Floor Statements

Mr. President, I see my good friend from Kentucky on the floor, and I want to take this moment to clarify a couple of funding issues in the Foreign Operations portion of the Omnibus Appropriations bill.

I notice that the conference report is silent on the issue of funding for Laos. Is it the chairman's intention that the administration should implement the language contained in the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Report, 108-106?

I would be happy to. It reads:

The Committee recommends that USAID provide $2,000,000 in

Child Survival and Health Programs Fund and Development

Assistance to Laos--one of the world's poorest and most

repressive countries--through non-governmental organizations.

The Committee intends that these funds will not be used to

offset or substitute INL funding that would otherwise go to

Laos.

The Committee is concerned by the actions of the regime in

Laos, which continues to be responsible for serious human

rights abuses. The Committee is also concerned by the recent

detention and trial of an American citizen and two foreign

journalists in Laos. While the Committee is pleased that

these individuals have recently been released, it is deeply

troubled that the fate of four Laotian citizens accompanying

the journalists is still unknown.

I am pleased we are in agreement. As I know of your strong interest in the region, I hope we can continue to work together to support United States funded programs through Southeast Asia.

Mr. McCONNELL. I look forward to our continued cooperation, and urge the State Department and USAID to meet with our respective staffs to discuss countries of particular concern, including Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Burma.

On the issue of Burmese refugees along the Thailand-Burma border, is it the chairman's expectation that funds from the ERMA account should be used to provide funding for these refugees?

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my disappointment with the Omnibus appropriations bill.

It is not without some reservation that I rise today to make this speech. As a member of the Appropriations Committee I know how hard it is to draft these bills each year. Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked long and hard to produce each of the seven bills that are wrapped into this package. Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd were tireless in their efforts to move these bills along and have tried to keep this process on track despite the difficult hand they were dealt.

Unfortunately this year, under the influence of the administration and the pressures of partisanship, the process broke down. It is now the middle of January, nearly four months into the fiscal year, and 11 out of 15 Cabinet-level departments are running on a temporary spending measure. This stopgap measure has already caused disruptions in services and cuts to many social programs.

We should not be in this situation. Had we considered these bills in regular order we would have passed most of them long ago. The foreign operations title was written in a bipartisan manner and every member of the conference committee--Democrat and Republican--signed the conference report.

I strongly support this portion of the omnibus, and I want to commend my friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for working with me in such a bipartisan way to produce what I believe was probably the best, most balanced outcome we could have achieved.

Although the amount contained in the foreign operations conference report fell far short of the amount requested by the President--a fact which I find mystifying since the President's party controls both Houses of Congress--it is an improvement over the previous fiscal year. It contains several new initiatives, as well as additional funds for some very important programs.

I supported Senator Daschle's effort last December to pass the foreign operations bill independent of the omnibus. If we were given the opportunity to vote on the foreign operations portion of the omnibus by itself--and frankly I do not understand why we have not been given that opportunity--I would vote aye.

Instead the administration and congressional leadership used the pressure to pass these bills as a vehicle to move their agenda forward. Several provisions were added, and in some cases removed, to the package at the last minute and behind closed doors, sometimes in direct contradiction to votes taken on the Senate and House floors. We are now in a situation where the omnibus is mired down in debate over controversial issues unrelated to the underlying bill.

These are issues as serious as how much overtime our Nation's workers should be paid. The Bush Labor Department announced plans last March to overhaul the Federal rules on overtime pay. The new rules would redefine eligibility for overtime, adversely affecting nearly 8 million American workers who earn between $22,100 and $65,000 annually. I am troubled that so many working families in this country will no longer be entitled to time-and-a-half pay. And I find it disingenuous that the Labor Department is planning to include in the regulations a list of cost-cutting suggestions for businesses that will show them precisely how they can avoid paying overtime compensation to their employees.

On September 10 of last year I joined a bipartisan group of Senators in opposing the administration's overtime compensation changes. By a vote of 54 to 45 the Senate approved an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to overturn the regulations for another year. The House joined this effort less then a month later when they instructed their conferees to support the Senate provision. Unfortunately the President threatened to veto the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus appropriations bill if it contained this provision. Late at night, without the consent of the full conference committee, congressional leaders relented and against the will of Congress the provisions were removed from the final bill.

The Labor Department now expects to have its regulations finalized by the end of March. And in testimony before

the Senate Labor Appropriations Committee yesterday the Secretary was unwilling to not only delay implementation of the regulations, but even to listen to the debate about how many workers will lose overtime pay because of the regulations.

Just 2 nights ago President Bush implored us to do more to help struggling, working families across this country. He said we should lower their taxes so they have more money to spend. He said we should implement new savings incentives so they have more money saved up. And he said we should implement new programs to promote family life so they will spend more quality time together. Unfortunately, the actions of this administration to reach into the pocketbooks of hard-working families--to take away their overtime pay and keep them apart for even longer hours--speak much louder than the President's words.

The will of the Senate was also thwarted when it came to regulating the safety of our Nation's food supply. Consumers have said, in large numbers, that they want basic information about the food they consume. A recent nationwide poll indicated that 82 percent of American consumers think food should be labeled with country-of-origin information. That is why Congress mandated country-of-origin labeling-- otherwise known as COOL--as part of the recently passed farm bill. The language of the COOL law states that only beef born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States can be labeled a U.S. product. Only with the country-of-origin labeling law will consumers be afforded a choice about the origin of the food they purchase and consume. The recent discovery of a mad cow case in Washington State from a Canadian cow has made clear the need to implement COOL immediately.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has stridently opposed COOL. Language was included in this bill that effectively kills the labeling law and denies consumers essential information about the meats, fruits and vegetables they purchase.

The trend of bucking popular sentiment continued when it came to the issue of FCC media ownership caps. On June 2 of last year the FCC issued a ruling that would have relaxed media ownership restrictions from the 35 percent cap to 45 percent. After public outrage and much debate, the House and Senate approved legislation reinstating a 35- percent limitation on FCC media ownership caps. Despite this the White House successfully lobbied for last-minute increase of a permanent cap at 39 percent.

This so-called ``compromise'' would only serve to the advantage of media conglomerates--several of whom are already in violation of the 35-percent cap and who would otherwise be required to divest some assets in order to comply with the rule. There is no evidence that a 39 percent cap will protect the diversity of voices, or foster the competitive health of the information and entertainment industries. In fact, reasoned analysis suggests precisely the opposite. Unfortunately, Democrats were not in the room when this decision was made. The doors had been closed and communication had ceased.

I could go on. This mammoth bill includes a provision that will pave the way for contracting out thousands of Federal jobs. Bipartisan agreements were reached that would have provided basic protections for federal employees, yet these protections were dropped. Both the Senate and House voted on provisions that would have eased the restrictions on travel to Cuba, but this provision mysteriously disappeared in conference. Titles of the bill that were closed out during conference meetings were reopened after deals had been struck; compromises that were reached on a bipartisan basis were overturned later without consultation. This is not how we should be doing business. It is undemocratic. It is not how the American people expect us to represent them.

The omnibus provides over $820 million in long overdue funds that are desperately needed by Federal agencies, including hard fought increases for veterans medical care and the fight against global aids. But it is packaged with tainted goods.

Today I will vote to invoke cloture on this bill. These provisions could be fixed if the will was there, but the other side of the aisle has made it clear that they will not negotiate. Delaying this bill any longer will only do more harm to our agencies and the people they serve. But I will vote no on final passage. I cannot support the omnibus as it is written. It is a flawed document in both policy and process.

I hope that over the next few months we can start to restore the spirit of compromise, bipartisanship and consultation that used to be commonplace in the appropriations process. Another year like this will do permanent damage to this institution. We deserve and expect better in the United States Senate.

As one who has worked a great deal in this area, I say to my friend from Wisconsin that I do agree with his comments and concerns on this matter, and believe his remarks are in keeping with the Senate report language on this matter, as well as the final conference agreement.

