Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act is a good bipartisan bill that would help State and local governments deal effectively with a serious law enforcement and mental health problem--the extent to which mentally ill individuals commit crimes and recidivate without ever receiving appropriate attention from the mental health, law enforcement, or corrections systems. I am pleased that the bill passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously last week, and the Senate unanimously last night.

I have enjoyed working on this bill with Senator DeWine, who has shown commitment and leadership on this issue. I am also pleased that Senators Cantwell, Domenici, Durbin, Grassley, and Hatch have joined Senator DeWine and I as cosponsors of this bill.

The issues this bill addresses have received increasing attention of late. For example, Human Rights Watch released a report just last week discussing the fact ``that jails and prisons have become the Nation's default mental health system.'' The first recommendation in the report was for Congress to enact this bill.

All too often, people with mental illness rotate repeatedly between the criminal justice system and the streets of our communities, committing a series of minor offenses. The ever scarcer time of our law enforcement officers is being occupied by these offenders who divert them from more urgent responsibilities. Meanwhile, offenders find themselves in prisons or jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for them. This bill gives State and local governments the tools to break this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the public safety, and mentally ill offenders themselves.

I held a Judiciary Committee hearing last June on the criminal justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties around our Nation. All of our witnesses agreed that people with untreated mental illness are more likely to commit crimes, and that our State mental health systems, prisons, and jails do not have the resources they need to treat the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. We know that more than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, that about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and that up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious mental illness will come into contact with the American criminal justice system at some point in their lives. We know these things, but we have not done enough about them at the Federal level, and our State and local officials need our help.

The bill does not mandate a ``one size fits all'' approach to addressing this issue. Rather, it allows grantees to use the funding authorized under the bill for mental health courts or other court-based programs, for training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel, and for better mental health treatment in our communities and within the corrections system. The funding is also generous enough to make a real difference, with $100 million authorized for each of the next two fiscal years. This is an area where government spending can not only do good but can also save money in the long run--a dollar spent today to get mentally ill offenders effective medical care can save many dollars in law enforcement costs in the long run.

This bill has brought law enforcement officers and mental health professionals together, as we have seen at both of the hearings the committee has held on this issue.

Now that we have passed this bill, I would hope the Senate could turn its attention to S. 486, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. Senators Domenici and Kennedy introduced this bill in February and it has 66 cosponsors. It would provide for equal insurance coverage for mental health benefits, and would do a great deal to accomplish some of the same objectives we seek to achieve through this bill. I would hope that we could find an hour in the time we have remaining in this session to debate and pass this bipartisan and broadly supported bill.

Mr. President, I remind my colleagues of the vital importance of developing, and then maintaining, effective cybersecurity systems in our workplaces, our government offices, and our homes. We have all become acutely aware, as we confront the many possible threats to our national security, that much of our critical infrastructure is now run by computer networks. Illegal access to these networks can compromise the provision of power, telecommunications, and water in an instant. In the private sector, whole industries now rely on information technology in order to function. In addition, millions of Americans depend on their computers to explore the Internet, to access information and entertainment, and to preserve their personal records. At the same time they must protect their most significant, and often intimate, data--such as medical records and credit card information. With all this at risk, effective cybersecurity should be paramount in every corporation, government agency, and personal home.

This past weekend marked National Cybersecurity Day. With the strong efforts of the Federal Trade Commission and the Congressional Internet Caucus, we have come a long way in raising awareness about cybersecurity. The FTC has made a great deal of important information available on their website, and I encourage people to visit that website, at www.ftc.gov. I am proud to be a Senate cochair of the Internet Caucus, along with Senator Burns, Congressman Goodlatte, and Congressman Boucher. In addition to an impressive array of speakers on all aspects of the Internet, the caucus has begun a series of constituent education seminars, targeted at helping all of us provide better information, assistance, and support to the people in our home states as they grapple with the dizzying possibilities and pitfalls of the Internet.

Our efforts have not been limited to just one day. Last week this body passed important anti-spam legislation that will help to keep unwanted--often illicit--e-mail off the Internet, and off our computer screens. In the Judiciary Committee, we have held hearings recently on the dangers of peer-to-peer technology. This technology has the potential to revolutionize the way people share all sorts of information. But as with any technology, it can be abused. Peer-to-peer networks can be used to distribute child pornography and to expose our children to a host of obscene materials. It can also be used to delve into people's private records or illegally to share copyrighted material.

Pornography, and child pornography in particular, is prevalent on peer-to-peer networks. According to recent reports, as much as 42 percent of peer-to-peer requests are for pornography. What is more, at a recent committee hearing we learned that at least one popular peer- to-peer network does not identify its pornographic material in any way. Thus, advertisements on its network appear just as regularly with child pornography and other obscene content as with scientific reviews and scholarly papers.

Some of the danger of using peer-to-peer networks can be alleviated with good cybersecurity. Reading privacy statements, taking the time to understand the software you are using, as well as keeping filters and antivirus software turned on and up to date, all help. Knowing what your children are doing online is also important. In addition, we have given prosecutors powerful tools to go after the people who threaten our security.

Our efforts must continue. The very nature of cyberspace means that the threat to security is always changing. Our responses must evolve as well, both as individuals and as legislators. I am pleased to be continuing to work with Chairman Hatch as we investigate, not just the peer-to-peer situation, but the larger set of circumstances that may threaten our cybersecurity. As we identify those threats, our primary goal will be to raise awareness about those dangers, and to give citizens and law enforcement the tools they need to protect our rights, to improve our security, and to redress wrongdoing as we continue to develop ever-better cybersecurity systems.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mikulski, I ask unanimous consent that Lesley Werthamer, a State Department fellow in her office, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the foreign operations bill, H.R. 2800.

Mr. President, with the judicial confirmation today, in less than 3 years' time, President George W. Bush has exceeded the number of judicial nominees confirmed for President Reagan in all 4 years of his first term in office. Senate Democrats have cooperated so that this President has now exceeded that record. Republicans acknowledge to be the ``all-time champ'' at appointing Federal judges. Since July 2001, despite the fact that the Senate majority has shifted twice, a total of 167 judicial nominations have been confirmed, including 29 circuit court appointments. One hundred judges were confirmed in the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority and now 67 have been confirmed during the comparative time of the Republican majority.

One would think that the White House and the Republicans in the Senate would be heralding this landmark. One would think they would be congratulating themselves for putting more lifetime appointed judges on the Federal bench than President Reagan did in his entire first term and doing it in three-quarters of the time. But Republicans have a different partisan

message and this truth is not consistent with their efforts to mislead the American people into thinking that Democrats have obstructed judicial nominations.

Not only has President Bush been accorded more confirmations than President Reagan achieved during his entire first term, but he has also achieved more confirmations this year than in any of the 6 years that Republicans controlled the Senate when President Clinton was in office. Not once was President Clinton allowed 67 confirmations in a year when Republicans controlled the pace of confirmations. Despite the high numbers of vacancies and availability of highly qualified nominees, Republicans never cooperated with President Clinton to the extent Senate Democrats have. President Bush has appointed more lifetime circuit and district court judges in 10 months this year than President Clinton was allowed in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, or 2000.

Last year, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 72 of President Bush's judicial nominees and was savagely attacked nonetheless. Likewise, in 1992, the last previous full year in which a Democratic Senate majority considered the nominees of a Republican President, 66 circuit and district court judges were confirmed. Historically, in the last year of an administration, consideration of nominations slows, the ``Thurmond rule'' is invoked and vacancies are left to the winner of the Presidential election. In 1992, Democrats proceeded to confirm 66 of President Bush's judicial nominees even though it was a Presidential election year. By contrast, in 1996, when Republicans controlled the pace for consideration of President Clinton's judicial nominees, only 17 judges were confirmed and not a single one of them was to a circuit court.

In fact, President Bush has now already appointed more judges in his third year in office than in the third year of the last five Presidential terms, including the most recent term when Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton was leading the country to historic economic achievements. That year, in 1999, Republicans allowed only 34 judicial nominees of President Clinton to be confirmed all year, including only 7 circuit court nominees. Those are close to the average totals for the 6 years 1995-2000 when a Republican Senate majority was determining how quickly to consider the judicial nominees of a Democratic President. By contrast, with today's confirmation, the Senate this year will have confirmed 67 judicial nominees, including 12 circuit court nominees, almost double the totals for 1999.

These facts stand in stark contrast to the false partisan rhetoric that demonize the Senate for having blocked all of this President's judicial nominations. The reality is that the Senate is proceeding at a record pace and achieving record numbers. We have worked hard to balance the need to fill judicial vacancies with the imperative that Federal judges need to be fair. In so doing, we have reduced the number of judicial vacancies to 41. More than 95 percent of the Federal judgeships are filled. After inheriting 110 vacancies when the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized under Democratic control in 2001, I helped move through and confirm 100 of the President's judicial nominees in just 17 months. With the additional 67 confirmations this year, we have reached the lowest number of vacancies in 13 years. There are more Federal judges on the bench today than at any time in American history.

The nominee we vote on today is particularly suited to being the 167th judicial nominee confirmed, for Judge Dale Fischer was nominated after recommendation from a bipartisan selection commission in California. When we can work together on consensus nominations, they move quickly and successfully to confirmation. The nominee has the support of both home-State Senators, both Democrats, and has earned the unanimous support of all 19 Senators who are members of the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats. She has significant judicial experience and received the highest peer review rating available. I am happy to support this nomination and congratulate the nominee and her family on her confirmation. I also comment Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer on maintaining a bipartisan selection process.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, for his comments. I agree with him; I hope if people have amendments they will let us know right away. We will, of course, have the usual managers' package.

Like most appropriations bills, this is a work of compromise. My friend from Kentucky and I have worked together for many years. Sometimes he is the chairman, and sometimes I am. We find common ground and we write bipartisan bills, which is the tradition of the Appropriations Committee.

I thank Chairman McConnell and his staff for working so cooperatively with me and my staff on this bill, and I urge all Members to support it.

I also thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd for the allocation that was given to us. While it falls short of the President's budget request, I know they did well by us under the circumstances.

Since the Senator from Kentucky has done a good job in summarizing the

bill, I want to mention a few highlights.

First, it adds $23 million for child survival and health programs. These are the programs that provide lifesaving vaccines for diseases like polio and measles--diseases that we hardly ever see in this country but which kill or cripple millions overseas.

These programs help stop the spread of viruses like Ebola and SARS, reduce needless pregnancy-related deaths, and provide aid to blind children and orphans.

Second, the bill increases funding for development assistance by $78 million. These funds pay for everything from education, to agriculture research, to democracy building. This is the core of our foreign aid budget. The bill adds $20 million for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Both Senator McConnell and I feel strongly that the administration is reducing assistance to these regions too quickly.

The bill includes a very important provision to ensure greater transparency and accountability at the multilateral development banks.

As in the past, there are provisions which seek to promote human rights and the rule of law in Serbia, Central Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere.

I am concerned that much of the good work that Senator McConnell has done on this bill could be undone by our conference allocation.

Even a split with the House allocation, which is $17.1 billion, would lead to deep cuts in many programs that are important to the President and important to Senators.

Earlier this week, the memo from Secretary Rumsfeld reminded us all of the importance of foreign aid in combating terrorism.

In that memo he wrote:

Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more

terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical

clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

I suspect the answer to that question is no, and that should deeply concern each one of us.

Let me mention one example. In this bill we fund children's basic education. We use these funds to build schools and train teachers in countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia, to counter the influence of the madrassas.

One would think that a wealthy Nation like ours would spend billions on education, especially in Muslim countries. It is in our self- interest. But we could only provide $220 million in this bill for education, which is a mere $2 million above last year's level. It is also far less than most U.S. States spend, yet it is what we spend for the whole world.

There are many other examples of how this budget falls far short of what we should be doing to combat poverty and counter the influence of anti-American extremism.

Last wee, we passed a supplemental appropriations for Iraq. It included more than $20 billion for reconstruction in that one country.

That is more than this entire foreign operations bill provides for the rest of the world.

If we are serious about building better relations with the Muslim world, and overcoming the hatred that is growing among the masses of impoverished people in those countries, we need to put our money where our mouths are.

The President's budget request for foreign operation is $18.8 billion. This bill contains $18.2 billion.

We have heard that our conference allocation may require us to cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of this bill.

If the President cares about this budget, he need to act now to protect it in conference. He needs to pick up the phone and call the Republican leadership in the House and Senate.

