was abducted, injured, killed, or abused by more than one person.

In a number of significant ways, the Act enhances the resources that are available to investigate and prosecute crimes against children.

First, the Act directs the Attorney General to appoint a Deputy Assistant Attorney General to oversee a new section at the Department of Justice designated to focus solely on crimes against children. Among other things, the new section will be tasked with prosecuting crimes against children, providing guidance and assistance to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and personnel who handle such cases, coordinating efforts with international law enforcement agencies to combat crimes against children, and acting as a liaison with the legislative and judicial branches of government to ensure that adequate attention and resources are focused on protecting our children from predators of all types.

In addition, the Act tasks the new Crimes Against Children section to create an Internet site that consolidates sex offender information which States currently disclose under the Federal reporting act. The Act also direct States that have not developed Internet sites to do so. The creation of a national Internet site will enable concerned citizens to find in one, easily accessible place, critical information about sexual predators.

Currently, all 50 States have registration statutes that require sex offenders to register and to share information with the United States Attorney General through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and over 30 States make offender information available to the public on the Internet. A national Internet site will enhance the public's ability to find and access information that is already available in the public record, and will protect citizens in States where sex offenders move to try to avoid detection of their past criminal acts. In short, the national Internet site will provide parents and other concerned citizens with essential information about the whereabouts and backgrounds of child abusers, so they can take all necessary steps to protect our Nation's children from harm's way.

The Act also increases resources and funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The recent series of tragic events involving child victims has convinced me that we need to take a more proactive approach to prevent, deter and prosecute child predators of all types--abusers, molesters, pornographers and traffickers. And at the same time, we need to provide our children, the vulnerable victims of such predators, with the support systems they need to recover fully from such horrendous crimes and to assist law enforcement in effectively investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

To this end, the Act directs the FBI to establish a National Crimes Against Children Response Center whose primary mission will be to develop a comprehensive and rapid response plan to reported crimes involving the victimization of children. While the National Response Center is to be established by the FBI, in consultation with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Crimes Against Children Office, it will integrate the resources and expertise of other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as other child serving professionals. By creating and training rapid response teams comprised of federal, state and local prosecutors, investigators, victim witness specialists, mental health and other child serving professionals, the Center will greatly enhance our national response and prevention efforts. The combination of valuable expertise and resources provided by such multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary partnerships will increase the likelihood that law enforcement authorities will successfully identify, prosecute and punish child predators, and that child serving professionals will provide child victims with much needed support.

The ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' will enhance our ability to combat crimes against children, but it is by no means an end. Congress needs to continue to explore additional ways in which we can improve our ability on a national level to protect our children. Our children fall victim to many of the same crimes we face as adults, and they are also subject to crimes that are specific to childhood, like child abuse and neglect. The effects of such heinous crimes are devastating and often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse.

I want to do all I can to ensure that we devote the same intensity of purpose to crimes committed against children, as we do to other serious criminal offenses, such as those involving terrorism. We have no greater resource than our children. I invite the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other non governmental entities and professionals who are charged with protecting our children to work with me to improve our Federal laws and to assist States in doing the same.

Mr. President, we have all been devastated by the repeated news flashes of violent crimes being committed against children across the Nation. In June 2002, Elizabeth Smart, a 14 year old from my home State of Utah was kidnapped at gun point from her home in Salt Lake City. Just this past week, the entire Nation rejoiced with the Smart family after Elizabeth was found alive and reunited with her loved ones.

Five year old Samantha Runnion was not so lucky. Just one month after Elizabeth Smart's abduction, Samantha was kidnapped while playing with a neighborhood friend down the street from her home in Stanton, CA. The following day, her body was found along a highway, nearly 50 miles from her home. California authorities have charged Alejandro Avila with Runnion's abduction, sexual assault and murder. Reportedly, Avila was acquitted two years ago of molesting two young girls under the age of 14.

Elizabeth Smart and Samantha Runnion are just two, among many, recent child victims. The list of tragic cases involving minor victims goes on and on.

These horrific incidents illustrate the need for comprehensive legislation--at both the State and national level--to protect our children. We need to ensure that federal and state law enforcement officers have all the tools and resources they need to find, prosecute, and punish those who commit crimes against our youth.

Today, I rise to reintroduce the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' which enhances existing laws, investigative tools, criminal penalties and child crime resources in a variety of ways. I introduced this important bill with Senator Feinstein last year, but it failed to go anywhere. My unwavering commitment to this issue compels me to introduce it again this year. Let me elaborate on the Act's specific provisions.

By broadening existing laws, the Act enhances the ability of child victims to pursue and prevail in criminal proceedings against their predators.