I do concur with the Senator from Wisconsin on his comments and concerns about the organic data collection and analysis provisions in the Agriculture portion of this omnibus appropriations bill.

small engines provision

I want to recognize the Senator from Iowa for his leadership on this issue. He has been a champion of polio eradication and his efforts have paid off in the continuing U.S. support for the global polio eradication effort. As my friend has said, for FY 2004, like in prior years, the House and Senate Foreign Operations subcommittees recommended $30 million and not less than $25 million, respectively. It is my expectation that USAID will provide $27.5 million in FY 2004. This is no time to reduce our support for this effort as we approach the finish line.

These funds will allow for accelerated polio eradication activities, improved surveillance for polio and other diseases, and support for cease-fires in conflict zones for National Immunization Days. The United States is the largest international donor for the Polio Eradication Initiative, and the success of this program should be a source of pride for all Americans.

Madam President, we open this year confronted with three additional disappointing developments regarding judicial nominations: the Pickering recess appointment, the renomination of Claude Allen, and the pilfering of Democratic offices' computer files by Republican staff.

Late last Friday afternoon President Bush made his most cynical and divisive appointment to date when he bypassed the Senate and unilaterally installed Charles Pickering to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That appointment is without the consent of the Senate and is a particular affront to the many individuals and membership organizations representing African Americans in the Fifth Circuit who have strongly opposed this nomination.

With respect to his extreme judicial nominations, President George W. Bush is the most divisive President in American history. Through his extreme judicial nominations, President Bush is dividing the American people and undermining the fairness and independence of the federal judiciary on which all Americans depend.

After fair hearings and open debate, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the Pickering nomination in 2002. Originally nominated in 2001 by President Bush, this nominee's record underwent a thorough examination by the Senate Judiciary Committee and was found lacking. Rejected for this promotion by the Committee in 2002 because of his poor record as a judge and the ethical problems raised by his handling of his duties in specific instances, Judge Pickering's nomination was nonetheless sent back to the Senate last year by a President who is the first in our history to reject the judgment of the Judiciary Committee on a judicial nominee. This is the only President who has renominated someone rejected on a vote by the Judiciary Committee for a judicial appointment.

The renomination of Charles Pickering lay dormant for most of last year while Republicans reportedly planned further hearings. Judge Pickering himself said that several hearings on his nomination were scheduled and cancelled over the last year by Republicans. Then, without any additional information or hearings, Republicans decided to forego any pretense at proceeding in regular order. Instead, they placed the name of Judge Pickering on the committee's markup agenda and pushed his nomination through with their one-vote majority. The Committee had been told since last January that a new hearing would be held

before a vote on this nomination, but that turned out to be an empty promise.

Why was the Pickering nomination moved ahead of other well-qualified candidates late last fall? Why was the Senate required to expend valuable time rehashing arguments about a controversial nomination that has already been rejected? The timing was arranged by Republicans to coincide with the gubernatorial election in Mississippi. Like so much about this President's actions with respect to the Federal courts, partisan Republican politics seemed to be the governing consideration. Indeed, as the President's own former Secretary of the Treasury points out from personal experience, politics governs more than just Federal judicial nominations in the Bush administration.

Charles Pickering was a nominee rejected by the Judiciary Committee on the merits--a nominee who has a record that does not qualify him for this promotion, who injects his personal views into judicial opinions, and who has made highly questionable ethical judgments. The nominee's supporters, including some Republican Senators, have chosen to imply that Democrats opposed the nominee because of his religion or region. That is untrue and offensive. These smears have been as ugly as they are wrong. Yet the political calculation has been made to ignore the facts, to seek to pin unflattering characterizations on Democrats for partisan purposes and to count on cynicism and misinformation to rule the day. With elections coming up this fall, partisan Republicans are apparently returning to that page of their partisan political playbook.

Never before had a judicial nomination rejected by the Judiciary Committee after a vote been resubmitted to the Senate, but this President took that unprecedented step last year. Never before has a judicial nomination debated at such length by the Senate, and to which the Senate has withheld its consent, been the subject of a Presidential appointment to the Federal bench.

In an editorial following last week's appointment, The Washington Post had it right when it summarized Judge Pickering's record as a federal trial judge as ``undistinguished and downright disturbing.'' As the paper noted: ``The right path is to build consensus that nonpartisanship and excellence are the appropriate criteria for judicial selection.'' Instead we see another dangerous step down the Republican's chosen path to erode judicial independence for the sake of partisanship and their ideological court-packing efforts. I will ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record. The New York Times also editorialized on this subject and it, too, was correct when it pointed out that this end-run around the advice and consent authority of the Senate is ``absolutely the wrong choice for one of the nation's most sensitive courts.'' I will ask unanimous consent that this editorial also be printed in the Record.

Civil rights supporters who so strenuously opposed this nominee were understandably offended that the President chose this action the day after his controversial visit to the grave of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As the Nation was entering the weekend set aside to honor Dr. King and all for which he strived, this President made one of the most insensitive and divisive appointments of his administration. I will ask unanimous consent that the op-ed published in the Chicago Sun Times by the Reverend Jesse Jackson be printed in the Record. In this op-ed, Reverend Jackson observed that this President ``has shown a remarkable cynicism about playing racial politics.''

So many civil rights group and individuals committed to supporting civil rights in this country have spoken out in opposition to the elevation of Judge Pickering that their views should have been respected by the President. Contrary to the false assertion made by the Wall Street Journal editorial page this week, the NAACP of Mississippi did not support Judge Pickering's nomination. Indeed, every single branch of the Mississippi State Chapter of the NAACP voted to oppose this nomination--not just once, but three times. When Mr. Pickering was nominated to the District Court in 1990, the NAACP of Mississippi opposed him, and when he was nominated to the Fifth Circuit in 2001 and, again, in 2003, the NAACP of Mississippi opposed him. They have written letter after letter expressing their opposition. That opposition was shared by the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Magnolia Bar Association, the Mississippi Legislative Black Caucus, the Mississippi Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, Representative Bennie G. Thompson and many others. Perhaps the Wall Street Journal confused the Mississippi NAACP with the Mississippi Association of Trial Lawyers, which is an organization that did support the Pickering nomination.

This is an administration that promised to unite the American people but that has chosen time and again to act with respect to judicial nominations in a way that divides us. This is an administration that squandered the goodwill and good faith that Democrats showed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. This is an administration that refused to acknowledge the strides we made in filling 100 judicial vacancies under Democratic Senate leadership in 2001 and 2002 while overcoming anthrax attacks and in spite of Republican mistreatment of scores of qualified, moderate judicial nominees of President Clinton.

Then, just 2 days ago, the President sent the nomination of Claude Allen back to the Senate. From the time this nomination was originally made to the time it was returned to the President last year, the Maryland Senators have made their position crystal clear. This Fourth Circuit vacancy is a Maryland seat and ought to be filled by an experienced, qualified Marylander. Over the Senate recess, the White House had ample time to find such a nominee, someone of the caliber of sitting U.S. District Court Judges Andre Davis or Roger Titus, two former Maryland nominees whose involvement in the State's legal system and devotion to their local community was clear. This refusal to compromise is just another example of the White House engaging in partisan politics to the detriment of an independent judiciary.

The third disappointment we face is the ongoing fallout from the cyber theft of confidential memoranda from Democratic Senate staff. This invasion was perpetrated by Republican employees both on and off the Committee. As revealed by the Chairman, computer security was compromised and, simply put, members of the Republican staff took things that did not belong to them and passed them around and on to people outside of the Senate. This is no small mistake. It is a serious breach of trust, morals, and possibly the rules and regulations governing the Senate. We do not yet know the full extent of these violations. But we need to repair the loss of trust brought on by this breach of confidentiality and privacy, if we are ever to recover and be able to resume our work in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect that is so necessary to make progress.