Without his help, deep cuts will be made to these programs. These cuts will not just hurt people overseas. They will hurt the United States.

I want to briefly mention the issue of AIDS. Chairman McConnell and I did the best we could to increase funding for HIV/AIDS in this bill, but we simply did not have enough to get to the level that many Senators wanted.

We have to do more. This is the worst public health crisis in history. There will be an amendment on this issue later, and I will have more to say on it then.

Again, I wish all my jobs and assignments in the Senate were as easy as working with the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky who is a close personal friend. While we come from different political philosophies, we join together in what we believe is in the best interests of the United States in this area.

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

Mr. President, the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill includes $15,004,000 for a U.S. contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD. Congress has been a strong supporter for IFAD since its inception, and these funds will enable IFAD to continue to expand its programs in the poorest countries.

Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee report accompanying the bill neglected to address a concern which I suspect is shared by Senators on both sides of the aisle who support IFAD. IFAD is the seventh largest multilateral contributor to the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Debt Initiative, HIPC DI. However, IFAD still does not have access to the core resources of the companion HIPC DI Trust Fund. Currently, IFAD has to absorb 87.2 percent of the cost for participating in HIPC DI, while other multilateral development banks with full access absorb much smaller percentages. For this reason, I urge the administration to work with other donors to enable IFAD to gain access to the core resources of the HIPC Trust Fund.

Rule of Law and Human Rights Programs in Russia

Mr. President, page 45 of the committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill, Senate Report 108-106, discusses rule of law and human rights programs in Russia. The report mentions the Russian American Judicial Partnership and the Russian American Rule of Law Consortium. The report failed to mention another important program, the American Bar Association's Central and East European Law Initiative, CEELI, which is involved in training Russian lawyers in the adversary system, law school curriculum development, and improvement of gender equity in the legal system. Each of these organizations is doing important work, and we want to be sure that despite the decline in our assistance program in Russia that funding for these types of programs are continued. There is no more effective way for the United States to contribute to the political and economic development of Russia than by strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Collaborative Research Support Programs

Mr. President, page 16 of the committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill, Senate Report 108-106, discusses the Collaborative Research Support Programs. These programs, which involve 52 U.S. universities, have made immeasurable contributions in developing countries on a wide range of agriculture, environment, nutrition and development issues. USAID funds are leveraged with contributions from the universities and recipient countries.

For fiscal year 2003, the committee recommended funding for the CRSPs at a higher level than in fiscal year 2002. However, despite that recommendation, funding was essentially flat lined. For fiscal year 2004, the committee expresses its strong support for the CRSPs and recommends continued funding. I want to emphasize the importance of the CRSPs to the Congress, to the universities that participate, to the countries that benefit, and to U.S. foreign policy. We want USAID to expand its collaboration with U.S. universities that have research expertise on these issues. By that I mean that funding for the CRSPs should be increasing. An appropriate level for the CRSPs in fiscal year 2004 would be $25 million. I also urge USAID to seriously consider allocating up to $2 million to fund and establish a CRSP focused on water security.

American Universities in the Middle East

Mr. President, I want to clarify a sentence in the committee report, Report 108-106, accompanying S. 1426, the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill.

On page 38 of the report, under the heading ``Middle East Partnership Initiative,'' the committee expresses support for using a portion of MEPI funds ``for scholarships for needy Muslim students at the American University of Beirut.'' We do support that, but we intended to also mention the American University in Cairo and the Lebanese American University. Their omission was purely an oversight. I ask my friend from Kentucky, the subcommittee chairman, Senator McConnell, if he agrees with me about this.

Mr. President, I commend my friend from North Dakota and my friend from Idaho for their amendments to prohibit the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control from wasting taxpayer funds to enforce the ban on travel by American citizens to Cuba.

Today, any American who wants to travel to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Vietnam, to just about anywhere, can do so as long as that country gives them a visa. As far as the U.S. Government is concerned, Americans can visit any of those countries.

Cuba, on the other hand, a country that poses about as much threat to the United States as a flea does to a buffalo, is off limits.

Of all the ridiculous, anachronistic, and self-defeating policies, this has got to be near the top of the list. OFAC is spending scarce funds to prosecute harmless, law-abiding, upstanding American citizens who want nothing more than to experience another culture, and in doing so, leave a bit of America behind.

For 40 years, administration after administration, and Congress after Congress, has stuck by this failed policy. Yet Fidel Castro is as firmly in control today as he was half a century ago.

The Dorgan and Craig amendments would inject some sense into our policy toward Cuba, and they would protect one of the most fundamental rights that most Americans take for granted--the right to travel freely.

A few years ago, I traveled to Cuba with Senator Jack Reed. We were able to go there because we are Members of Congress.

I came face to face with the absurdity of the current policy because I wanted my wife Marcelle to accompany me. A few days before we were to leave, I got a call from the State Department saying that they were not sure they could approve her travel to Cuba.

I cannot speak for other Senators, but I suspect that like me, they would not react too kindly to a policy that gives the Government the authority to prevent their wife, or other members of their family, from traveling with them to a country with which we are not at war and which, according to the Defense Department and the vast majority of the American public, poses no threat to our security.

I wonder how many Senators realize that if they wanted to take a family member with them to Cuba, they would probably be prohibited from doing so.

Over a decade has passed since the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The Russians long ago cut their $3 billion subsidy to Cuba. We now give millions of dollars in aid to Russia.

Americans can travel to North Korea. There are no restrictions on the right of Americans to travel there. Which country poses a greater threat to the United States? The answer is obvious.

Americans can travel to Iran, and they can spend money there. The same goes for Syria.

Our policy is hypocritical, inconsistent, and contrary to our values as a nation that believes in the free flow of people and ideas. It is beneath us. It is impossible for anyone to make a rationale argument that an American should be able to travel freely to North Korea, or Iran, but not to Cuba. It can't be done.

We have been stuck with this misguided policy for years, even though virtually everyone knows, and says privately, that it makes absolutely no sense and is beneath the dignity of a great country.

It not only helps strengthen Fidel Castro's grip on Cuba, it hands a huge advantage to our European competitors who are building relationships and establishing future investments in a post-Castro Cuba.

When that will happen is anybody's guess. President Castro is no democrat, and he is not going to become one. Human rights are systematically denied in Cuba. That is beyond dispute. But it is time we pursued a policy that is in our national interest, that helps pave the way for the day when Castro is gone, and which stops punishing American citizens.

Those who want to prevent Americans from traveling to Cuba, who oppose this bill, will argue that spending U.S. dollars there helps prop up the Castro government.

To some extent that is true. The same can be said of spending dollars in Sudan, Syria, or any country. The Cuban Government does control the formal economy. It also runs schools and hospitals, maintains roads, and, like the U.S. Government, is responsible for a whole range of social services. Any money that goes into the Cuban economy also supports those programs, which benefit ordinary Cubans.

There is also an informal economy in Cuba, because few Cubans can survive on their meager salaries. So the income from tourism also fuels that informal sector, and it goes into the pockets of ordinary Cubans.

As much as we want to see a democratic Cuba, President Castro's grip on power is not going to be weakened by keeping Americans from traveling to Cuba. History has proven that.

Let's inject some maturity into our relations with Cuba. Let's have a little more faith in the power of our ideas. Let's have the courage to admit that the cold war is over. Let's get the Government out of the business of telling our wives, our children, and our constituents where they can travel and spend their own money in a country that poses no threat to us.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the international coffee crisis. With much of the world focused on Iraq and the Middle East, it is perhaps not surprising that a crisis affecting tens of millions people, on virtually every corner of the Earth, has received little attention.

The worldwide price of coffee has plummeted almost 70 percent over the last several years. This has devastated the economies of poor countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America; it has ruined the livelihoods of millions of people; and it has damaged our foreign aid and counter-narcotics efforts in these countries.

For example, over the last few years, the United States has provided almost $3 billion to Colombia for counter-narcotics assistance. This has made Colombia the top recipient of U.S. assistance outside of the Middle East.

Even though this is an extremely generous amount of aid, the goals and objectives are being undermined by the collapse of coffee prices. Last year, Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe wrote a letter to me, in which he stated:

[T]he impact of the international coffee crisis on

Colombian coffee growers has been devastating. In Colombia,

more than 800,000 people are directly employed on coffee

farms and another three million are dependent on coffee for

their livelihood. Colombian coffee farmers are struggling to

cover their cost of production, and the problems of

oversupply and a decline in coffee prices has brought poverty

and uncertainty to Colombia's coffee-growing regions, which

were previously free of violence and narcotrafficking

activity. Additional support from the United States will help

improve this dire situation in Colombia and other developing

countries around the world which are also being impacted by

oversupply and falling prices.

A range of humanitarian relief agencies, with operations around the world, further support President Uribe's views. For example, an Oxfam report on the topic found:

The coffee crisis is becoming a development disaster whose

impact will be felt for a long time. Famlies dependent on

money generated by coffee are pulling their children,

particularly girls, out of school, can no longer afford basic

medicines, and are cutting back on food. Beyond farming

families, national economies are suffering. Coffee traders

are going out of business, some banks are in trouble, and

governments that rely on the export revenues that coffee

generates are faced with dramatically declining budgets for

education and health programs and little money for debt

repayment.

The United States is, by far, the biggest importer of coffee. At the same time, we provide billions of dollars of foreign aid to nations impacted by the coffee crisis. It is common sense. The United States has a strong interest in finding a solution to this international problem.

A couple of years ago, several of us in Congress started asking questions about what the administration is doing to address this issue. It is safe to say that we were disappointed with the answers.

There are some good programs being run by different agencies within the Government. But, there are so many agencies involved--State, USAID, Agriculture, USTR, Treasury--and there are times when one hand does not seem to know what the other is doing. For example, USAID has programs in Latin America to help coffee farmers find alternative livelihoods, because of the

overproduction that exists in the global market. At the same time, we found another program that was encouraging Bolivian farmers to get into coffee production. In other words, two steps forward, one step back.

What is worse, the administration does not seem to have a comprehensive strategy across agencies to effectively address the international coffee crisis. Nothing to get everyone on the same page and working towards the same goal. Nothing that outlines a plan on how to deal with the crisis.

This is not just my opinion, this is the bipartisan, bicameral view in Congress.

To address these shortcomings, a number of us have come together across party lines and from different sides of the Capitol. We have pushed hard to move forward on this issue.

During the final days of the 107th Congress, I along with Senators Specter, Dodd, and Feinstein, successfully sponsored S. Res. 368, which called attention to the coffee crisis and urged the administration to formulate a comprehensive, multilateral strategy to address the problem. Although this measure passed the Senate, the administration has been slow to respond, and, as a result, we were forced to include a provision in the Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations bill that requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress on any progress made in formulating this strategy.

To this day, the administration has not come forward with this strategy. While we should take care to make sure this strategy is done right, it has taken the administration too long. This is not a situation that will just go away. We have to act, and that makes coming forward with a strategy all that more important. I urge the administration to finish the job.

Here in the Senate we are doing what we can to respond to the crisis. We were successful in getting the Senate to serve fair trade coffee. And, I am also pleased to report that we helped USAID and Green Mountain Coffee enter into a public-private partnership to implement development projects to address the crisis. These were smaller, but important accomplishments.

Other accomplishments include working with the private sector, and encouraging major companies such as Procter and Gamble and Dunkin' Doughnuts to serve fair trade coffee.

Much of the recent debate on the coffee crisis surrounds U.S. membership in the International Coffee Organization (ICO). As Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I included $500,000 in the Fiscal Year 2003 Foreign Operations bill for a U.S. contribution to the ICO, if the United States rejoined by June 1, 2003. This move was hailed by a diverse range of groups, including the National Coffee Association, Oxfam International, several Latin American governments, the Speciality Coffee Association of America, and the Colombian Coffee Federation.

Unfortunately, this deadline has come and gone with no decision. However, it triggered a debate within the administration on the issue of ICO membership. That debate continues to this day.

This is not an indictment on those working on this issue in the administration. To the contrary, those in the State Department, USAID, and other agencies working with Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Shaun Donnelly, are talented individuals. They have been responsive to concerns raised by Congress, and I know they are working hard to resolve this issue and find a solution to the coffee crisis.

To ensure that these funds were not lost, the Commerce-State-Justice Subcommittee, under the leadership of Senators Gregg and Hollings, honored my request to include another $500,000 for a contribution to the ICO in the Fiscal Year 2004 CJS Appropriations bill. I applaud their leadership on this issue. Along with relentless pressure from Representatives Cass Ballenger and Sam Farr, the help of the Commerce- State-Justice Subcommittee sent a clear signal to the administration: Congress is not going to go away on this issue.