First, the Act extends the statute of limitations period that applies to offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse of children under 18 years of age. Current law permits such cases to be brought until the victim reaches the age of 25 years. This amendment will allow meritorious cases of child sexual and physical abuse to be brought up until the date the minor reaches the age of 35 years.

It is well-documented that child abuse victims often do not come forward until years after the abuse occurred. Victims fail to come forward because they fear their disclosures will lead to further humiliation, shame, and even ostracism. Abusers should not benefit from the lasting psychological harms they have inflicted on innocent children.

I believe that there should rarely, if ever, be a time when we say to a victim who has suffered as a child at the hands of an abuser: you have identified your abuser; you have proven the crime; yet the abuser will remain free because you, the victim, waited to long to come forward. Our criminal justice system should be ready to adjudicate all meritorious claims of child abuse. This amendment is meant to recognize that the arm of the law should be long in the prosecution of crimes of this heinous nature.

Second, the Act amends an existing Federal evidentiary rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 414, to permit the admission into evidence of prior offenses involving child molestation, or the possession of sexually explicit materials containing actual or apparent minors. The current evidentiary rule permits such evidence to be admitted only where the victim was under 14 years of age. This amendment extends the rule to apply to any minor--any victim who was under 18 years of age at the time the offense was committed.

In addition, the amendment makes clear that even where an individual possesses what may be virtual, as opposed to actual, child pornography, and therefore, may have a valid defense against prosecution in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002), such evidence is nonetheless admissible under Rule 414. Like the possession of actual child pornography, the possession of virtual child pornography is highly probative evidence that should be admissible in a case involving child molestation or exploitation.

Third, the Act also limits the scope of the common law marital privileges by making them inapplicable in a criminal child abuse case in which the abuser or his or her spouse invokes a privilege to avoid testifying. Where a child abuser is charged with a crime against the child of either spouse, or a child under the custody or control of either spouse, neither the abuser nor his or her spouse should be permitted a marital privilege to avoid providing critical evidence.

The marital privileges exist because we in society believe that forcing a person to testify against his or her spouse, or permitting a spouse to testify about confidential marital communications, may jeopardize a marriage. While we value trusting, harmonious marriages, our societal interest in the proper administration of justice far exceeds our interest in preserving marital harmony where a spouse has chosen a vulnerable, defenseless child in the home as his or her victim. In my view, it is more important to prosecute and punish child abusers than it is to minimize the potential risk to the life of a marriage in which child abuse is occurring.

The Act increases the investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies in several significant ways.

First, the Act amends the DNA Analysis and Backlog Elimination Act by increasing the categories of offenses that are included in the database of convicted offender DNA profiles, the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS. Without question, DNA--which is unique to each individual and maintains its evidentiary integrity for long periods of time--is a valuable investigatory tool. Time and again DNA evidence has aided in solving difficult criminal cases by linking suspects to crimes and by eliminating others.

This Act expands the class of offenses that are included in CODIS by adding all federal felony offenses to the database. Currently, the DNA Analysis and Backlog Elimination Act includes only select Federal offenses. The successful experiences of approximately 19 States, including Utah, which currently authorize the collection of DNA samples for all felony offenses illustrate the need for this extension. These States have solved numerous crimes where DNA has been found--frequently based on an offender's conviction for a nonviolent offense--such as burglary, theft or a narcotics offense.

Remarkably, not all States currently authorize the collection of DNA samples from all types of child offenders. Thus, the Act also expands the definition of qualifying offense to include all state offenses against children, such as those involving child kidnapping or abuse. This expansion will increase law enforcement's ability to solve such crimes where DNA evidence is found.

Second, the Act extends the Federal wiretap statute by adding sex trafficking, sexual abuse, exploitation, and other sex-related offenses as predicate offenses to the statute. As we all know, the Internet is becoming an increasingly popular means by which sexual predators make contact with child victims. Although predators typically initiate a relationship online, they ultimately seek to make personal contact with the child--both over the telephone and through face to face meetings. But as the law exists today, investigators are restricted in their ability to investigate such predators. This provision will enable investigators, who meet the statutory requirements of the Federal wiretap statute, to obtain court authorization to monitor such communications. This amendment will not only aid investigators in obtaining evidence of these crimes, it will also help

stop these crimes before a sexual predator makes contact with a child.

To obtain a wiretap, law enforcement authorities will still need to meet the strict statutory guidelines of the wiretap statute and obtain authorization from a court. Thus, the legislation will not undermine the legitimate expectations of privacy of law-abiding Americans. This expanded tool will be particularly useful to investigators who track sexual predators and child pornographers.