Democratic cooperation with the President's slate of judicial nominees has been remarkable in these circumstances. One way to measure that cooperation and the progress we have made possible is to examine the Chief Justice's annual report on the Federal judiciary. Over the last couple of years, Justice Rehnquist has been ``pleased to report'' our progress on filling judicial vacancies. This is in sharp contrast to the criticism he justifiably made of the shadowy and unprincipled Republican obstruction of consideration of President Clinton's nominees. In 1996, the final year of President Clinton's first term, the Republican-led Senate confirmed only 17 judicial nominees all year and not a single nominee to the circuit courts. At the end of 1996, the Republican Senate majority returned to the President almost twice as many nominations as were confirmed.

By contrast, with the overall cooperation of Senate Democrats, which partisan Republicans are loath to concede, this President has achieved record numbers of judicial confirmations. Despite the attacks of Sept. 11 and their aftermath, the Senate has already confirmed 169 of President Bush's nominees to the Federal bench. This is more judges than were confirmed during President Reagan's entire first 4-year term. Thus, President Bush's 3-year totals rival those achieved by other Presidents in 4 years. That is also true with respect to the nearly 4 years it took for President Clinton to

achieve these results following the Republicans' taking majority control of the Senate in 1995.

The 69 judges confirmed last year exceeds the number of judges confirmed during any of the 6 years from 1995 to 2000 that Republicans controlled the Senate during the Clinton presidency years in which there were far more vacant Federal judgeships than exist today. Among those 69 judges confirmed in 2003 were 13 circuit court judges. That exceeds the number of circuit court judges confirmed during all of 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000, when a Democrat was President.

The Senate has already confirmed 30 circuit court judges nominated by President Bush. This is a greater number than were confirmed at this point in the presidencies of his father, President Clinton, or the first term of President Reagan. Vacancies on the Federal judiciary have been reduced to the lowest point in two decades and are lower than Republicans allowed at any time during the Clinton presidency. In addition, there are more Federal judges serving on the bench today than at any time in American history.

I congratulate the Democratic Senators on the Committee for showing a spirit of cooperation and restraint in the face of a White House that so often has refused to consult, compromise or conciliate. I regret that our efforts have not been fairly acknowledged by partisan Republicans and that this administration continues down the path of confrontation. While there have been difficult and controversial nominees whom we have opposed as we exercise our constitutional duty of advice and consent to lifetime appointments on the Federal bench, we have done so openly and on the merits.

For the last 3 years I have urged the President to work with us. It is with deep sadness that I see that this administration still refuses to accept the Senate's shared responsibility under the Constitution and refuses to appreciate our level of cooperation and achievement.

I ask unanimous consent that the materials to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, as well as Senators Kohl and DeWine, in sponsoring the Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act. The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, which we passed in 1999, established a statutory license for satellite carriers to make secondary transmission of ``distant'' network and superstation television programs. That license will expire this year, however, so today's bill will extend that license, found in section 119 of the Copyright Act, for 5 years in order to ensure that the laudable goals of the initial bill are fully realized.

The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act was the result of much work in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. The license created in section 119 serves a very worthwhile purpose: it permits households that cannot receive local network programming over-the-air to receive those shows by satellite. For the many viewers who are not served by local networks or cable companies--which is the case for a great many people in the rural areas of my home State of Vermont--this is absolutely critical. Of special importance is the fact that the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act permits the satellite transmission of ``local-into- local'' programming, so that satellite companies can retransmit local broadcast signals to subscribers who actually live in the local market, but cannot receive the broadcast signal. Providing the news and local interest programming that is so vital to the creation and maintenance of a healthy and involved community has been the most gratifying result of the passage of that act. Furthermore, this license enhances competition by placing providers of satellite television programming on an equal footing with cable operators, which enjoy the benefits of their own statutory licenses.

Such important progress does take time, however, and the satellite carriers have not yet made these local signals available to all their subscribers. Although the provision of ``local-into-local'' programming is proceeding well, and although competition between cable and satellite companies has been strengthened, there is still more to be done before the goal of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act is fully realized. If we fail to reauthorize the section 119 license, satellite programming may be unavailable as a real choice for many households, and many rural viewers will have little or no programming at all.

I look forward to working again with my colleagues on this important issue and to a speedy reauthorization of this important license.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, as well as Senators Kohl and DeWine, in sponsoring the Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act. The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, which we passed in 1999, established a statutory license for satellite carriers to make secondary transmission of ``distant'' network and superstation television programs. That license will expire this year, however, so today's bill will extend that license, found in section 119 of the Copyright Act, for 5 years in order to ensure that the laudable goals of the initial bill are fully realized.

The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act was the result of much work in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. The license created in section 119 serves a very worthwhile purpose: it permits households that cannot receive local network programming over-the-air to receive those shows by satellite. For the many viewers who are not served by local networks or cable companies--which is the case for a great many people in the rural areas of my home State of Vermont--this is absolutely critical. Of special importance is the fact that the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act permits the satellite transmission of ``local-into- local'' programming, so that satellite companies can retransmit local broadcast signals to subscribers who actually live in the local market, but cannot receive the broadcast signal. Providing the news and local interest programming that is so vital to the creation and maintenance of a healthy and involved community has been the most gratifying result of the passage of that act. Furthermore, this license enhances competition by placing providers of satellite television programming on an equal footing with cable operators, which enjoy the benefits of their own statutory licenses.

Such important progress does take time, however, and the satellite carriers have not yet made these local signals available to all their subscribers. Although the provision of ``local-into-local'' programming is proceeding well, and although competition between cable and satellite companies has been strengthened, there is still more to be done before the goal of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act is fully realized. If we fail to reauthorize the section 119 license, satellite programming may be unavailable as a real choice for many households, and many rural viewers will have little or no programming at all.

I look forward to working again with my colleagues on this important issue and to a speedy reauthorization of this important license.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National Farm Animal Identification and Records Act or the FAIR Act, with my friend and colleague Senator Specter. This legislation would establish a uniform national electronic animal identification program to trace animals from birth to slaughter, within 48 hours, in order to combat animal disease outbreaks.

As the recent discovery of a cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, or mad cow disease, in Washington State demonstrated, a verifiable nationwide animal identification system is urgently needed to enhance the speed and accuracy of USDA's response to disease outbreaks. Unfortunately to date only, 23 of the 81 cows that came from Canada with the infected mad cow have been able to be located because of inadequate records. The National Farm Animal Identification and Records Act FAIR Act would require the Department of Agriculture to establish a national animal identification program for individual animals that could trace an animal's history within 48 hours.

As a senior member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, I have long advocated for the establishment of a national animal identification system. For the last 5 years I have worked with the Holstein Association in Brattleboro, Vermont to begin the process of creating a national animal identification program. The Holstein Association's pilot program, a precursor to this national animal identification program legislation, electronically identifies individual animals and tracks their movements from birth to slaughter within 48 hours. To date Holstein's pilot program has close to a million bovines enrolled from over 7000 farms in 42 States and has proven its electronic animal tracking capabilities.

The Holstein project demonstrates electronically tracing individual animals immediately is achievable. The technology and expertise developed by the Holstein Association is a prime example of how the Department could immediately begin tracking individual newborn animals electronically with a system similar to National FAIR. The Holstein Association could be an important partner with USDA in reducing the impact of future animal diseases.

I would also like to applaud Secretary Veneman's announcement last month of additional mad cow safeguards, including moving toward a national animal identification system. I believe this was a positive step toward protecting American farmers and consumers. Unfortunately USDA's current plans do not call for individual animal identification to be completed until mid 2006. The FAIR Act would require the Department to begin implementation of a national system within months of passage. In addition, it is clear USDA will need additional resources to carry out a national animal identification program, thus our legislation will provide additional funding for USDA to begin this work immediately. Furthermore to ensure producers are not hurt by the potential costs of a national system, our bill will provide financial assistance for producers to carry out a national identification system.