We were recently informed that the State Department supports the U.S. membership in the ICO. This is a positive step, but the administration as a whole has yet to endorse this view.

What is the hold-up? This process has been dragging on for months. It should end, and the U.S. should rejoin the ICO. This is something that U.S. industry, humanitarian NGOs, key friends and allies, and a bipartisan group in Congress supports.

Some may recall the way the ICO used to operate in the past, working as a cartel to stabilize coffee prices. But, nobody is talking about rejoining the ICO to establish a cartel over the coffee market. The ICO is a reformed organization and its chartering agreement has been substantially rewritten, specifically to get the ICO out of the business of price-fixing. The idea of a coffee cartel is an idea on the ash heap of history. I would not support it. I suspect no one in this Chamber would.

I support U.S. membership in the ICO, but recognize that is by no means a silver bullet. Membership alone is not enough to solve the international coffee crisis. Rather, it is one arrow in the quiver, and it can be an effective tool, when used as an integral part of a comprehensive strategy that includes funding for alternative assistance for coffee farmers, working with friends and allies, and the deep involvement of other international organizations such as the World Bank. This is the appropriate role for the ICO.

There are some compelling reasons for rejoining that have been put forward by experts who follow this issue closely. I want to briefly summarize a few of them:

U.S. participation in the ICO would help strengthen the implementation of resolution 407, which establishes quality guidelines on coffee exports. Although not perfect, ICO resolution 407 is a serious, multilateral attempt to help address the international coffee crisis that a number of economists believe could have a meaningful impact. According to some industry leaders, it also enhances competition in the coffee industry.

U.S. participation would help the ICO become more effective in addressing the coffee crisis. Many European nations have said they would be more willing to invest and commit additional resources to resolving this crisis through the ICO, if the U.S. were participating. The European Community (EC) recently called on the U.S. to rejoin. Because the U.S. and EC are not producing nations, this momentum would help the ICO pursue goals to more effectively address development issues associated with the coffee crisis, while helping the ICO continue to move away from discredited policies of the past.

U.S. membership in the ICO would focus more senior level attention, and inter-agency cooperation, on this important foreign policy issue within the administration. This would go a long way in overcoming some the problems stemming from a lack of coordination between agencies that I mentioned earlier.

The ICO engages in projects to help address the crisis: price risk management for Africa, disease control, and market development projects. Moreover, the ICO is also promoting diversification in cooperation with multilateral agencies such as the FAO, UNCTAD and the World Bank. These strategies could all be enhanced through U.S. membership in the ICO.

ICO membership would send an important signal to the rest of the world that the United States is committed to working collaboratively on every possible solution to this problem. This would be an important diplomatic step on an issue that many of our friends and allies in the developing world care deeply about.

Again, the ICO is not a perfect solution. But, if a $500,000 contribution can help begin to solve a crisis that is undermining billions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance, devastating the livelihood of millions of people around the word, and causing severe economic damage to key developing countries, I say its well worth the investment.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I do not want to interfere with my friend from Nevada, but I understood we were going back and forth; is that correct?

Has there been time reserved under the order for the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. President, how much time is reserved under the order for the Senator from Vermont?

I will not use the 30 minutes. I am going to use approximately 5 minutes of my 30 minutes.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I do take my time under the order.

As I stated before, I do oppose this bill, a bill that has not had hearings, has not had a vote in the committee, but when you review it, you realize--let me be parochial for a moment--this legislation would deprive Vermonters of the right to band together to protect themselves against violations of State civil rights, consumer, health, and environmental protection laws in their own State courts.

That is unacceptable to this Vermonter. The same could be said of all the other 49 States, and it ought to be unacceptable to the Senators from each of the other 49 States.

In fact, the country might ask what it says about our priorities that we are even having this debate. Of the many pressing issues already on the Senate's plate awaiting action and awaiting time on the floor, all the appropriations bills that we are required by law to pass by September 30 and have yet to even be taken up for a vote or debate should be among our highest priorities. If we are going to tell how the laws should be made and how the courts should be run, we ought to at least demonstrate to the American people that we, in the Senate, can follow the law and do our appropriations bills at the time we are supposed to.

Instead, we set aside those issues that by law we are required to do, those issues that are the priorities of the American people, to take up another priority. We ask: Whose priority is this bill? The bill is a top priority to special interests that include big polluters and big violators of the American people's consumer rights and civil rights past, present, and future.

Class actions are one remaining tool available to the average American in seeking justice, and some special interests want nothing more than to weaken the public's hand in class action proceedings.

While the Senate is spending several days debating this bill, think of those appropriations bills that by law we should have brought up weeks ago and what is in those bills: not special interests but American interests, such as funding for the Department of Justice to provide bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers, the same law enforcement officers who protect all of us, or how about the money to put more cops on the streets and to implement the prevention programs of the Violence Against Women Act? Those are not special interests; they are American interests.

Despite the fact the fiscal year began 3 weeks ago, we are dallying with this special interest legislation that benefits large corporate interests at the expense of individuals harmed by these corporations.

At its core, this bill deprives citizens of the right to sue on State law claims in their own State courts if the principal defendant is a citizen of another State, even if that defendant has a substantial presence in the plaintiffs' home State, and even if the harm done was in the plaintiffs' home State.

Less than a week ago, with no hearings before our committee, mass tort actions were included in the bill along with true class actions, despite the fact

that when we actually did vote on it in the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats voted to take that out. This simply amplifies the harm done to citizens' rights, and to the possibility of vindicating those rights in their own State courts.

It also shows how special interest legislation comes on the floor. Here is legislation bypassing the committee, legislation that is dumped on the floor and provisions added to it that had been voted down by a majority of the committee of jurisdiction, a majority requiring both Republicans and Democrats to vote for it.

Special interests groups are distorting the state of class action litigation by relying on a few anecdotes in an ends-oriented attempt to impede plaintiffs bringing class action cases. There are problems in class action litigation. There are ways of taking care of that. But simply shoving most suits into Federal court with new one-sided rules will not correct the real problems faced by plaintiffs and defendants.

After all, our State-based tort system remains one of the greatest and most powerful vehicles for justice anywhere in the world. I think of when the Soviet Union broke up, as I said before on the floor, and members of the new governing body came to the United States to study how we do things. I recall a group coming to my office and saying: We have heard that people in the United States in your States can sue the Government, sue the State.

I said: That's right.

They said: We have heard further that they actually could win, and the State could lose.

I said: It happens all the time.

They said: You mean, you don't fire the judges; you don't start over again?

I said: Absolutely not; this is our system. We set it up that way so people can go to their State courts and sue.

If this is passed, I would hate to have to explain to those people from the former Soviet Union that we have taken such a step backward.

One reason that our State-based tort systems are so great is that there is an availability of class action litigation that lets ordinary people band together to take on powerful corporations or even their own Government. Defrauded investors, deceived consumers, victims of defective products, and environmental torts, and thousands of other ordinary people have been able to rely on class action lawsuits in our State court systems to seek and receive justice.

If they cannot, that is what the cheaters count on. We are only cheating you $5 or $6 or $10 or $15. Why would you sue for that? But if there are millions being cheated, then you have a chance to do something. Class actions allow the little guys to band together. Whether it is to force manufacturers to recall and correct dangerous products, as we saw with the Bridgestone/Firestone tire recall, or to clean up after devastating environmental harms, as we saw with Monsanto in Alabama, or to vindicate the basic civil rights they are entitled to as citizens of our great country, they are using class actions, and they should continue to do so.

The so-called Class Action Fairness Act is something that appeared on the Senate desk with no hearings. It almost looks as if it has been drafted in the legal section of one of the major polluters of this country. It would leave injured parties who have valid claims with no effective way to seek relief.

Class action suits have helped win justice and exposed wrongdoing by corporate and Government wrongdoers. They have given average Americans at least a chance for justice. We should not take that away.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object.

Where is the Hatch-Leahy amendment?

It is not precluded by the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, when the Senator from Arizona asked to make his unanimous consent request, I was in the process of answering the question of the Senator from Florida, who has spoken to me many times about his interest in these areas.

I appreciate what he has done to strengthen this legislation.

We keep the authority to set sentences where it belongs, with the Sentencing Commission, while remaining deferential, to the discretion of prosecutors.

The provisions from the Senator from Florida make it unmistakably clear that Congress expects this legislation to be used not just to punish spammers but also to dismantle criminal operations that are carried out with spam and other unsolicited bulk e-mail.

I also would note that the Senator from Florida has spoken about spam evolving from being just a nuisance. He is absolutely right. Serious crimes are being committed using this medium, which reaches a large number of people. Senior citizens are more and more often targeted to being bilked out of millions of dollars, and with very little effort on the part of the spammers.

Mr. President, I will engage in a colloquy with Senator Nelson because I think it is important for the purposes of the Record. With all the work the Senator from Florida has done, I want the Record to be very clear.

I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Florida.

The Senator from Florida is correct. Nowadays, we see that spam has moved far beyond being just a nuisance to people trying to use email on their personal computers. Serious crimes are being committed using this medium, which can reach large numbers of people in a matter of seconds. For example, if a person or organization seeks to commit fraud to bilk senior citizens out of their money, with spam they can reach millions of potential victims at very low, even negligible costs. With such low costs, and such wide reach, even a small rate of success can make for a very profitable criminal enterprise.

The Senator from Florida has made me aware of his interest in these provisions on several occasions, and I appreciate his contributions to this effort. They strengthen the legislation in important ways. While keeping the authority to set sentences where it belongs--with the Sentencing Commission--and while remaining deferential to the discretion of prosecutors, these provisions makes unmistakably clear that Congress expects this legislation to be used not just to punish spammers, but also to dismantle the criminal enterprises that are carried out with spam and other unsolicited bulk e-mail.

Mr. President, it is increasingly obvious that unwanted commercial e-mail is more than just a nuisance. Businesses and individuals sometimes have to wade through hours of spam. It makes it impossible for them to do their work. It slows down whole enterprises.

In my home State of Vermont, one legislator logged on to his server and found that two-thirds of the e-mails in his inbox were spam. Our legislator is a citizen or legislature. He does not have staff or anything else. This was after the legislator had installed spam- blocking software. His computer stopped about 80 percent of it. But even

after he blocked 80 percent, two-thirds of the e-mail he had was spam.

The e-mail users are having the online equivalent of the experience of the woman in the classic Monty Python skit. She wanted to order a Spam-free breakfast at a restaurant. Try as she might, she cannot get the waitress to bring her the meal she wants. Every dish in the restaurant comes with Spam; it is just a matter of how much. There is eggs, bacon, and Spam; eggs, 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. Finally, the customer said: I don't like Spam. I don't want Spam. I hate Spam.

Now, I repeat that with apologies to John Cleese and everybody else in the Monty Python skit.

Mr. President, anybody who goes on e-mail, including every member of my family down to my 5-year-old grandchild, knows how annoying spam can be.

A Harris poll taken last year found that 80 percent of the respondents viewed spam as ``very annoying'' and 74 percent wanted to make it illegal.

Some 30 States now have anti-spam laws but it is difficult to enforce them.

There are actually billions of unwanted e-mails that are blocked by ISPs every day. Hundreds of millions of spam e-mails get through just the same.

Now, we have to be very careful when we regulate in cyberspace. We must not forget that spam, like more traditional forms of commercial speech, is protected by the first amendment. We cannot allow spam to result in the ``virtual death'' of the Internet, as one Vermont newspaper put it.

So what Senator Hatch and I have offered and is being accepted--the Hatch-Leahy-Nelson-Schumer amendment--would, first, prohibit hacking into another person's computer system and sending bulk spam from or through that system.

Second, it would prohibit using a computer system that the owner makes available for other purposes as a conduit for bulk spam, with the intent to deceive the recipient as to where the spam came from.

The 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. The amendment prohibits forging information regarding the origin of the e-mail message.

Fourth, the Hatch-Leahy-Nelson-Schumer amendment prohibits registering for multiple e-mail accounts or Internet domain names and sending bulk mail from those accounts or domains.

Fifth, and finally, our amendment addresses a major hacker spammer technique for hiding identity that is a common and pernicious alternative to domain name registration--that is, hijacking unused expanses of Internet address space and using them to launch junk mail.