The Act also strengthens criminal penalties by extending the supervised release period that applies to certain offenders, increasing the maximum penalties that apply to offenses involving transportation for illegal sexual activity, and directing the United States Sentencing Commission to review the guidelines that apply to criminal offenses with which child predators are frequently charged to determine whether they are sufficiently severe.

The Act grants Federal judges the discretion to impose up to lifetime periods of supervised release for individuals who are convicted of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, transportation for illegal sexual activity, or sex trafficking offenses. Under current Federal law, a judge can impose no more than 5 years of supervised release for a serious felony, and no more than 3 years for a lesser categorized offense. This amendment to the general supervised release statute will not require judges to impose a period of supervised release longer than 5 years; it will simply authorize them to do so where a judge sees fit based on the nature and circumstances of the case.

In my view, if there is any class of offenders on which our criminal justice system should keep a close eye, it is sexual predators. It is well documented that sex offenders are more likely than other violent criminals to commit future crimes. And if there is any class of victims we should seek to protect from repeat offenders, it is those who have been sexually assaulted. They suffer tremendous physical, emotional and psychological injuries. By ensuring that egregious sexual offenders are supervised for longer periods of time, we will increase the chance that they will be deterred from and punished for future criminal acts.

The Act increases the maximum penalties that apply to certain offenses, including sexual offenses that involve the trafficking of children and transportation. Stiffer penalties are needed to punish and deter individuals who commit such offenses.

The Act also directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review the sentencing guidelines that apply to various offenses that apply to kidnappers, sexual abusers and exploiters, to ensure that Federal sentences are sufficiently severe where aggravating circumstances exist, such as where the victim was abducted, injured, killed, or abused by more than one person.

In a number of significant ways, the Act enhances the resources that are available to investigate and prosecute crimes against children.

First, the Act directs the Attorney General to appoint a Deputy Assistant Attorney General to oversee a new section at the Department of Justice designated to focus solely on crimes against children. Among other things, the new section will be tasked with prosecuting crimes against children, providing guidance and assistance to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and personnel who handle such cases, coordinating efforts with international law enforcement agencies to combat crimes against children, and acting as a liaison with the legislative and judicial branches of government to ensure that adequate attention and resources are focused on protecting our children from predators of all types.

In addition, the Act tasks the new Crimes Against Children section to create an Internet site that consolidates sex offender information which States currently disclose under the Federal reporting act. The Act also direct States that have not developed Internet sites to do so. The creation of a national Internet site will enable concerned citizens to find in one, easily accessible place, critical information about sexual predators.

Currently, all 50 States have registration statutes that require sex offenders to register and to share information with the United States Attorney General through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and over 30 States make offender information available to the public on the Internet. A national Internet site will enhance the public's ability to find and access information that is already available in the public record, and will protect citizens in States where sex offenders move to try to avoid detection of their past criminal acts. In short, the national Internet site will provide parents and other concerned citizens with essential information about the whereabouts and backgrounds of child abusers, so they can take all necessary steps to protect our Nation's children from harm's way.

The Act also increases resources and funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The recent series of tragic events involving child victims has convinced me that we need to take a more proactive approach to prevent, deter and prosecute child predators of all types--abusers, molesters, pornographers and traffickers. And at the same time, we need to provide our children, the vulnerable victims of such predators, with the support systems they need to recover fully from such horrendous crimes and to assist law enforcement in effectively investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

To this end, the Act directs the FBI to establish a National Crimes Against Children Response Center whose primary mission will be to develop a comprehensive and rapid response plan to reported crimes involving the victimization of children. While the National Response Center is to be established by the FBI, in consultation with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Crimes Against Children Office, it will integrate the resources and expertise of other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as other child serving professionals. By creating and training rapid response teams comprised of federal, state and local prosecutors, investigators, victim witness specialists, mental health and other child serving professionals, the Center will greatly enhance our national response and prevention efforts. The combination of valuable expertise and resources provided by such multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary partnerships will increase the likelihood that law enforcement authorities will successfully identify, prosecute and punish child predators, and that child serving professionals will provide child victims with much needed support.

The ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2003'' will enhance our ability to combat crimes against children, but it is by no means an end. Congress needs to continue to explore additional ways in which we can improve our ability on a national level to protect our children. Our children fall victim to many of the same crimes we face as adults, and they are also subject to crimes that are specific to childhood, like child abuse and neglect. The effects of such heinous crimes are devastating and often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse.