It is time for the United States to take serious steps to combat animal diseases, like BSE, that have broad public health implications for our Nation. A national animal identification program is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National Farm Animal Identification and Records Act or the FAIR Act, with my friend and colleague Senator Specter. This legislation would establish a uniform national electronic animal identification program to trace animals from birth to slaughter, within 48 hours, in order to combat animal disease outbreaks.

As the recent discovery of a cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, or mad cow disease, in Washington State demonstrated, a verifiable nationwide animal identification system is urgently needed to enhance the speed and accuracy of USDA's response to disease outbreaks. Unfortunately to date only, 23 of the 81 cows that came from Canada with the infected mad cow have been able to be located because of inadequate records. The National Farm Animal Identification and Records Act FAIR Act would require the Department of Agriculture to establish a national animal identification program for individual animals that could trace an animal's history within 48 hours.

As a senior member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, I have long advocated for the establishment of a national animal identification system. For the last 5 years I have worked with the Holstein Association in Brattleboro, Vermont to begin the process of creating a national animal identification program. The Holstein Association's pilot program, a precursor to this national animal identification program legislation, electronically identifies individual animals and tracks their movements from birth to slaughter within 48 hours. To date Holstein's pilot program has close to a million bovines enrolled from over 7000 farms in 42 States and has proven its electronic animal tracking capabilities.

The Holstein project demonstrates electronically tracing individual animals immediately is achievable. The technology and expertise developed by the Holstein Association is a prime example of how the Department could immediately begin tracking individual newborn animals electronically with a system similar to National FAIR. The Holstein Association could be an important partner with USDA in reducing the impact of future animal diseases.

I would also like to applaud Secretary Veneman's announcement last month of additional mad cow safeguards, including moving toward a national animal identification system. I believe this was a positive step toward protecting American farmers and consumers. Unfortunately USDA's current plans do not call for individual animal identification to be completed until mid 2006. The FAIR Act would require the Department to begin implementation of a national system within months of passage. In addition, it is clear USDA will need additional resources to carry out a national animal identification program, thus our legislation will provide additional funding for USDA to begin this work immediately. Furthermore to ensure producers are not hurt by the potential costs of a national system, our bill will provide financial assistance for producers to carry out a national identification system.

It is time for the United States to take serious steps to combat animal diseases, like BSE, that have broad public health implications for our Nation. A national animal identification program is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am saddened that the Senate has been unable to reach agreement to extend the pending deadline of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund to allow for more time for the many still grieving victims who have been unable to bring themselves to endure the painful process of filing claims.

On September 9, Senators Durbin, Schumer, Dodd, Lieberman, Clinton, Corzine, and Lautenberg joined with me to introduce S. 1602, the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Extension Act of 2003. Unfortunately, this bill continues to be bottlenecked in the Judiciary Committee and blocked from Senate passage by anonymous Republican holds on the Senate floor. Every Democratic Senator has agreed to pass our legislation by unanimous consent, but one or more members of the majority are still objecting to its passage in the Senate.

Senator Daschle, Senator Lautenberg and I have reached out to our Republican colleagues to try to achieve a compromise to extend this arbitrary deadline. We have expressed our willingness to do so for a period of time less than one year, but unfortunately the opponents of this bill have refused to meet us partway. Moreover, they have been unable to explain why it is necessary to force these families to confront this pain during an already stressful time--the holiday season.

Along with Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt and others, I worked hard to create the Victims Fund in the wake of the September 11 attacks. We insisted that it be included in the legislation to bail out the airlines passed in the wake of the most devastating terrorist attacks on American soil. The authorized deadline of December 22, 2003, for applications to the Victims Fund is rapidly approaching, but it has become apparent that many families need more time before they can take that step. Thus, far only a minority of families have applied to the Fund for compensation, according to the Department of Justice.

Ken Feinberg, the Special Master of the Fund, has been doing his best to get victims families to understand their rights and I commend him and others for their efforts to reach out to the victims and their families.

Victims support groups have told me that to this day, they are still receiving calls from individuals who understand that the deadline is approaching but cannot face the emotional pain of preparing a claim. In a survey conducted recently by victims' organizations, 87 percent of the 356 victims who responded expressed support for extending the December 22 deadline by 1 year. Mr. Feinberg has also commented that many victims remain too paralyzed by their grief to confront the logistical burden and emotional pain of filing a death claim.

In light of this painful reality, I believe it would have been appropriate to extend the deadline for filing applications to the Victims Fund. This extension would have given grieving families additional time to mourn those who were lost and to overcome the emotional challenges of filing paperwork with the Victims Fund. Every single September 11 victims support group that I have spoken with agreed that a modest extension would provide some relief during these dark days for victims' families as they endure the grieving process. There is simply no reason not to grant these families a little bit of relief by extending the deadline. I am disappointed and saddened that anonymous Republican holds will result in unnecessarily closing off the September 11 Victim Fund before each victim had a sufficient chance to consider their options.

With the holiday season upon us, victims did not need this arbitrary deadline confronting them. This was something that the Senate could and should have accomplished for the still grieving victims of September 11. It is an unnecessary shame that we have not done so.

Mr. President, I am troubled today that the Senate is proceeding to a vote on the nomination of D. Michael Fisher to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, when there is an open verdict against him in a Federal civil rights case. While Mr. Fisher has considerable bipartisan support, it is unfortunate that the committee vote, and now the Senate vote, on his nomination could not have at least waited for the district court judge in the pending civil rights case to rule on Mr. Fisher's motion challenging the jury verdict against him.

Over the course of this year in the Judiciary Committee, we have seen a number of firsts. At the first nominations hearing of the year, for the first time ever, Republicans unilaterally scheduled three controversial circuit court nominees at one hearing contrary to a long- established agreement and practices of the committee. Then we saw Republicans declare that the longstanding committee rules protecting the rights of the minority would be broken when Rule IV was violated. A rule that was adopted 25 years ago--in order to balance the need to protect the minority members of the committee with the desire of the majority to proceed--was unilaterally reinterpreted to override the rights of the minority for the first time in our history. For the first time ever, this year, Republicans insisted on proceeding on nominations that the committee had previously voted upon and rejected after full and fair hearings and debate. Of course that followed the first ever resubmission by a President of the names of defeated nominees for appointment to those same judgeships.

Several other practices were reversed from when a Democratic President was making nominations in light of the Republican affiliation of the current President. This committee has proceeded on nominations that did not have the approval of both home-State Senators. Moreover, this committee altered its prior practice and overrode the objections of home-State Senators to vote on the nominations of Carolyn Kuhl in spite of the opposition of both home-State Senators. Then, in connection with a nomination to the circuit court from Michigan, this committee for the first time proceeded with a hearing in spite of the opposition of both home-State Senators.

The hearing on the nomination of Michael Fisher to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was also unprecedented. Never before to my knowledge has a President nominated to a lifetime position on a Federal circuit court or this committee held a hearing on a judicial nominee with an outstanding jury verdict naming him as personally liable for civil rights violations. In February 2003, a Federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found that Mr. Fisher and other high level officials of the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General violated the civil rights of two plaintiffs, former narcotics agents with the Bureau of Narcotics Investigation, BNI, in Philadelphia. Never before in the history of Federal judicial nominees of which I am aware, has a nominee ever come before this committee with an outstanding judgment against him for so serious a claim.

The jury verdict is so recent that the trial transcript was only delivered to the parties within the last several weeks, and so complex that even Mr. Fisher and his lawyers asked for extensions of time in order to complete their post-trial motions. Just 6 weeks ago, Mr. Fisher and the other defendants filed their brief in support of their motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. Soon, the Federal district court trial judge will review the verdict against Mr. Fisher and make a decision on Mr. Fisher's motion. If the jury verdict is sustained by the district court judge, an appeal would lie to the very court to which Mr. Fisher has been nominated. Mr. Fisher has indicated that he intends to pursue all appellate options if the verdict is not reversed. These, too, appear to be unique circumstances.