Now, penalties under the amendment are tough, but they are measured. Recidivists and those who send spam in furtherance of another felon may be imprisoned for up to 5 years. The sound of a jail cell closing for 5 years should focus their attention.

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, and so on.

Then, of course, we direct the Sentencing Commission to look at other areas.

So, Mr. President, I see my colleagues on the floor, Senator Burns and Senator Wyden, who have done yeoman work on this legislation. I compliment all those who worked together. I certainly compliment the two of them, as well as Senator Hatch, Senator Nelson, and Senator Schumer. I think we are putting together something that is worth passing.

Sure.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from Oregon for his far too generous words. I have enjoyed working with him. He has carried over from his service in the other body. He has a strong interest in this. Just as important as his strong interest is the fact he has extraordinary expertise in this area. That is very helpful.

If you would allow me one quick personal story. This sort of humbles you. I like to think I am very knowledgeable on this. My 5-year-old grandson climbed in my lap and asked me to log on to a particular interactive site for children. It is something he could do himself, but we don't let him log on himself because of the problems with some sites that appear to be for children, and are anything but.

So I log on for him, and he climbs up on my lap, takes the mouse out of my hand and says: I better take over now because it gets very complicated.

In some ways we are protecting those 5-year-olds because they are the next generation using this technology. I thank my friend from Oregon and good friend from Montana for the enormous amount of work they have done here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is increasingly apparent that unwanted commercial e-mail, commonly known as ``spam,'' is more than just a 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 ISPs, businesses, and individuals have spent time and 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's just a matter of how much. There's ``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 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 3 out of 4 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 antispam 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. A recent study by Ferris Research estimates 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 antispam 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 horses into personal and business computer systems, including those that support our national infrastructure.

The public has recently witnessed the potentially staggering effects of a virus, not only through the Blaster case I discussed earlier, but with the appearance of the SoBigF virus just 8 days after Blaster began chewing its way through the Internet. This variant also infected Windows machines via e-mail, then sent out dozens of copies of itself. Antivirus experts say one of the main reasons virus writers continue to modify and re-release this particular piece of ``malware'' is that it downloads a Trojan horse to infected computers, which are then used to send spam.

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 headon.

Spam is also fertile ground for deceptive trade practices. The FTC has estimated that 96 percent of the spam involving investment and business opportunities, and nearly half of the spam advertising health services and products, 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 the bill to the floor. Today, Senators Hatch, Nelson, Schumer, Grassley and I offered the criminal provisions of S. 1293 as an amendment to S. 877, the CAN SPAM Act. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

I thank the lead cosponsors of S. 877 for working with us on this amendment, and for their support and cosponsorship of the Criminal Spam Act. I also thank Senator Bill Nelson for his contribution to the amendment.

The Hatch-Leahy amendment prohibits five principal techniques that spammers use to evade filtering software and hide their trails.

First, our amendment 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'' program--that is, a program that unsuspecting users download onto their computers and that then takes control of those computers--to send bulk spam.

Second, our amendment 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 amendment'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 amendment prohibits forging information regarding the origin of the e-mail message, and the route through which the message attempted to penetrate the ISP filters.

Fourth, the Hatch-Leahy amendment prohibits registering for multiple e-mail accounts or Internet domain names, 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.

Fifth and finally, our amendment 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 amendment 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 the amendment is taken, enjoys broad support from ISPs, direct marketers, consumer groups, and civil liberties groups alike. It is also supported by the administration: In its September 11, 2003, views letter regarding the CAN SPAM Act, the administration advocated the addition to CAN SPAM of felony triggers similar to those proposed in the Criminal Spam Act. The administration further supported our proposal, advanced in the Hatch- Leahy amendment, to direct the Sentencing Commission to consider sentencing enhancements for convicted spammers that have additionally obtained e-mail addresses by harvesting.

Again, the purpose of the Hatch-Leahy amendment 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 significantly advance our fight against junk e-mail. 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, and will vote in favor of passage, it does raise some concerns. 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 permits 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.

According to one organization's calculations, if just one percent of the approximately 24 million small businesses in the U.S. sent every American just one spam a year, that would amount to over 600 pieces of spam for each person to sift through and opt out of each day. And this figure may be conservative, as it does not include the large businesses that also engage in online advertising.

I am also troubled by the labeling requirement in the CAN SPAM Act, which 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''. While we all want to curb spam, we must be mindful of its status as protected commercial speech, and ensure that any restrictions we impose on it are as narrowly tailored as possible.

Reducing the volume of junk commercial e-mail, and so protecting legitimate Internet communications, is not an easy matter. There are important First Amendment interests to consider, as well as the need to preserve the ability of legitimate marketers to use e-mail responsibly. We must be sure we get this right, so as not to exacerbate an already terribly vexing problem. This is especially important given the preemption provisions of the CAN SPAM Act, which will override many of the tough anti-spamming laws already enacted by the States.

My distinguished colleagues from Wyoming and Pennsylvania offered an amendment requiring ``warning labels'' on certain commercial electronic mail. While I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to protect our children from the on-line assault of internet pornography--an important goal that we all share--I fear the amendment has been drafted in haste and raises significant constitutional issues that require further analysis.

First, the amendment incorporates broad and vague phrases such as ``devoted to sexual matters'' that are not otherwise defined in the law. I expressed similar concerns during debate on the Communications Decency Act, CDA, which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 1996. The CDA also punished as a felony anyone who transmitted ``obscene'' or ``indecent'' material over the Internet. The CDA was deemed too vague as to what was ``indecent'' or ``obscene.'' Some of the terms and phrases used in the Enzi-Santorum amendment may be deemed equally vague when subjected to judicial scrutiny.

There are also first amendment concerns to regulating commercial electronic 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.

More importantly, existing laws already ban obscenity, harassment, child pornography and enticing minors into sexual activity.

As a father and a grandfather, I well appreciate the challenge of limiting a child's exposure to sexually inappropriate material. Yet, no legislation we could pass would be an effective substitute for parental involvement. We must be vigilant about feel-good efforts to involve government, either directly or indirectly, in regulating the content of the Internet.

For these reasons, the Enzi-Santorum amendment raises serious legal issues that mandate further exploration before a determination can be made on the proposed law's constitutional viability.

I look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors of the CAN SPAM Act on these issues as the bill proceeds to conference.

Mr. President, the Senate recently voted to confirm an outstanding district court nominee to the Western District of Pennsylvania named Kim Gibson. Today, the leadership has decided to bring up the nomination of Thomas Hardiman who happens to be nominated to the very same court.

Unfortunately, this nominee's suitability for the Federal bench pales in comparison to Judge Gibson. Judge Gibson came to us with judicial experience, a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA, and the highest rating from his local bar association.

In contrast, Mr. Hardiman has no judicial experience, a relatively small amount of litigation experience and has been given very low peer- review ratings by the ABA and the same local bar association that ``highly recommended'' Judge Gibson. The Allegheny County Bar Association recently released its opinions about the three pending judicial nominees from their community. After their extensive review, the Bar Association determined that they could simply ``not recommend'' Mr. Hardiman for a lifetime appointment to their Federal trial court.

Although neither Bar Association explained precisely why Mr. Hardiman received such bad reviews, his communications with the Judiciary Committee potentially shed some light on their concerns.

Mr. Hardiman showed a lack of candor in describing the extent of his litigation experience. After reporting that he had tried 54 cases to judgment, he subsequently revised the number downward to 19, and then upon further review he explained that several of these 19 cases were not actually trials that resulted in a judgment.

In addition, opposing counsel contacted the committee to raise concerns about Mr. Hardiman's exceedingly narrow view of fair housing statutes and his questionable litigation tactics. Counsel in a housing discrimination case entitled, Alexander v. Riga, criticized Mr. Hardiman's conduct when he represented landlords who repeatedly refused to show African-American couples an apartment that was for rent. Despite a jury finding of discrimination, Mr. Hardiman argued that there was no resulting damage and the district court adopted his reasoning.

On appeal to the Third Circuit, Mr. Hardiman analogized the harm resulting from the racial discrimination at issue to running a red light. The Third Circuit criticized his dismissive analogy and found that his argument and the district court's adoption of it would undermine the Federal housing statutes. The Third Circuit rejected Mr. Hardiman's argument and reversed the trial court.

I am also troubled by Mr. Hardiman's discovery tactics. In answers to written committee questions, he admitted that in the Riga case he repeatedly violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by issuing a subpoena to a nonparty without noticing opposing counsel in this case. After answering two rounds of written questions, Mr. Hardiman subsequently admitted that he had not even reviewed his Riga files before submitting his answers to the committee.

Even the trial judge criticized Mr. Hardiman's associate about their litigation strategy and tactics in this case, including the improper subpoenas. Significantly less troubling matters stalled many judicial nominees of President Clinton.

If this were anytime between 1995 and 2000 and this were a Clinton nominee, the Republican majority would never have accorded this type of nomination a vote. Recall the fate of Clarence Sundrum, Dolly Gee, the 8 district court nominees to vacancies in Pennsylvania and so many others blocked by Republicans from ever being considered.

The Senate has already confirmed 165 of this President's judicial nominees. The current pace of confirmation stands in stark contrast to what occurred with judicial nominees during the Clinton administration. It was not until well into the fourth year of President Clinton's second term, when Republicans controlled the Senate, before this many judicial nominees were confirmed.

It took President Reagan his entire first term to get this many judicial nominees confirmed, and that was with a Senate that was controlled by the same party.

It also took President George H.W. Bush well into his fourth year to get this many of his judicial nominees confirmed.

In contrast, today, with the shifts in Senate control, it has effectively taken a little more than 2 years of rapid Senate action to confirm 165 judicial nominees for this President, including 100 during Democratic control. This year alone the Senate has confirmed 65 judicial nominees, including 12 circuit court nominees in 2003. This includes more judicial confirmations in just 10 months than Republicans allowed for President Clinton in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, or 2000. Overall, we have confirmed 29 circuit court nominees of President Bush since July of 2001, which is more than were confirmed at this time in the third year of President Reagan's first term, President George H.W. Bush's term, or either of President Clinton's terms.

The Senate has held hearings for 13 Pennsylvania nominees of President Bush's to the Federal courts in Pennsylvania. While I was chairman, the Senate held hearings for and confirmed 10 nominees to the district courts in Pennsylvania, plus Judge D. Brooks Smith to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In total, we have already confirmed 13 of this President's judicial nominees to the Federal courts in the State of Pennsylvania. Five of these new judges have already been confirmed to the Western District of Pennsylvania.

A look at the Federal judiciary in Pennsylvania indicates that President Bush's nominees have been treated 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, particularly regarding nominees in the western half of the State.

Just a few months ago, on May 16, 2003, Jon Delano wrote in the Pittsburgh Business Times, an article titled ``Despite Bush Protests, Court Vacancies are Down,'' about how this President's nominees in the western part of Pennsylvania have been treated more fairly than President Clinton's nominees.

He wrote:

Take the Western District of Pennsylvania, for example.

During the years of the Santorum filibuster, that court of 10

judges had as many as five vacancies. Today, the Senate has

confirmed four Bush appointees--Judges Joy Conti, David

Cercone, Terry McVerry, and Art Schwab--and the fifth

nomination, attorney Tom Hardiman, has just been sent to the

Senate.

With the elevation and confirmation of Judge Brooks Smith

to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the president still needs to

name one more judge to the local court, but once completed,

Mr. Bush, with less than three years in office, will have

named--and the Senate will have confirmed--six of the 10

judges on the local Federal court. That hardly sounds like

obstructionism.

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.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hardiman's record is similar to the record of far too many of President Bush's judicial nominees. Far too many of this President's judicial nominees have less courtroom experience than partisan experience.

In fact, 25 of this President's judicial nominees have earned partial or majority ``Not Qualified'' ratings from the ABA. In addition to the ABA's review, Mr. Hardiman was also ``not recommended'' by his county bar association.

Certainly, the citizens of Western Pennsylvania deserve a well- qualified judiciary to hear their important legal claims in Federal court.

I have great respect for the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. I appreciate his efforts to help shepherd the White House's nomination through the Senate.

After considering the negative impression Mr. Hardiman has made on his fellow Pennsylvanians regarding his suitability for this lifetime appointment and his conduct before the Judiciary Committee, I believe that this is among the weakest nominees we have considered.

Mr. President, as one Member of Congress who believes that we have a strong interest in broadcasting and strengthening our relations with Mexico, I was appalled to read a recent Washington Post article entitled ``Three Americans Jailed in Bizarre Mexican Land Dispute.''