I want to do all I can to ensure that we devote the same intensity of purpose to crimes committed against children, as we do to other serious criminal offenses, such as those involving terrorism. We have no greater resource than our children. I invite the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other non governmental entities and professionals who are charged with protecting our children to work with me to improve our Federal laws and to assist States in doing the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help highlight and protect sites in one of our Nation's most archaeologically rich regions, the Four Corners. The Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail Act of 2003 would amend the National Trails System Act to direct a study of the suitability of designating the Trail of the Ancients as a national historic trail.

The Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would become a multistate, auto route featuring world-renowned examples of Ancestral Puebloan cultures in the Four Corners area. The Ancestral Puebloans, also known as Anasazi, preceded today's Navajo and Ute tribes. The Trail of the Ancients connects many of the most significant Ancestral Puebloan sites in the Four Corners area of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.

The Four Corners region in the Southwestern United States is one of the areas of greatest archaeological interest in the Nation. The Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would provide improved access to and understanding of this region's numerous examples of the Ancestral Puebloan culture. The history of the Four Corners region is not only unique and important to the Nation, it is unparalleled in how well it is preserved in the remaining archaeological sites. The semi- arid climate of the Four Corners area has helped preserve some the archaeological sites beyond what is typically seen in most other areas of the United States. International recognition of a number of the sites in the area has contributed to the wealth of information about the peoples who lived in them.

The Trail would highlight areas and sites where our Nation's earliest inhabitants, the Paleo Americans, traveled and lived as early as 10,000 B.C. Within the same region lived the Ancestral Puebloan Indians from about A.D. 1 to 1300. The Trail would also feature sites that chronicle the existence of today's Ute Indian culture from the early 13th century, as well as today's Navajo people.

I point out that the Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would include only existing routes and roads, and would not require the acquisition of additional property. Currently, much of the existing route is officially designated a Scenic Byway in Utah, Colorado, and Arizona. The trail also intersects and shares stops with other national- and State-designated byways and highways including the San Juan Skyway in Colorado and the Utah Bicentennial Highway.

Most of the existing cultural and historical interpretation of the numerous sites along the trail was developed independently. Designation of the Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would link many of the cultural and recreation areas for the benefit of the traveling public and involved communities. Just as importantly, designation as a national historic trail would provide a unified framework for protecting and interpreting for the public the trail's most important sites.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. This bill would authorize the study of the Trail of the Ancients for possible inclusion in the National Trails System and allow for its precious and irreplaceable sites to be best protected, as well as enjoyed by the public.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help highlight and protect sites in one of our Nation's most archaeologically rich regions, the Four Corners. The Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail Act of 2003 would amend the National Trails System Act to direct a study of the suitability of designating the Trail of the Ancients as a national historic trail.

The Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would become a multistate, auto route featuring world-renowned examples of Ancestral Puebloan cultures in the Four Corners area. The Ancestral Puebloans, also known as Anasazi, preceded today's Navajo and Ute tribes. The Trail of the Ancients connects many of the most significant Ancestral Puebloan sites in the Four Corners area of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.

The Four Corners region in the Southwestern United States is one of the areas of greatest archaeological interest in the Nation. The Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would provide improved access to and understanding of this region's numerous examples of the Ancestral Puebloan culture. The history of the Four Corners region is not only unique and important to the Nation, it is unparalleled in how well it is preserved in the remaining archaeological sites. The semi- arid climate of the Four Corners area has helped preserve some the archaeological sites beyond what is typically seen in most other areas of the United States. International recognition of a number of the sites in the area has contributed to the wealth of information about the peoples who lived in them.

The Trail would highlight areas and sites where our Nation's earliest inhabitants, the Paleo Americans, traveled and lived as early as 10,000 B.C. Within the same region lived the Ancestral Puebloan Indians from about A.D. 1 to 1300. The Trail would also feature sites that chronicle the existence of today's Ute Indian culture from the early 13th century, as well as today's Navajo people.

I point out that the Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would include only existing routes and roads, and would not require the acquisition of additional property. Currently, much of the existing route is officially designated a Scenic Byway in Utah, Colorado, and Arizona. The trail also intersects and shares stops with other national- and State-designated byways and highways including the San Juan Skyway in Colorado and the Utah Bicentennial Highway.

Most of the existing cultural and historical interpretation of the numerous sites along the trail was developed independently. Designation of the Trail of the Ancients National Historic Trail would link many of the cultural and recreation areas for the benefit of the traveling public and involved communities. Just as importantly, designation as a national historic trail would provide a unified framework for protecting and interpreting for the public the trail's most important sites.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. This bill would authorize the study of the Trail of the Ancients for possible inclusion in the National Trails System and allow for its precious and irreplaceable sites to be best protected, as well as enjoyed by the public.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.