Accordingly, this is a most unusual vote today. As the administration and Republican majority have abandoned traditional practices and standards, we are being confronted with more and more difficulties. The few judicial nominations on which the Senate has withheld a final vote this year have each presented extraordinary circumstances or nominees with extreme positions. During the years in which President Clinton was in the White House, Republicans attempted a number of filibusters and, when they were in the majority, successfully prevented votes on more than 60 judicial nominees, including a number of nominees to the Federal courts in Pennsylvania.

At Mr. Fisher's hearing, I indicated that I had not yet reached a determination about his nomination but was troubled by the jury verdict. I have now reviewed the trial transcript and materials from the civil rights case. Mr. Fisher has been found liable by a jury for violating the constitutional rights of his employees. Mr. Fisher testified at trial that he had knowledge of and approved of the actions found by the jury to be retaliatory. The jury found that he acted maliciously or wantonly and awarded the plaintiffs punitive damages. We should all be concerned about his ability to protect the constitutional rights of plaintiffs who may enter his courtroom. The trial court judgment is a significant piece of information in order for us to

evaluate Mr. Fisher's qualifications to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. In all due respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not think that the courts or the American people gain by rushing the nomination through.

In addition to the pending civil rights judgment against him, I am concerned about other aspects of Mr. Fisher's record. He authored Pennsylvania's death penalty legislation as a State representative and has opposed placing a moratorium on the death penalty in Pennsylvania. He reiterated at his hearing and in response to my written questions that he does not believe that there is racial discrimination in the application of the death penalty in Pennsylvania or that innocent people are being sentenced in capital cases, despite repeated evidence to the contrary. I would like to take this opportunity to urge Mr. Fisher to take seriously the imposition of the death penalty and to do what he can to ensure that the death penalty is applied fairly.

Mr. Fisher has also indicated his opposition to gay rights and has advocated against benefits for same-sex partners. Mr. Fisher, however, has assured the committee that he would follow Supreme Court precedent recognizing that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to be free from government intrusion into their private lives. I am hopeful that Mr. Fisher will be a person of his word: that he will follow the law and not seek out opportunities to overturn precedent or decide cases in accord with his private beliefs rather than his obligations as a judge. I also sincerely hope that Mr. Fisher will treat all those who appear before him with respect, and will not abuse the power and trust of his position.

The Senate has already confirmed two of President Bush's nominees to the Third Circuit, including one controversial circuit court nominee from Pennsylvania who had broken his promise to the committee about his membership in a discriminatory club. Yet, with Democratic support, the Senate has already confirmed 13 Federal district court nominees from Pennsylvania and 19 district court nominees in the Third Circuit.

A look at the Federal judiciary in Pennsylvania indicates that President Bush's nominees have been treated fairly and far better than President Clinton's. This treatment is in sharp contrast to the way vacancies in Pennsylvania were kept vacant during Republican control of the Senate when President Clinton was in the White House.

Despite the best efforts and diligence of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to secure the confirmation of all of the judicial nominees from every part of his home state, there were 10 nominees by President Clinton to Pennsylvania vacancies who never got a vote: Patrick Toole, John Bingler, Robert Freedberg, Lynette Norton, Legrome Davis, David Fineman, David Cercone, Harry Litman, Stephen Lieberman, and Robert Cindrich to the Third Circuit. Despite how well- qualified these nominees were, they were never considered by the Senate, many waited more than a year for action.

Just last month, the Senate voted to confirm another nominee from Pennsylvania whose record raised serious concerns the nomination of Thomas Hardiman to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. That nominee came to us with no judicial experience, a relatively small amount of litigation experience and very low peer- review ratings by both the American Bar Association and the local Allegheny County Bar Association. Far too many of this President's judicial nominees seem to have similarly troubling records. In fact, 26 of this President's judicial nominees have earned partial or majority ``Not Qualified'' ratings from the ABA. Certainly, the citizens of Pennsylvania deserve a well-qualified judiciary to hear their important legal claims in federal court.

Unfortunately, Mr. Fisher's record--particularly the outstanding Federal civil rights verdict against him--raises concerns, just as the record of far too many of President Bush's judicial nominees. Yet, I have great respect for the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and appreciate his efforts to help shepherd the White House's nomination through the Senate. I have also heard from a number of other supporters of Mr. Fisher whose opinions I value that they believe him qualified to serve as a judge of the Third Circuit. He does have significant experience as an attorney, formerly serving as an Assistant District Attorney, as an attorney in private practice for over 27 years, and in the Pennsylvania General Assembly for 22 years. We are, again, treating this President's judicial nominees far more fairly than Republicans treated President Clinton's judicial nominees.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is taking up and passing the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, PACT, Act, S. 1177. I commend Chairman Hatch and Senator Kohl for introducing this legislation and thank them for working with me, among others, to craft the compromise language that we will consider today to crack down on the growing problem of cigarette smuggling, both interstate and international, as well as to address the connection between cigarette smuggling activities and terrorist funding. I am proud to join Senator Hatch, Senator Kohl and others as a cosponsor of the underlying bill.

I also thank the National Association of Attorneys General and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, for working with us and contributing to the substitute language. I want to say a special thanks to Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who also serves as the current Chair of the NAAG Tobacco Committee, for his valuable input on the problems with cigarette smuggling that States are facing and his support for this compromise measure. I also want to thank the Vermont Grocers Association, the Vermont Retail Association, the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Conference of State Legislatures for their support for this measure.

The movement of cigarettes from low-tax areas to high-tax areas in order to avoid the payment of taxes when the cigarettes are resold has become a public health problem in recent years. As State after State chooses to raise its tobacco excise taxes as a means of reducing tobacco use and as a source of revenue, many smokers have sought cheaper means by which to purchase cigarettes. Smokers can often purchase cigarettes and tobacco from remote sellers, Internet or mail order at substantial discounts due to avoidance of State taxes. These sellers, however, are evading their tax obligations because they neither collect nor pay the proper State and local excise taxes for cigarette and other tobacco product sales.

We have the ability to dramatically reduce smuggling without imposing undue burdens on manufacturers or law abiding citizens. By reducing smuggling, we will also increase government revenues by minimizing tax avoidance. My friend General Sorrell has told me that this has become a rapidly growing problem in Vermont as more and more tobacco product manufacturers fail to collect and pay cigarette taxes. Criminals are getting away with smuggling and not paying tobacco taxes because of weak punishments, products that are often poorly labeled, the lack of tax stamps and the inability of the current distribution system to track sales from State to State. These lapses point to a need for uniform rules governing group sales to individuals.

The PACT Act will give States the authority to collect millions of dollars in lost State tax revenue resulting from online and other remote sales of cigarette and smokeless tobacco. It also ensures that every tobacco retailer, whether a brick-and-mortar or remote retailer of tobacco products, play by the same rules by equalizing the tax burdens.

Moreover, the PACT Act gives States the authority necessary to enforce the Jenkins Act, a law passed in 1949, which requires cigarette vendors to report interstate sales of cigarettes. This legislation enhances States' abilities to collect all excise taxes and verify the deposit of all required escrow payments for cigarette and smokeless tobacco sales in interstate commerce, including internet sales. In addition, it provides Federal and State law enforcement with additional resources to enforce State tobacco excise tax laws.

Finally, at the request of the National Association of attorneys general and many State attorneys general, we have added a new section to provide the States with authority to enforce the Imported Cigarette Compliance Act to crack down on international tobacco smuggling. This additional authority should further reduce tax evasion and eliminate a lucrative funding source for terrorist organizations.

We must not turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal tobacco smuggling. Those who smuggle cigarettes are criminals. I look forward to the Senate approving the bipartisan PACT Act today to close the loopholes that allow cigarette smuggling to continue. I urge the leaders of the House to follow our lead and pass this legislation.