Mexico is a country of 100 million people. We share a border. We share a wide range of cultural, economic, political, and other interests. Yet our history has been a troubled one, and the election of Vicente Fox offered an historic opportunity to begin to build a new relationship based on trust, mutual understanding, and shared goals.

Regrettably, President Bush, who shortly after his inauguration spoke convincingly of his intention to give a high priority to U.S.-Mexican relations, has failed to turn those words into action. Little has been accomplished. I am afraid that once again, the hopes and aspirations of both Mexicans and Americans will be for naught.

The President needs to recognize that as important as the Middle East and the Persian Gulf are to U.S. and global security, we have vital interests right here in our own hemisphere. I remember how during the 1980s we spent billions of dollars to wage proxy wars in Central America. Yet when those wars were over, we turned our back. Today, with the exception of our counter-drug programs in the Andes, which as we have seen recently in Bolivia are of dubious merit, we spend a pittance to support economic and political development in these countries the majority of whose people remain impoverished and without meaningful political or legal rights. Our policy is short sighted and it will cost us in the long run.

Of all countries in the hemisphere, none is more important to U.S. interests than Mexico. it would be difficult to think of any issue-- immigration, tourism, trade, infectious disease, water security, environmental pollution, democracy and the rule of law, organized crime--that does not cry out for broader cooperation. I hope President Bush, and his capable new Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger Noriega, will give renewed attention to these issues during the remaining years of President Fox's term.

I mention this because earlier this year, I sponsored, with Senator Reid, Senator Daschle and others, an amendment which authorized $100 million to be spent in Mexico to promote micro credit programs, small business entrepreneurship, private property ownership, and support for small farmers who have been affected by adverse economic conditions. I felt it was important to make a strong statement, through legislation, that we need to devote significant resources to help address these problems. Our amendment was adopted, and it is my hope that we can include a portion of those funds for Mexico in the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations Act.

But my support for providing those funds will depend on whether the case which is the subject of the Washington Post article I mentioned is satisfactorily resolved. The three Americans who have been arrested are the victims of an absurd miscarriage of justice. Fortunately, according to the article, the American Embassy in Mexico is following the case closely, and recognizes that these three people have done nothing wrong. To the contrary, they have generously cared for an ailing, elderly American, Russell Ames, who lost his wife Jean Ames three years ago. Jean Ames was a wonderful woman, and her death was a great blow to Russell Ames. Ames, already in his late eighties at the time of his wife's death, would never have been able to continue to live in his home in a small village near Oaxaca, Mexico, without the around-the- clock care of Mary Ellen Sanger and the other Americans who lived on the property.

My office has conveyed my concern about the unlawful arrests and detentions of these three Americans to the Mexican Embassy in Washington. These people should be immediately released and the cases against them dismissed. And, just as important, President Fox, who has repeatedly said that his presidency stands for the rule of law, should determine whether the Mexican official who is responsible for this travesty should be removed from his position.

I ask unanimous consent to print the aforementioned article in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senators Snowe, Burns, Jeffords, Lautenberg and Dodd to restore the conservation funding commitment Congress and the administration made to farmers and ranchers in the 2002 farm bill.

Despite the historic conservation funding levels in the 2002 farm bill, family farmers and ranchers offering to restore wetlands, or offering to change the way they farm to improve air and water quality, continue to be rejected when they seek U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation assistance. Producers are being turned away due to USDA's decision earlier this year to divert $158.7 million from working lands conservation programs to pay for the cost of administering the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) despite a clear directive in the 2002 farm bill that the USDA use mandatory funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to pay for CRP and WRP technical assistance. In particular, USDA diverted $107.9 million from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), $27.6 from the Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP), $14.6 million from the Grasslands Reserve Program, and $8.6 million from the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) to pay for CRP and WRP technical assistance.

Although the 2002 farm bill clearly intended USDA to use CCC funds to pay for CRP and WRP technical assistance, USDA continues to ignore Congress's intent. The plain language of the statute and the legislative history, including a relevant colloquy, support this interpretation of the farm bill, and the General Accounting Office (GAO) concurred in a recent memo. I ask unanimous consent the GAO's memo be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Our legislation would override USDA's decision and prevent funds from working lands incentive programs like EQIP and WHIP from being diverted to pay for the technical assistance costs of CRP. The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation has already approved similar legislation, H.R. 1907, requiring each program to pay for its own technical assistance needs. Our legislation parallels that effort, by requiring CRP to pay for its own technical assistance needs. Simply put, our amendment would require the Administration to honor the 2002 Farm Bill and mandate that technical assistance for each program is derived from funds provided for that program.

By providing more than $6.5 billion for working lands programs like EQIP and WHIP in the 2002 farm bill, Congress dramatically increased funds to help farmers manage working lands to produce food and fiber and simultaneously enhance water quality and wildlife habitat. For example, EQIP helps share the cost of a broad range of land management practices that help the environment, include more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides, and innovative technologies to store and reuse animal waste. In combination, these working lands programs will provide farmers the tools and incentives they need to help meet our major environmental challenges.

Full funding for working lands incentive programs like EQIP and WHIP is vital to helping farmers and ranchers improve their farm management and meeting America's most pressing environmental challenges. Because 70 percent of the American landscape is private land, farming dramatically affects the health of America's rivers, lakes and bays and the fate of America's rare species. Most rare species depend upon private lands for their survival, and many will become extinct without help from private landowners. When farmers and ranchers take steps to help improve air and water quality or assist rare species, they can face new costs, new risks, or loss of income. Conservation programs help share these costs, underwrite these risks, or offset these losses of income. Unless Congress provides adequate resources for these programs, there is little reason to hope that our farmers and ranchers will be able to help to meet these environmental challenges.

In addition, USDA conservation programs promote regional equity in farm spending. More than 90 percent of USDA spending flows to a handful of large farmers in 15 midwestern and southern States. As a result, many farmers and ranchers who are not eligible for traditional subsidies--including dairy farmers, ranchers, and fruit and vegetable farmers--rely upon conservation programs to boost farm and ranch income and to ease the cost of environmental compliance. Unlike commodity subsidies, conservation payments flow to all farmers and all regions. But the farmers and ranchers who depend upon these programs--farmers and ranchers who already receive a disproportionately small share of USDA funds--have faced a disproportionately large cut in spending this year.

It is time for Congress and the administration to honor the intent of the 2002 farm bill, by fully funding working lands conservation programs. The failure to adequately fund these working lands conservation programs is having a dramatic impact on both farmers and the farm economy and could become worse in future years if Congress does not address this matter. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have heard discussion of the so-called Class Action Fairness Act. I oppose the Class Action Fairness Act for the simple reason that it is not fair. Actually, the legislation makes it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves against violations of State civil rights, consumer, health, and environmental protection laws. The way it would hurt them is it would force these cases out of convenient State courts, which have experience with the legal facts and issues involved in such cases; instead, it would push them into Federal courts with new barriers to lawsuits, with new burdens on plaintiffs.

For the many Americans who are watching this debate, we have to at least mention the first, basic question that scheduling this debate right now raises. Here we are, 3 weeks beyond October 1. October 1, of course, is the beginning of the new fiscal year. It is a deadline for passing the appropriations bills that fund the basic work of the Federal Government. It is the law that the House and the Senate must pass the 14 appropriations bills that fund our Nation and do it by October 1. We have not done that. The Congress has not lived up to the responsibility the law mandates. We are in the final few weeks, if not days, of this congressional session, but here we are, 3 weeks past the legal deadline to do what we are required to do, and what we are paid to do, and instead we are devoting these precious days not to acting on the people's priorities, but we will spend several days debating a bill which is a priority of some special interests.

Over the past several weeks, I have received call after call from Vermonters who are more and more anxious over Congress's ability--in fact, Congress's willingness--to finish appropriations for fiscal year 2004. I know other Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, are getting similar calls. I have told those Vermonters who call me to hang in there. I assure them that Congress will eventually get around to doing its work.

Then the Republican leadership decides to have us consider controversial special interest legislation such as this bill. Apparently the special interests can go to the front of the line. The people's interests go to the back of the line. I suggest we have it the wrong way around. Do the people's legislation first; do the appropriations bills first;

do the things we are required to do by law. Do the work that we go back home and tell everybody we are going to do, and if there is time left over for the special interests, let them come up then; don't put them ahead of the people.

My colleagues and I who serve on the Appropriations Committee worked long and hard to get the fiscal year 2004 bills voted out of our committee. We got them all out. They could go anytime they wanted. The Republican leadership has decided not to. The House has passed all 13 of the regular appropriations bills. They are waiting for the Senate to act. We are not acting. Instead, we are bringing up special interest legislation.

The new fiscal year began 3 weeks ago, but the Senate has not even bothered to take up the appropriations bills that fund Agriculture or Commerce, Justice, State, and, our Federal law enforcement, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the actions we take to counter terrorism.

As for Commerce, we might do that, so we might actually get us some jobs in this country at a time when we are losing a million a year.

Foreign operations? That hasn't been brought up.

Transportation? We all know our roads and bridges and rail system are falling apart. We ought at least to be voting. We may vote not to give any money to fix any of the problems of the Nation. We did vote, incidentally, to send $87 billion to Iraq and we will fix their roads; we will fix their electrical system; we will fix their communication system; we will fix their postal system; we will even give them a new ZIP Code. But maybe we could take a few minutes and bring up those things that might actually pay for roads and transportation and electrical grids and ZIP Codes in the United States.

Veterans Affairs is in there. The administration is cutting veterans benefits all over the country. They are cutting our veterans hospitals. They are cutting out what is available to our veterans. At the same time we are asking our men and women to serve in Iraq, we are cutting out their money. We ought at least to bring that up. Let's vote on it.

We voted to send money to the veterans of the Iraqi army. We voted to send money there. We ought to spend some time here voting on veterans in the United States.

We have the Housing and Urban Development appropriations bills. We have a great housing shortage in this country. We just spent billions. We had plenty of time to vote billions of dollars to build houses in Iraq. We can't even bring up the housing bill for the United States, but this special interest legislation we do make time to address.

What I would say is: OK, we voted to do all these things now for the Iraqi people. Can we at least spend a day or two voting on the same bills that might help the American people at the national, State, and local levels?

Let me tell you about a few of these programs that are being pushed aside so we can take up this special interest legislation.

In the area of agriculture, there is more than $1 billion in conservation assistance for farmers to help them improve water quality and stop sprawling development. Last year, the aid was delayed by more than 4 months. Each month is critical. The men and women who farm in this country are just barely getting by.

They stalled the Justice spending bill so we could get money as quickly as we possibly could to the police forces of Iraq. But because we stalled it, there is no money for the Bulletproof Vests Partnership Program which helps State and local police agencies buy armored vests to protect the lives of their officers. This is a good bipartisan program that Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I put together.

I have had police officers come up to me all over the country, people I have never met, who want to shake hands and say, We really want to thank you and Senator Campbell and those who joined you to help us get this money. Now I am going to have to tell them it is stalled. We had to wait to get the money for Iraq, that is fine, but now we have to stall again because we have special interest legislation that comes up.

Take the COPS Program; this puts new police officers on the community streets and in our schools; the Violence Against Women Act programs that provide services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Those were all set aside so we could bring up this special interest legislation.

All funding for transportation and critical infrastructure projects was bottled up. In fact, the Senate has failed to pass the transportation reauthorization bill. We don't have time to bring that up. We can bring up special interest legislation, we can bring up highways in Iraq, but we can't bring up the highway transportation bill here in the United States. And what is the cost to us? It is 90,000 jobs here in America.

All foreign assistance to nations other than Iraq and Afghanistan are on hold. In fact, all the funding to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases is also on hold.

We have another group of Americans awaiting action by Congress. Those are our veterans. They need Congress to make basic decisions about their medical care and benefits, decisions that are being held in limbo, and they have no idea where we are going to go.

These are priorities. American priorities are being set aside, and we will take care of Iraq. We will take care of the special interest legislation. In fact, the special interest legislation is going to do more harm than help.

I think the American people are entitled to ask why we are bogged down considering this controversial and unfair class action bill when the Senate has yet to take up and debate five important appropriations bills amounting to $301 billion.

I hope the Senate gets down to the business of the people and carries out the responsibilities given to us by the Constitution: taking up, debating, and passing the remaining appropriations bills. And we can pass them. There will be a bipartisan majority of both Republicans and Democrats working together to pass them, if we are even allowed to vote on them. We were allowed to vote on Iraq and special interest legislation. Can we take a little bit of time to vote on legislation that actually helps the people of America?