Mr. President, seniors need and deserve a stronger prescription drug bill than this one.

The creation of the Medicare program in 1965 was a tremendous accomplishment. With Medicare, older Americans would never again have to face a terrifying future with no health care coverage. And since that time, millions of elderly and disabled citizens have come to know and trust the quality health care that Medicare ensures them. But Medicare's success is marred by one significant factor: the lack of coverage for prescription drugs. When Medicare was created, prescription drugs did not hold the pivotal role that they now have in health care treatment and maintenance. Medical science has advanced since Medicare's charter was enacted, and senior and disabled Americans have been waiting a long time for Congress to remedy this gaping hole in coverage.

We need a meaningful prescription drug benefit under Medicare, and many of us have been pushing for years to accomplish that. This movement has steadily grown, and for 6 years we in this body have been debating and working toward this goal. In June of this year the Senate passed a bi-partisan prescription drug bill that I supported. I supported that bill--even though I thought it was weaker than what we need--because it was a solid start. And that is why it gives me grave concern to see the direction this conference report has taken.

We have before us eleven hundred pages--which we have had little more than 3 days to examine--that run far afield of the goal of adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. It concerns me that some of the provisions in

this bill--provisions which were never a part of the bill I supported in June--will do more harm than good. I know that many of my colleagues worked long and hard to produce this bill. I respect their efforts and their best intentions, but Vermonters and Americans need and deserve far better than this. We passed a decent bipartisan bill once before this year. I know that we can do better than this compromise before us, and that is why I will be voting no. Instead of trying to rush through eleven hundred pages so that we can go home for Thanksgiving and adjourn for the year, I think that we need to keep working on this important issue until we get it right.

I am concerned that the measure before us moves Medicare down the road of privatization and does not adequately protect the access to the prescription drug benefit of rural seniors in traditional Medicare. I am concerned that fewer low-income seniors will be helped with their costs, and it troubles me that the need to bring down the ever- escalating costs of prescription drugs has not been addressed in this bill.

Under the conference agreement, a significant amount of money--$12 billion--is set aside in a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to entice insurance companies into Medicare. The conference agreement also includes a proposal to experiment with privatization of the Medicare program in at least six areas of the country. This troubling provision could impose increased premiums for millions of seniors in traditional Medicare, potentially forcing them to leave the program that they know and trust. And making this experiment even worse, the Federal Government will overpay private plans--putting Medicare at an unfair disadvantage--to offer the same benefits that traditional Medicare covers for less. Why are all of these extra payments necessary? If the private insurance model is so effective and efficient, why do we need to pay them more than we pay for traditional Medicare? No one can credibly argue that doing this makes sense.

The reason that we needed Medicare in 1965, and the reason that we will continue to need Medicare in the future, is because the insurance model fails elderly and disabled people. It is not all that complicated. As we get older we inevitably get sick and we need to take more trips to the doctor and to the hospital to manage and maintain our health. This costs money, and the insurance companies know that they lose money when the bills have to be paid not occasionally, but frequently. Instead of sending billions of dollars to insurance companies, it is far better to use those resources to strengthen Medicare and to create a stronger and more reliable prescription drug benefit run directly by Medicare.

In the earlier Senate bill, I accepted that we could try this private delivery model for the prescription drug benefit because rural seniors in traditional Medicare--this is all of the seniors in Vermont, by the way, because private plans have chosen not to operate in our rural state--would be assured of having a choice of two stand-alone drug plans. And if those two plans did not exist in Vermont's region, then Vermonters in traditional Medicare would be guaranteed access to a standard government fall back plan. Unfortunately, this essential protection was weakened in the conference agreement. Instead, Vermonters will be considered to have adequate choice--and therefore no access to the government fallback plan--if there is only one stand- alone plan and one managed care plan. What kind of choice is that? The choice that Vermonters in traditional Medicare will have under that scenario is either to sign up for that one stand-alone plan that happens to be offered, or to forgo the new prescription drug benefit altogether. That doesn't sound like much of a choice at all.

I am also concerned about the impact that this bill will have on low- income Medicare beneficiaries. It is true that the bill provides generous subsidies to low-income seniors, but the earlier Senate bill covered more people: almost one million Americans who would have had access to a subsidy under that bill will not receive help with their premiums, deductible, and cost sharing under this bill. Three million more Americans will not qualify for help because they have minimal savings and other assets. In Vermont, that amounts to about seven thousand people who will be worse off under this agreement than under the Senate bill. Furthermore, thousands of Vermonters who currently have prescription drug coverage under the Medicaid program could end up with less generous coverage under this plan.

The real winner under this agreement is the drug industry. Many express concern over the high cost of creating a Medicare prescription drug benefit. I would suggest that we could have done something very simple to bring down the cost: We could have used Medicare's market power to negotiate lower prices for the medicines the program will be buying. Instead, this compromise agreement actually prohibits this common sense approach to cost containment. Thanks to objections by the drug industry, provisions designed to speed low-cost generic drugs to market were weakened in the conference agreement. And last, but certainly not least, the drug industry prevailed in their efforts to block a provision to allow Americans access to lower-priced medicines from Canada. This is unacceptable. A majority in the senate voted to allow re-importation and the House of Representatives overwhelmingly supported a strong re-importation provision. Somehow, the conference agreement is weaker than either provision passed in either body. How long do we intend to force Americans to continue to pay the highest prices in the world for their indispensable medications?

It is wrong to have hijacked this bill as a locomotive to pull the drug industry's baggage. House leaders have taken the industry's side over consumers' interests on issue after issue. They have given the industry a veto over giving Medicare the market leverage to bring down costs. They have done the drug industry's bidding by blocking drug reimportation. It is wrong to pad the drug industry's wallets at the expense of the seniors of Vermont and the Nation.

I remain concerned that cuts in payments for cancer drugs and services--estimated to be in excess of $11 billion over the 10-year budget window--threaten access to cancer care across the nation and particularly in rural area. And though the conference agreement does reduce the number of retirees likely to lose their employer-based coverage as a result of passing this bill from the Senate level, the Congressional Budget Office still estimates that close to three million retirees will lose their coverage. That number is still far too high and could affect thousands of Vermonters.

Finally, I question why we set aside $6 billion--money that could be spent to reduce the troubling gaps in coverage under the prescription drug benefit--to create Health Savings Accounts that have nothing to do with Medicare and that many analysts predict will boost the costs of comprehensive employer-based health insurance across the country.

I do credit this bill with some good provisions to provide increased payments to doctors and hospitals, particularly in rural areas. I fully support these provisions, but their inclusion cannot overcome the problems in the rest of the bill.

I hope that I am proven wrong about the impact that this bill will have on the Medicare program and on the help, or lack thereof, it will provide to Medicare beneficiaries. I think we can do better and that we must do better. As seniors learn over the course of the next 2-years what kind of coverage they will be getting--as they see how complex the system ad the benefits are--I predict that they will agree and that we will be returning to the drawing board very soon on prescription drugs.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing legislation to help staunch the torrent of unwanted commercial e-mail, commonly known as spam. During the past year, I worked closely with Senator Hatch and other members of the Judiciary Committee to craft criminal penalties for a variety of spammer tactics. Those penalties, which we introduced in June as part of the Criminal Spam Act, S. 1293, are included in the broader anti-spam legislation that we pass today. The bill will now go back to the House of Representatives for final approval, and then to the President for signing.

Spam is much more than a technological nuisance. In the past few years, it has become a serious and growing problem that threatens to undermine the vast potential of the Internet.

Businesses and individuals currently wade through tremendous amounts of spam in order to access e-mail that is of relevance to them--and this is after Internet Service Providers, businesses, and individuals have spent time and in some cases enormous amounts of money blocking a large percentage of spam from reaching its intended recipients.

In my home State of Vermont, one legislator recently found that two- thirds of the 96 e-mails in his inbox were spam. And this occurred after the legislature had installed new spam-blocking software on its computer system that seemed to be catching 80 percent of the spam. The assistant attorney general in Vermont was forced to suggest to computer users the following means to avoid these unsolicited commercial e- mails: ``It's very bad to reply, even to say don't send anymore. It tells the spammer they have a live address . . . The best thing you can do is just keep deleting them. If it gets really bad, you may have to change your address.'' This experience is echoed nationwide.

E-mail users are having the online equivalent of the experience of the woman in the Monty Python skit, who seeks to order a Spam-free breakfast at a restaurant. Try as she might, she cannot get the waitress to bring her the meal she desires. Every dish in the

restaurant comes with Spam; it is just a matter of how much. There is ``egg, bacon and Spam''; ``egg, bacon, sausage and Spam''; ``Spam, bacon, sausage and Spam''; ``Spam, egg, Spam, Spam, bacon and Spam''; ``Spam, sausage, Spam, Spam, Spam, bacon, Spam, tomato and Spam''; and so on. Exasperated, the woman finally cries out: ``I don't like Spam! . . . I don't want ANY Spam!''

Individuals and businesses are understandably reacting similarly to electronic spam. A Harris poll taken late last year found that 80 percent of respondents view spam as ``very annoying,'' and fully 74 percent of respondents favor making mass spamming illegal. Earlier this month, more than three out of four people surveyed by Yahoo! Mail said it was ``less aggravating to clean a toilet'' than to sort through spam. Americans are fed up.

Some 30 States now have anti-spam laws, but the globe-hopping nature of e-mail makes these laws difficult to enforce. Technology will undoubtedly play a key role in fighting spam, but a technological solution to the problem is not likely in the foreseeable future. ISPs block billions of unwanted e-mails each day, but spammers are winning the battle.

Millions of unwanted, unsolicited commercial e-mails are received by American businesses and individuals each day, despite their own, additional filtering efforts. Ferris Research has estimated that spam costs U.S. firms $8.9 billion annually in lost worker productivity, consumption of bandwidth, and the use of technical support to configure and run spam filters and provide helpdesk support for spam recipients.

The costs of spam are significant to individuals as well, including time spent identifying and deleting spam, inadvertently opening spam, installing and maintaining anti-spam filters, tracking down legitimate messages mistakenly deleted by spam filters, and paying for the ISP's blocking efforts.

And there are other prominent and equally important costs of spam. It may introduce viruses, worms, and ``Trojan horse'' programs--that is, programs that unsuspecting users download onto their computers that are designed to take control of those computers--into personal and business computer systems, including those that support our national infrastructure.

Spammers are constantly in need of new machines through which to route their garbage e-mail, and a virus makes a perfect delivery mechanism for the engine they use for their mass mailings. Some analysts said the SoBigF virus may have been created with a more malicious intent than most viruses, and may even be linked to spam e- mail schemes that could be a source of cash for those involved in the scheme.

The interconnection between computer viruses and spam is readily apparent: Both flood the Internet in an attempt to force a message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it. Criminal laws I wrote prohibiting the former have been invoked and enforced from the time they were passed. It is the latter dilemma we must now confront.

Spam is also fertile ground for deceptive trade practices. The FTC has estimated that 90 percent of the spam involving investment and business opportunities, and nearly half of the spam advertising health products and services, and travel and leisure, contains false or misleading information.

This rampant deception has the potential to undermine Americans' trust of valid information on the Internet. Indeed, it has already caused some Americans to refrain from using the Internet to the extent they otherwise would. For example, some have chosen not to participate in public discussion forums, and are hesitant to provide their addresses in legitimate business transactions, for fear that their e- mail addresses will be harvested for junk e-mail lists. And they are right to be concerned. The FTC found spam arriving at its computer system just 9 minutes after posting an e-mail address in an online chat room.

I have often said that Congress must exercise great caution when regulating in cyberspace. Any legislative solution to spam must tread carefully to ensure that we do not impede or stifle the free flow of information on the Internet. The United States is the birthplace of the Internet, and the whole world watches whenever we decide to regulate it. Whenever we choose to intervene in the Internet with Government action, we must act carefully, prudently, and knowledgeably, keeping in mind the implications of what we do and how we do it. And we must not forget that spam, like more traditional forms of commercial speech, is protected by the first amendment.

At the same time, we must not allow spam to result in the ``virtual death'' of the Internet, as one Vermont newspaper put it.

The Internet is a valuable asset to our Nation, to our economy, and to the lives of Americans, and we should act prudently to secure its continued viability and vitality.

On June 19 of this year, Senator Hatch and I introduced S. 1293, the Criminal Spam Act, together with several of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. On September 25, the Committee unanimously voted to report S. 1293 to the floor. On October 22, the Senate unanimously adopted the criminal provisions of the bill as an amendment to S. 877, the CAN SPAM Act. Today, the Senate is passing these same criminal provisions as section 4 of a modified version of S. 877, as passed by the House last week.

The Hatch-Leahy criminal provisions prohibit five principal techniques that spammers use to evade filtering software and hide their trails.

First, our legislation prohibits hacking into another person's computer system and sending bulk spam from or through that system. This criminalizes the common spammer technique of obtaining access to other people's e-mail accounts on an ISP's e-mail network, whether by password theft or by inserting a Trojan horse to send bulk spam.

Second, our legislation prohibits using a computer system that the owner makes available for other purposes as a conduit for bulk spam, with the intent of deceiving recipients as to the spam's origins. This prohibition criminalizes another common spammer technique--the abuse of third parties' ``open'' servers, such as e-mail servers that have the capability to relay mail, or Web proxy servers that have the ability to generate ``form'' mail.

Spammers commandeer these servers to send bulk commercial e-mail without the server owner's knowledge, either by ``relaying'' their e- mail through an ``open'' e-mail server, or by abusing an ``open'' Web proxy server's capability to generate form e-mails as a means to originate spam, thereby exceeding the owner's authorization for use of that e-mail or Web server. In some instances the hijacked servers are even completely shut down as a result of tens of thousands of undeliverable messages generated from the spammer's e-mail list.

The legislation's third prohibition targets another way that outlaw spammers evade ISP filters: Falsifying the ``header information'' that accompanies every e-mail, and sending bulk spam containing that fake header information. More specifically, the legislation prohibits forging information regarding the origin of the e-mail message, and the route through which the message attempted to penetrate the ISP filters.

At the suggestion of the Department of Justice, this third offense has been amended since the Senate last considered it to require a showing of materiality. This means the Government must prove that the header information was altered or concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a recipient of the message, an Internet access service processing the message on behalf of a recipient, a person alleging a violation of this title, or a law enforcement agency, to identify, locate, or respond to the person who initiated the e-mail or to investigate the alleged violation.

Fourth, the Hatch-Leahy legislation prohibits registering for multiple e-mail accounts or Internet domain names using false identities, and sending bulk e-mail from those accounts or domains. This provision targets deceptive ``account churning,'' a common outlaw spammer technique that works as follows. The spammer registers--usually by means of an automatic computer program--for large numbers of e-mail accounts or domain names, using false registration information, then sends bulk spam from one account or

domain after another. This technique stays ahead of ISP filters by hiding the source, size, and scope of the sender's mailings, and prevents the e-mail account provider or domain name registrar from identifying the registrant as a spammer and denying his registration request. Falsifying registration information for domain names also violates a basic contractual requirement for domain name registration falsification. As with the last offense, this offense now requires that the registration information be falsified ``materially.''

Fifth and finally, our legislation addresses a major hacker spammer technique for hiding identity that is a common and pernicious alternative to domain name registration--hijacking unused expanses of Internet address space and using them as launch pads for junk e-mail. Hijacking Internet Protocol--IP--addresses is not difficult: Spammers simply falsely assert that they have the right to use a block of IP addresses, and obtain an Internet connection for those addresses. Hiding behind those addresses, they can then send vast amounts of spam that is extremely difficult to trace.