The American people and the people around the world depend upon the funds and services supplied through the spending measures that are now held hostage. Let us do our job. Let us move these bills. Let us spend a couple of weeks on the floor of the Senate legislating for the people of America. It would be a nice refreshing time. We could pass these bills.

Earlier this year, I joined with Senators Kennedy, Biden, Feingold, Durbin, and Edwards in requesting a hearing on class action litigation in order to help the Judiciary Committee develop consensus reforms-- something that we could have done. Republicans and Democrats could have joined on it. But our request was ignored. Actually, our letter went unanswered.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I had hoped that the Judiciary Committee would undertake a deliberate and careful review of information from parties

actually involved in class action litigation to provide a realistic picture of the benefits and problems with class actions. But instead of doing the work for America, we are proceeding with a special interest piece of legislation which has repeatedly failed to pass the Senate in recent years. Our Judiciary Committee did not carry out the kind of thorough and thoughtful legal analysis of this difficult issue it should have. The committee did not provide our fellow Senators with the assistance that they may want and need in this complex area.

I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of my friend, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, who took on an enormous task, attempting with her amendment to rectify some of the harms created by this bill. I appreciate the sincerity of her concern. I appreciate the genuine effort she made. But her amendment touches on only a sliver of the class action cases which this bill would affect--only when plaintiffs and primary defendants are from the same State--and even then it could cause harm.

At its core, this bill deprives citizens of the right to sue on State law claims in their own State courts if the principal defendant is a citizen of another State, even if that defendant has a substantial presence in the plaintiff's home State, and even if the harm done was in the plaintiff's home State. The amendment does not remedy that problem. It burdens the plaintiff even more.

I also want to recognize the sincere efforts made by my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. I may disagree with him about the nature of the problem. I may disagree with the appropriate solution in this area. But I do so respectfully. He has worked very hard, and I appreciate his efforts.

I would like to note the significant changes in the bill since it passed out of committee.

As originally drafted, this bill included mass tort claims along with class actions. It actually treated them like they were class actions.

One improvement the Judiciary Committee did manage to make to the bill was to strike that provision. We struck it. We voted on that, and we struck it. But somehow, mysteriously, after the bill left the committee with nobody voting, that was reversed. Now mass tort actions are again included in this bill.

Just in case anybody says this is what we voted out of committee, it is not. We changed that.

Now we find out how we actually get things changed in the committee because, apparently, our friends on the other side of the aisle could care less about what we actually did in committee. They just change it in the draft on the way over here. It is fascinating. I have never seen that in 29 years here. But I guess we live under new rules.

In the old days, we just lived under the Senator rules. But now we have rules outside the Senate rules. In fact, this bill is not the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee, S. 274. It is another bill--S. 1751--which was introduced last week. We didn't have hearings on that. We didn't have votes on that. I guess the special interest says, OK, as soon as you finish with the roads in Iraq, as soon as you finish the schools in Iraq, as soon as you finish giving the power grid to Iraq, as soon as you finish paying for the police officers in Iraq, as soon as you are finished with veterans' benefits for Iraq, before you do anything for American citizens, give us our special interest legislation, and we can just drop it in and go forward.

The special interest legislation will be subjected to the same shunting to a Federal court, and plaintiffs will endure the same unnecessary difficulties in making their claims and pursuing their remedies. But these mass tort cases are not class actions. They have not been analyzed under rule 23 standards or State law.

Mass tort actions have entirely different procedural vehicles to reach justice than class actions. They shouldn't be lumped in with class actions in any kind of class action bill, either this misguided attempt or a better wrought piece of legislation.

Some special interest groups are distorting the state of class action litigation by relying on a few anecdotes and an ends-oriented attempt to impede plaintiffs bringing class action cases. If we really want to correct things, we can and should take necessary steps to correct the problems in class action litigation. But simply shoving most suits into Federal court with the new one-sided rules isn't going to correct the real problems faced by plaintiffs and defendants. It will clog up the Federal courts, but it won't accomplish anything.

We forget that our State-based tort system remains one of the greatest and post powerful vehicles for justice anywhere in the world-- no doubt around the world--as a vehicle for justice. It lets ordinary people ban together to take on powerful corporations--sometimes even their own government.

Defrauded investors, deceived consumers, victims of defective products, and environmental torts, and thousands of other ordinary people have been able to rely on class action lawsuits in their State court systems to seek and receive justice.

I remember when the Soviet Union broke up. A group of legislators from the Duma came in to see me, as they did several other Senators. One of them asked a question. They said: We have heard it is actually possible that citizens in your country can ban together and sue the government. I said that is true.

They said: We have heard further that not only do they sometimes sue the government, but there are times the government loses. They win.

I said: Oh, yes.

They said: You mean you don't fire the judge and make him do it over again?

I said: You don't understand our system. It is not the Soviet Union. Here in the United States, we are able to ban together to take on the government. If the government is wrong, the government is going to lose.

It was an eye-opener to them. Actually, it was a bit of an eye-opener to me because I realized those things we take for granted other countries haven't had the opportunity to have.

I am old enough to remember the civil rights battles of the 1950s and the 1960s and the impact of class actions in vindicating basic rights through our courts. When Congress sat back and did nothing, when Presidents sat back and did nothing, it was class action lawsuits that won.

The landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education was a culmination of appeals from four class action cases, three from Federal court decisions in Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia, and one from a decision of the Supreme Court of Delaware.

Only the Supreme Court of Delaware, the State court, got the case right by deciding for the African-American plaintiffs.

The State court justices understood they were constrained by the existing Supreme Court law but nonetheless held that the segregated schools of Delaware violated the 14th amendment. The Federal courts did not get it right; before any Federal court did so, a State court rejected separate and unequal schools. The U.S. Supreme Court, to their credit, joined in a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education and closed down the highly discredited separate but equal idea, Plessie v. Ferguson. There was no separate but equal in the schools and they knew it--separate and unequal. The State courts realized that first in a class action suit and then the U.S. Supreme Court followed.

Many civil rights advocates, including the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership Council on Civil Rights, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education, and the National Asian Pacific Legal Consortium have written to Senators in opposition to this legislation. The civil rights advocates conclude this legislation ``would discourage civil rights class actions, impose substantial barriers to settling class actions and render federal courts unable to provide swift and effective administration of justice.''

I ask their letter, dated September 16, 2003, be printed in the Record.

We all know without consolidating procedures, such as class action lawsuits, it might be impossible for plaintiffs to receive effective legal representation. Lawyers tend to be paid by the hour. They are well paid. But lawyers usually hope they get a portion of the proceedings to take on either the governmental or culprit defendants. They have to do so on a case-by-case individual basis. Sometimes that is what cheaters count on. That is how the cheaters get by on their schemes. If you cheat thousands of people just a little bit, you still cheat; if you only cheat them by $3 or $4, nobody will sue them. But if you are cheating a million people of $3 or $4 each, it adds up.

Class actions allow the little guys to band together and get a competent lawyer and address wrongdoing. The best class action made it possible for individual tobacco victims to take on the powerful tobacco conglomerates in ways individuals could not. It allows stockholders and small investors to join together and go after investment scams.

Another example of a class action litigation serving the public interest is the Firestone tire debacle. The national tire recall was started in part by the disclosure of internal corporate documents on consumer complaints of tire defects and design errors that were discovered in the litigation against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Then the plaintiff's attorneys turned this information over to the National Highway Safety Administration. That started a Government investigation.

Months later, because some people had banded together, Bridgestone/ Firestone finally did what they should have done right from the beginning: They recalled 6.5 million tires--but not until after there were 101 fatalities, 400 injuries, and 2,026 consumer complaints.

As reported by Time magazine at the time, it is doubtful that the internal corporate consumer complaint information would have ever seen the light of day absent the civil rights justice discovery process.

The bill before the Senate creates unique risks and obstacles to plaintiffs that are not in the current system. A particularly troubling aspect of S. 1751 is it allows the removal of a case at any time. Anybody who has ever practiced law, anybody who has ever litigated cases--and I, as many other Senators, have--knows the possibilities for abusing this provision are obvious.

As more than 100 legal experts, law professors, noted in a letter to the distinguished Republican leader and the distinguished Democratic leader, Senators Frist and Daschle, they said:

This would give a defendant the power to yank a case away

from a state-court judge who has properly issued pretrial

rulings the defendant does not like, and would encourage a

level of forum-shopping never before seen in this country.

Moreover, this provision would allow an unscrupulous

defendant, anxious to put off the day of judgment so that

more assets could be hidden, to remove a case on the eve of a

state-court trial, resulting in automatic delay of months or

even years before the case would be tried in Federal courts.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of the 100 law professors be printed in the Record.

Added to the ``removal-at-any-time'' problems in the legislation are the hurdles established by Senator Feinstein's amendment adopted in committee. I know it is well intentioned, but the amendment does set up cumbersome requirements for determining whether an action is to be heard in State or Federal court. It provides that a Federal judge may use five factors in deciding jurisdiction of a class action where between one-third and two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same State as primary defendants; and if two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same State as the primary defendants, then the case will stay in State court.

The bill fails to determine when this measurement takes place during the litigation. It has been my experience that membership in class actions frequently changes. So the two-thirds provision or the middle- third provision which is subject to judicial discretion could open up easily to judicial gamesmanship. The defendant could try to remove a case from State court at the discovery stage. Someone takes a deposition and finds, oops, this is going against us, let's get it out of here. Or the judge has made a ruling they do not like and they know they can never win on appeal, let's get it out of here, even after all the evidence is presented, or after closing arguments.

Actually, the way the bill is currently written, it could be done while the jury is deliberating. Considering the vast resources of defendants in many class actions as compared to plaintiffs, it will make it more difficult for class members to ever have a final ruling, where the bill will cause unnecessary and expensive litigation. It favors corporate defendants.

I like to think the scale of justice is even. This tilts the scale of justice and it will bounce right off the stand.

If there were ever a time to think about protecting the consumers, the investors, and the employees, think of Enron, WorldCom, and other corporate scandals. Think of the employees who worked so hard and were told to put their money in the corporate pension program. Look what has happened. Look at the employee investors. I am not too concerned about some of the leaders of a company like that. They might have to sell one of the $50 million homes or they no longer will have several billions of dollars but rather several hundred million, but I am worried about the people who truly had their lifesavings or their pension destroyed or their company destroyed.

This bill does nothing to make the Enrons of the world more accountable for their actions. Actually, the bill undercuts Congress's other efforts to make the companies more responsible or accountable for their misdeeds or more susceptible to penalties when they do wrong. The legislation makes it more difficult for the victims of corporate wrongdoing to join to make those companies accountable. It seems to me that is the exact opposite to the approach we should be taking.

Now, not surprisingly, consumers and those representing consumers object strongly to the enactment of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from numerous consumer advocates in opposition to this bill.

Last year a group of investors recovered millions of dollars in lost investments under State corporate fraud laws and a State class action case in Baptist Foundation of Arizona v. Arthur Andersen. These investors, mostly elderly, banded together to successfully recoup $217 million from Arthur Andersen. Why? Because of questionable accounting practices surrounding an investment trust. The case is just one example of how a State-based class action litigation holds corporate wrongdoers accountable and helps defrauded investors recoup their losses.

Like most Vermonters, I am a strong supporter of the environment. But I look at this bill and I think, what a green light for polluters and others responsible for environmental damages to avoid accountability in court. So many polluters, who would fear class action suits if they were to violate the law, now know they could get caught. With this legislation, they might take the old idea of: Go ahead and pollute; nobody gives a hoot. They are going to get away with it.

This legislation removes almost all important environmental class actions from State to Federal court. Not only does this deny State courts the opportunity to interpret their own State's environmental protection laws, but it also hampers and deters plaintiffs in pursuing important environmental litigation. It means we Vermonters would not have a say in our own courts--or those in Utah or in any other State.

Under this bill, environmental class action suits may not get litigated, reducing the incentive to keep our environment clean. Plaintiffs' attorneys may not be willing to take these high-risk, high- cost, and time-consuming cases, particularly when what they are looking for is injunctive relief. That is an injunction to stop the polluter from polluting. Intentionally or not, this bill protects polluters and ignores innocent victims of their negligence.

Just a few months ago, as I recall, we read about a horrible toxic dumping situation in Alabama and a monumental settlement in State court to clean up an entire community. It was in State court, though--in State court.

In Anniston, AL, the Monsanto Company manufactured PCBs-- carcinogens--from 1929 to 1971. For more than 40 years, in arrogant-- arrogant--disgusting disregard of people's health and the environment, Monsanto dumped untreated, unfiltered waste from its PCB plant into the streams and landfills of Anniston. They never let the residents--many of whom actually worked, and worked very hard, for Monsanto--they never let them know of the horrific risk to their environment and their health.

When the undeniable truth of Monsanto's malfeasance became clear, several thousand residents of Anniston sued in State court. They recently won a liability jury verdict. When the case moved into the damages phase, Monsanto was not out there defending and saying: Well, we did not do something bad. They knew they did something terrible. They did not start arguing about: Well, people were not injured by it. They knew they were injured by it.

So what did they do? They tried to get the judge removed. That is what they tried to do. Although the Alabama Supreme Court, a conservative supreme court, had already held that the trial judge was acting properly, Monsanto continued to oppose his participation. They tried everything they possibly could do to confuse people and escape facing up to the issues. They then had to focus on the merits of the case and settled with the local residents for $600 million and pledged to pay additional cleanup costs for the town.

The Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama State court, did this very well. Not under this bill. Under this bill, it would have been yanked away from those courts, yanked away from the Alabama State court, yanked away from the Alabama Supreme Court, and stuck into Federal court.

Why? More than 100 people lived in Anniston. Even though all the people

suffered, they lived just a block or a driveway from each other. We, those of us who say we really care about States having their rights, would reach down and yank it right out of the State and say: You are not good enough to handle the case that involves your own people.

Cases such as this one would provide hard evidence that our State- based civil justice system is working--it is working--to protect the environment and to protect victims of polluters, and there is no reason to prefer a Federal reform for resolution of their claims. State courts, unlike the Federal courts, have a sound understanding of evolving local law and the open dockets to resolve conflicts in a manner that would protect our society from polluters.

In fact, we ought to at least ask, Do the Federal courts want this? The Judicial Conference, headed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, wrote a letter in March of this year opposing this bill because its ``provisions would add substantially to the workload of the federal courts and are inconsistent with principles of federalism.''

They singled out serious environmental disasters as an example of class actions that should remain in State courts.

Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conference said: What are you doing to us? Why are you sending these cases over there? State courts can handle them better.

I would be a very wealthy person if I had a couple dollars for every time I heard speeches or statements from my fellow Senators about how we have to better respect our individual States. After all, that is why we have a Senate. Each one of the 50 States has equal representation here to make sure the States are not subsumed in the Federal system. Those who would support this bill are giving the back of their hand to their States and saying: You are not smart enough, you are not good enough to take care of the laws of your own State.

Numerous organizations devoted to the protection of the environment oppose this bill, including Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, the Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Mineral Policy Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

These advocates conclude, in a letter, this bill ``would benefit polluters at the expense of people and communities harmed by public health and environmental disasters.'' I ask unanimous consent their letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as colleagues may have gathered, I am not in favor of this piece of legislation, the Class Action Fairness Act. Man, I have heard things. There ought to be a law against misleading labels on legislation we pass because this would break the law. These many injured parties who have valid claims would have no effective way to seek relief. Class action suits have helped win justice and expose wrongdoing by the polluters, the big tobacco companies, and the civil rights violators, and brought about Brown v. Board of Education, as I said earlier. It gives average Americans at least a chance for justice. We should not take that chance for justice away from the American people.

So I hope Senators will consider the harm this bill would do the American people and to their constituents and join me in opposition.

Lastly, Mr. President, as I said, we found time to get highway money for Iraq, but we do not have time to pass the highway bill for America. We had time to get money to improve police departments and law enforcement in Iraq, but we do not have time to pass a bill to do the same here for Americans.

We had time to pass legislation to help military veterans in Iraq, but we can't find time to pass legislation for veterans in the United States.

Of course, I yield to my friend from Nevada.

Did the Senator say omnibus or ominous?

I appreciate the comments of my friend from Nevada. I can't think of any person who has worked harder to help get legislation through. The senior Senator from Nevada has a good reputation of working with both Republicans and Democrats. There are two primary reasons. One is the fact that he knows legislation better than anybody else around here. Secondly, he is totally honest and truthful to everybody.

It is frustrating because, again, there is legislation for highways in Iraq, but not in the United States, all these other things. We passed a transportation bill. That would mean 90,000 jobs right there that we could put Americans back to work.

I thank him for saying that. I don't care if people want to spend time on this bill. It is a terrible bill. If they want to spend time on it, let's at least get the appropriations bills done. Let's answer the questions of our veterans, whether the benefits will be there or not; answer the questions police officers have about benefits; answer the questions those in education have, whether the money will be there.

I see my good friend, the senior Senator from Illinois. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the selection of Margaret Catharine Rodgers to be the nominee for the Northern District of Florida serves as an example of how the judicial nominations process should work. Judge Rodgers was interviewed and recommended by Florida's bipartisan judicial selection commission. This selection commission was created by Senators Graham and Nelson in negotiated agreement with the White House and it has produced a consistent stream of talented and well-respected attorneys for the lifetime appointments on the district courts in Florida.

Judge Rodgers currently serves the Northern District of Florida as a magistrate judge. She received a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, having proven her qualifications in the district in which she will serve, on the bench, in private practice, and in her community. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Judge Rodgers served for several years in the United States Army and received several commendations for her service.

With tonight's vote on Judge Rodgers' nomination, the Senate will have confirmed a total of 165 judicial nominations of President George W. Bush. Despite all of the false charges of obstruction leveled by the White House and Republican Senators, we have now reached a historic level of confirmations of judicial nominations.

In less than 3 years, President Bush has now equaled the total number of judges appointed by President Reagan in his first 4 full years in office. Republicans tout President Reagan as the ``all-time champ'' in judicial appointments and yet he attained 165 confirmations at the conclusion of his first 4-year term in office, while President Bush has achieved the same benchmark in less than 3 years in office. President Reagan's entire first term saw a Republican Senate majority enabling the President to achieve that milestone. That Democrats in the Senate have cooperated with President Bush to exceed it is extraordinary and reveals the truth about the confirmation process. Only a few of the most extreme of President Bush's judicial nominees have been blocked.

Of course, you will not hear Republican Senators or the White House tell the public today that this historic level of appointments has been reached, that President Bush has matched President Reagan's first-term judicial appointments with 15 months remaining in his term. You will not hear that truth from this administration. The Senate has opposed only the most extreme nominees and has moved cooperatively and expeditiously on less controversial nominees.

The record will reflect that Democrats have worked hard to balance the need to fill vacancies on the Federal bench with the imperative that the judges chosen will be fair to all people. With this confirmation, there are now only 40 vacant seats in the Federal bench. Until this year, this mark had not been reached in 13 years or during the entire Clinton administration, when more than 50 judicial nominees were blocked from receiving confirmation votes. Had we not authorized almost 20 judgeships last year, the vacancies might be in the 20's.

President Bush is on pace to appoint judges far in excess of those of any other President in American history. In fact, this President has had so many vacant seats to fill because Senate Republicans did such an effective job of blocking scores of Clinton nominees with impunity. When I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in mid-2001, we inherited 110 vacancies. In a little more than 2 years since then Democrats and Republicans have worked together to confirm 165 judicial nominees of President Bush. The White House and the Republicans in the Senate refuse to declare themselves victorious in their efforts to appoint a historic number of judges chosen by the President. They insist on seeing the glass half empty, when it is nearly full to the brim. They refuse to take any steps to address the fact that fully 20 percent of President Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked from getting votes when Republicans controlled the Senate. In those 6 years, they allowed only 248 judicial nominees to be confirmed and blocked another 63. Today, in less than 3 years, President Bush has achieved what it took President Reagan four full years to achieve 165 judicial confirmations.

Nominations from bipartisan selection commissions can proceed expeditiously. Judge Rodgers received a committee hearing within weeks of her paperwork being completed and she will be confirmed less than a month after her hearing. Her confirmation could have occurred even sooner since she has been pending on the floor for several weeks but I am happy that the majority leader has decided to turn to her confirmation this afternoon.

Judge Rodgers' appointment to the district court in the Northern District of Florida will bring her legal career full circle since her first job out of law school was as a judicial clerk on this very court. I am pleased to cast a vote for her confirmation today and I congratulate Judge Rodgers and her family.

Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment, which I strongly support.

I will be brief. Senator Byrd has already described in detail what the amendment does.

It has only been a few weeks since the White House sent us a bill for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment deals with the $21 billion that the President wants for reconstruction activities in these countries. Of that amount, only $799 million--less than \1/20\th--is for reconstruction in Afghanistan, a country where the standard of living for most people is reminiscent of the Middle Ages.

It is also a country whose former Taliban government harbored Osama bin Laden, and in doing so enabled al-Qaida to plan the attacks of September 11. But for whatever reason, and despite the difficulties and dangers that our troops and our aid workers are facing in Afghanistan, the White House has only asked for a tiny fraction of these supplemental funds to be provided to Afghanistan.

I have looked at what the administration wants this $21 billion for. Much of it makes sense. But there are expenses here unlike any I have seen before in a foreign aid bill.

Let me be clear. We all want to help Iraq. But we also have a duty to protect the taxpayers' money, and this request is extravagant.

Let's look at just a few examples. These are some of the amounts we are being asked to spend for these items, for Iraq, compared to how much it would cost if they were purchased right here in the United States: $33,000 pickup trucks; $6,000 satellite telephones; $400 million to build two prisons; and, studies costing tens of millions of dollars.

What is going on here? Who is profiting from these unnecessary expenses? We know who isn't--U.S. taxpayers.

We have never, in my 29 years here, given foreign aid on such a scale to a country that in a few years could be the second largest oil producing nation in the world.

Help Iraq, yes. But $20 billion? All at once? Out the door, with no real strings attached? And for things like this?

There are communities in our own country that don't have internet access, whose citizens can't get free computer training, that need new garbage trucks, or police cars, or prisons. The list goes on and on.

This amendment attempts to make the best use of the funds in this bill, by cutting $1.6 billion of the Iraq reconstruction funds and shifting them to other needs, including for urgent humanitarian needs in Afghanistan, Liberia and Sudan.

Frankly, I think we should cut more than $1.6 billion. From what I have seen in the meager justification materials we got from OMB, there is a lot of money here that is going to be spent on consultants and for things that the Iraqis could do themselves for a fraction of the cost.

But at least this amendment would get at some of the unnecessary things, and use the funds for things that are necessary.

Senator Byrd has spoken about the use of $600 million to locate and destroy ammunition caches in Iraq, that are the source of weapons being used to kill and maim our troops. It is beyond comprehension why the Pentagon has not acted sooner to deal with this problem. This amendment would finally address it.

But I want to speak briefly on the $386 million that would be transferred to programs in Afghanistan, because I don't think there is anyone here who would not agree that we need to do more to prevent the situation in Afghanistan from unraveling. My friend from Kentucky, the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, just returned from Afghanistan. I am sure he saw how urgent the needs are.

The Karzai government is fragile, at best. Warlords continue to rule vast areas of the country. Our troops are in a continuing fight with al-Qaida and remnants of the Taliban, who strike from their sanctuaries in Pakistan.

Many Afghans remain displaced, living in squalor. They have too little to eat, not enough fuel for the winter, and many tens of thousands remain homeless.

Women and girls continue to face great hardships. Girls schools are being destroyed. Health care remains a dream for millions of rural Afghans.

The crop of opium poppy is the largest in years.

The list of needs is long, but a little money can make a big difference in Afghanistan if it is spent wisely--not for internet access, but to build primary schools and irrigation systems.

The $386 million that would be transferred to Afghanistan in this amendment mirrors what the House Appropriations Committee did last week. Both Democrats and Republicans in the House agreed that these funds were better spent in Afghanistan. For health clinics, to train and equip the army, for anti-drug programs, for irrigation, to support elections and governance.

The amendment also provides $45 million for programs that specifically help women, and $25 million for Afghans who are internally displaced and need emergency aid.

This amendment would bring the total in this bill for reconstruction in Afghanistan, a country of 22 million impoverished people, a country that could easily revert to a terrorist haven, to slightly over $1 billion. That compares to $20 billion for Iraq, a country of 25 million people with a standard of living that already far exceeds what most Afghans could dream of.