Penalties for violations of these new criminal prohibitions are tough but measured. Recidivists and those who send spam in furtherance of another felony may be imprisoned for up to 5 years. Large-volume spammers, those who hack into another person's computer system to send bulk spam, and spam ``kingpins'' who use others to operate their spamming operations may be imprisoned for up to 3 years. Other offenders may be fined and imprisoned for no more than one year. Convicted offenders are also subject to forfeiture of proceeds and instrumentalities of the offense.

In addition to these penalties, the Hatch-Leahy legislation directs the Sentencing Commission to consider providing sentencing enhancements for those convicted of the new criminal provisions who obtained e-mail addresses through improper means, such as harvesting, and those who knowingly sent spam containing or advertising a falsely registered Internet domain name. We have also worked with Senator Nelson on language directing the Sentencing Commission to consider enhancements for those who commit other crimes that are facilitated by the sending of spam.

I should note that the Criminal Spam Act, from which these provisions are taken, enjoys broad support from ISPs, direct marketers, consumer groups, and civil liberties groups alike. Again, the purpose of these criminal provisions is to deter the most pernicious and unscrupulous types of spammers--those who use trickery and deception to induce others to relay and view their messages. Ridding America's inboxes of deceptively delivered spam will help clear electronic channels for Internet users from coast-to-coast. But it is not a cure-all for the spam pandemic.

The fundamental problem inherent to spam--its sheer volume--may well persist even in the absence of fraudulent routing information and false identities. In a recent survey, 82 percent of respondents considered unsolicited bulk e-mail, even from legitimate businesses, to be unwelcome spam. Given this public opinion, and in light of the fact that spam is, in essence, cost-shifted advertising, we need to take a more comprehensive approach to our fight against spam.

While I am generally supportive of the CAN SPAM Act, it does raise some concerns. For one thing, it may not be tough enough to do the job.

The bill takes an ``opt out'' approach to spam--that is, it requires all commercial e-mail to include an ``opt out'' mechanism, by which e- mail recipients may opt out of receiving further unwanted spam. My concern is that this approach authorizes spammers to send at least one piece of spam to each e-mail address in their database, while placing the burden on e-mail recipients to respond. People who receive dozens, even hundreds, of unwanted e-mails each day may have little time or energy for anything other than opting-out from unwanted spam. Meantime, CAN SPAM will sweep away dozens of State anti-spam laws, including some that were substantially more restrictive.

I am also troubled by the two labeling requirement in the CAN SPAM Act. The first makes it unlawful to send an unsolicited commercial e- mail message unless it provides, among other things, ``clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation,'' and ``a valid physical postal address of the sender.'' The second--added as a floor amendment during Senate consideration of the bill in October--requires ``warning labels'' on any commercial e- mail that includes ``sexually oriented material.''

While we all want to curb spam and protect our children from inappropriate material, there are important first amendment concerns to regulating commercial e-mail in ways that require specific labels on protected speech. Such requirements inhibit both the speaker's right to express and the listener's right to access constitutionally protected material.

In addition, the bill's definition of ``sexually oriented material'' as any material that ``depicts'' sexually explicit conduct seems overly broad. According to Webster's dictionary, ``depict'' may mean either to represent by a picture or to describe in words. It is my hope that the FTC, which has some rulemaking authority with respect to this labeling requirement, will clarify that it applies to ``visual'' depictions only.

The CAN SPAM Act may not be perfect, but it is a serious effort to address a difficult and urgent problem. I support its passage today, and commend the bipartisanship that was needed to get this done.

Mr. President, in the end of October, the Center for American Progress, in conjunction with The American Prospect magazine and The Century Foundation, held a conference on U.S. national security titled, ``New American Strategies for Security and Peace.'' Three of my fellow senators--Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Joe Biden, and Senator Chuck Hagel--and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski made incisive remarks at this conference about the direction of our country's foreign policy and its effects on Americans at home and abroad. They also spoke about how to restore America to respected international leadership. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of Senator Clinton and Dr. Brzezinski be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate again is taking up and passing the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003, S. 459. This bill, as amended and passed by unanimous consent in the House, will improve the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, program by allowing survivors of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes while participating in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activities to qualify for Federal survivor benefits.

I want to pay special thanks to Congressman Bob Etheridge, the author of the House companion bill, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner for their leadership and fortitude while negotiating this legislation. Without their perseverance and willingness to find bipartisan compromise language, passage of this bill in the House would not have happened.

I also commend Congressman Coble, Congressman Bobby Scott, the Fraternal Order of Police, FOP, and the Congressional Fire Services Institute, CFSI, for working with us on bipartisan compromise language so that we could pass the Senate bill through the House. I thank Senate Judiciary Chairman Hatch, Senator Lindsey Graham, the lead Republican cosponsor of this bill, and Senate leadership for quickly

passing the Senate bill, as amended by the House, and to send it to the President's desk for enactment into law.

I thank Senators Collins, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Schumer, Durbin, Landrieu, Nelson of Florida, Clinton, Snowe, Kohl, Smith, Stabenow, Kennedy, Dayton, Miller and Kerry for joining me as cosponsors of this multi-partisan legislation.

Public safety officers are our most brave and dedicated public servants. I applaud the efforts of all members of fire, law enforcement and EMS providers nationwide who are the first to respond to more than 1.6 million emergency calls annually--whether those calls involve a crime, fire, medical emergency, spill of hazardous materials, natural disaster, act of terrorism, or transportation accident--without reservation. Those men and women act with an unwavering commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens, and forever willing to selflessly sacrifice their own lives to provide safe and reliable emergency services to their communities.

Sadly, that kind of dedication can result in tragedy, which we all witnessed on September 11th as scores of firefighters, police officers and medics raced into the burning World Trade Center and Pentagon with no other goal than to save lives. Every year, hundreds of public safety officers nationwide lose their lives and thousands more are injured while performing duties that subject them to great physical risks. And while we know that PSOB benefits can never be a substitute for the loss of a loved one, the families of all our fallen heroes deserve to collect these funds.

The PSOB program was established in 1976 to authorize a one-time financial payment to the eligible survivors of Federal, State, and local public safety officers for all line of duty deaths. In 2001, Congress improved the PSOB regulations by streamlining the process for families of public safety officers killed or injured in connection with prevention, investigation, rescue or recovery efforts related to a terrorist attack. We also retroactively increased the total benefits available by $100,000 as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Survivors of first responders killed in the line of duty now receive $267,494 in

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing legislation to extend family farmer bankruptcy protection through June 30, 2004.

Senator Grassley and I introduced S. 1920 to temporarily extend these protections that our farmers have come to rely upon for another 6 months because Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code is set to expire on January 1, 2004. But this is just a short term fix. We need to stop playing politics and permanently reauthorize the Chapter 12 family farmer protections.

Too many family farmers have been left in legal limbo in bankruptcy courts across the country because Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code is still a temporary measure. This is the seventh time that Congress must act to restore or extend basic bankruptcy safeguards for family farmers because Chapter 12 is still a temporary provision despite its first passage into law in 1986. Our family farmers do not deserve these lapses in bankruptcy law that could mean the difference between foreclosure and farming.

In 2000 and 2001, for example, the Senate, then as now controlled by the other party, failed to take up a House-passed bill to retroactively renew Chapter 12. As a result, family farmers lost Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection for eight months. Another lapse of Chapter 12 lasted more than six months in the previous Congress. At the end of June, Chapter 12 lapsed once again.

It is time to end this absurdity and make these bankruptcy protections permanent. Everyone agrees that Chapter 12 has worked. It is time for Congress to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a stable safety net for our Nation's family farmers.

I will continue to work hard with Senator Grassley, Senator Feingold and others on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation that once and for all assures our farmers of permanent bankruptcy protection to keep their farms. In the meantime, we should quickly pass this legislation and prevent another lapse in this basic bankruptcy protection for our family farmers.