Let's inject a little common sense into this process. Both Iraq and Afghanistan need help. Both are security issues for the United States.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment.

Reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object, to make sure we are clear on this, on the Leahy amendment, am I correct, Mr. President, the yeas and nays have already been ordered?

We would need, am I further correct, Mr. President, a further unanimous consent request to vitiate the yeas and nays on the Leahy amendment?

Mr. President, I agree with Senator Byrd that the more that one reads the fine print of this legislation, the worse it gets. The budget document submitted by the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, leaves one with the distinct impression that money will be spent on specific items.

For example, $9 million will be spent on projects for ZIP Codes, $100 million will be spent on the witness protection program, $75 will be spent on irrigation pumps. And so on and so forth.

But, after a little digging, one uncovers a provision on page 27 of the supplemental appropriations bill that the Senate is now considering. This is a provision that the administration requested. It says ``Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds provided under this heading.''

What does this means? It means that you can take the CPA's 53 page budget justification and throw it in the garbage can. Its just for show saying how much money is appropriated for any item in this bill. What the Senate is doing is giving the President all of the money for Iraq reconstruction, and saying ``do what ever you want with it.''

If you want to doubled the amount of money for pickup trucks and pay $66,000 a truck instead of $33,000 a truck, go ahead.

If you want to buy even more satellite phones, go ahead. If you want to spend more money on wireless internet, which many American communities don't have, go ahead. If you want to slash money for refugees or police training, go ahead. If you want to spend every dollar to pay consultants, go ahead, because, Mr. President, it is up to you.

It is certainly true that the President can spend the money the way it is spelled out in the CPA's budget justification.

But, nothing, absolutely nothing, in this legislation requires the President to even come close to meeting the amounts that are justified to Congress.

This is not some inside-the-beltway, policy-wonk issue. This issue is about the Constitution. This issue is about our duty as Senators.

The Constitution unequivocally gives the Congress the power of the purse.

And this provision all but hands over the power of the purse to the President with respect to Iraq reconstruction. It essentially says ``you decide, because we won't''.

It sets a dangerous precedent. And, we all know that once we give away authority to the executive branch, it is almost impossible to get that genie back in the bottle.

Moreover, this new authority is completely unnecessary.

We didn't include this provision in the previous Iraq supplemental.

The administration never complained that we did not give them enough flexibility before. Why should we do this now? Like last time, we can easily come up with an approach that gives the administration the flexibility it needs, but maintains important protections to ensure the money is accounted for.

This provision is not unlike the use of force resolution that we passed last fall. Congress has the sole responsibility to declare war.

Instead of having a vote on that, we passed a resolution that said, ``Mr. President, you decide.''

Let's not go down that road again.

This is not some partisan issue. I would be saying the same thing if a Democrat was in the White House.

This is about our responsibility. This is about watching out for the taxpayers' money. This is about making sure the Senate does not become a rubberstamp for blank checks.

We should not give this power to this administration or any other administration. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.

Mr. President, let me take a very short time to summarize what amendment No. 1807 does. This is a very important amendment offered by myself and the Senator from Rhode Island.

The Chafee-Leahy amendment is supported by the Archbishop of Monrovia. A man, who for years, stood up to the brutal regime of Charles Taylor.

It provides $200 million to address basic needs--food, water, shelter--of the people of Liberia. There is a humanitarian emergency in that country, as 74% of Liberians lack access to safe drinking water, 60 percent lack access to acceptable sanitation, and 75 percent live in poverty.

The administration's own number for Liberia is $200 million. In testimony before the House, the top Africa official at the State Department said the U.S. needed $200 million to address this crisis.

The amendment is extremely flexible. It allows the administration to spend these funds virtually any way it wants, including humanitarian, reconstruction, long-term development, or security assistance.

The amendment is fully offset. It does not add a dime to the Iraq supplemental.

Relief groups with operations in Liberia strongly support this amendment. Catholic Relief Services, Amnesty International and a range of other NGOs strongly support this amendment.

Mr. President, I want to thank the cosponsors of this amendment Senators Coleman, Biden, Lieberman, Dashle, Reid, Feingold, Reed, Lautenberg, Landrieu, and Jeffords.

I especially want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for working with me on this amendment. This amendment will be adopted, and I will not insist on a rollcall vote. This is a very important amendment and I am glad that the Senate has acted decisively to approve it.

Madam President, I will not add to what the Senator from Kansas has said other than to say I do support this amendment. I think it shows the priorities that have to be met by the United States, priorities we sometimes overlook.

I commend the Senator for his support of this. I hope the Senate will pass it overwhelmingly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, my friend and neighbor from across the Connecticut River.

Mr. President, I will withhold with the understanding that I be recognized after my colleague speaks.

Mr. President, I speak today about the Senate's vote on the President's request for an additional $87 billion in emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, of which $65 billion is for military operations and $21 billion is for relief and reconstruction. The lion's share of the funds are for Iraq.

I attended the three hearings in the Appropriations Committee, when Ambassador Bremer, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, General Pace, and several other witnesses testified. Unfortunately, there was not nearly enough time in those hearings to discuss the details of a budget request of such enormous size and complexity. I was also disappointed that the hearings provided a one-sided perspective, as there were no witnesses from the U.S. Agency for International Development or the State Department, and no witnesses from outside the government.

I also reviewed the materials provided by the Office of Management and Budget in support of the request, which

are useful but devoid of detail. For example, a request for $800 million for police training in Iraq is justified with only three vague sentences.

It is also one thing to ask for $400 million to build two new prisons. It is another to fail to explain why on Earth it costs so much, when the price of labor in Iraq is half what it is in the United States. This is one of many examples--$33,000 pickup trucks that cost $14,000 in the U.S. and $6,000 satellite phones that sell in neighboring Jordan for $500, are others--that have been cited in the press and in speeches by Senators.

Of course there are things that need to be done in Iraq. But some of these costs are shocking and inexplicable.

The administration is cutting food aid for poor children in Nicaragua; a million children die of measles each year because they can't get the vaccine which costs pennies; a third of the world's people live in conditions most Americans would find appalling. Yet we are going to build wireless internet access on the Euphrates. It makes no sense.

And then we saw in last Thursday's New York Times that although this is a 1-year, emergency appropriation, only $6 billion, not $20 billion, can be effectively spent in Iraq next year. Could it be that the reason the White House wants this $20 billion now, and not a penny less, is because they do not want to have to defend this increasingly unpopular policy again next year before the November elections? I think the answer is obvious.

I cast my vote against this supplemental. This decision did not come easily. There are strong arguments pro and con. I know that I will be among a small minority. But for me, this is a matter of principle, and after a great deal of thought I have concluded that I can not support this proposal. I did not support the policy that got us into war alone. I do not support the tactics the White House has used to get this supplemental passed. And I do not support appropriating so much money, at one time, for an oil rich nation when the responsible thing would be to approve a portion of the money today and to revisit this again next year.

Before I explain how I reached this decision, I want to make three points.

First, I want to mention the issue of support for our troops. We all support our troops, who have endured great hardship and fought bravely. We worry about their safety. We have spoken to the grieving families of soldiers who have died. I and other Senators have worked to get them better protective equipment, after we learned that some were sent into battle in Iraq without bulletproof vests or the latest available armor for their vehicles.

But supporting the troops is not simply a matter of spending billions of dollars so they can remain in Iraq indefinitely, with no exit plan, targets in a guerrilla war that is likely to drag on for years. The President's policy that caused them to be sent there, and that will require them to remain there, must also be a policy that each of us who has to vote on this supplemental can support. And if we are to make good use of the taxpayers money, there must be an effective plan to implement that policy.

Second, it is beyond dispute that Iraq is infinitely better off without Saddam Hussein, whose rein of terror was a disaster for the Iraqi people and a blight on the civilized world. The Iraqi people have a chance to build the foundations of a more open, tolerant, peaceful and prosperous society. Whether they will succeed in that endeavor may not be know for many years, but I credit President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops, and the Iraqi people themselves, for giving them this chance.

Third, I am voting against this proposal. If, instead, I thought the administration was being honest with the American people about its motives and its policy in Iraq and the Middle East; if this supplemental were designed to implement a credible plan to internationalize our policy rather than to continue a unilateral approach; and if this had not been a one-time only, take-it-or-leave- it, partisan approach in which almost every amendment offered by Democrats was defeated along party lines, my vote today might be different.

I want to be clear. Since 1989, I have served as either chairman or ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. I am a strong believer in foreign aid. Spent wisely, foreign aid is in our national interests. I am not opposed to helping Iraq rebuild. In fact, I supported the supplemental, passed in April, which contained billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq and to support our military operations there. I also voted for several amendments, which were defeated along party lines, which I believe would have improved this supplemental in important ways.

For example, the Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment would have allowed $10 billion of the Iraq reconstruction funds to be spent immediately. The balance of $10 billion would be withheld pending a certification by the President that the U.N. Security Council has authorized a multinational force under U.S. command in Iraq and a central role for the U.N. in the political and economic development of Iraq, and a second vote by Congress. I am convinced that if we do not truly internationalize our policy in Iraq our troops will continue to face daily attacks, our efforts to rebuild will be in jeopardy, and U.S. taxpayers, virtually alone, will pay the skyrocketing costs.

The Biden amendment would have paid for the $87 billion by repealing a tiny fraction of the President's huge tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. I have no doubt that if the American people had been able to vote on the Biden amendment it would have passed overwhelmingly.

The Dorgan amendment would have paid for the reconstruction with revenues from future Iraqi oil sales. Yearly revenues from Iraqi oil are expected to reach $100 billion in less than a decade. This amendment, had it passed, would have lifted a portion of the staggering financial burden of this war off the backs of American taxpayers.

I offered an amendment, with Senator Daschle, to shift responsibility for rebuilding Iraq from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of State. The Pentagon's role is fighting wars, which they do superbly. It is not nation building. That is the role of the State Department. It is ironic that President Bush, who ridiculed the Clinton administration for nation building in the former Yugoslavia, is today defending the Pentagon's role in the biggest nation-building effort in half a century.

These are only four of the amendments that I supported, each of which was voted down because the White House and the Republican leadership opposed them.

Mr. President, in the weeks and days leading up to this vote, I have been guided by several things.

First is the importance of multilateralism. There is no realistic alternative in the 21st century to working collectively with other nations to combat terrorism and other grave threats to our security which extend far beyond our borders. Iraq, perhaps more than any foreign policy adventure in recent memory, illustrates the costs we pay for unilateralist thinking--the cost to our soldiers, to our relations with allies and the Muslim world, to our influence with other nations on so many critical issues, and to American taxpayers.

Second, I did not vote for the resolution that President Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq. I felt it gave the President sweeping authority that the Constitution reserves for the Congress. I was also convinced that the White House, despite its protestations to the contrary, was determined to short circuit the U.N. inspectors and go to war alone.

This administration's policy has been driven by lofty, unrealistic ambitions; White House and Pentagon officials who were so convinced of their own version of reality that they felt no need to ask questions, not to mention listen to the answers; a presumption that other nations would follow us simply because of who we are; and a naive assumption that we would be embraced as liberators and that the Pentagon's chosen exiles, unknown to most Iraqis, would be quickly enthroned in the seat of power.

Detractors were silenced. Other nations were bullied. Members of Congress who did not fall into line were called unpatriotic. The administration's justification for a preemptive war, carried out not in self defense, not in response to 9/11, and without United Nations support, has changed from month to month, depending, it seems, on what the White House's polls say the American people will believe.

And third is my concern that in the 2 years since the tragedy of September 11th, President Bush has squandered the support of the rest of the world and has largely failed to build an effective global response to terrorism.

Mr. President, I am not among those who feel that everything we have done in Iraq has been a failure. To the contrary, thanks to the heroics of our soldiers--many hundreds of whom have paid with their lives and limbs--the Iraqi people have a chance to build a government they can be proud of. But the issues before us are far more complex than whether or not we should help Iraq. We should help in ways that are right for the Iraqi people, and right for the American people.

The question each of us must answer, for ourselves and our constituents, is whether this $87 billion, for the purposes for which the Administration has requested it, is the right way to do that.

Thinking back, as I have often done since President Bush launched an essentially unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq, I believe the President got off on the wrong foot from the moment he made that famous, or infamous, remark ``if you are not with us, you are against us.'' That statement was made shortly after September 11th, when the American people were feeling the brunt of that national tragedy, and it may have been reassuring to hear the President express his world view in such bold terms. But I, like many Vermonters, was uneasy about what the President said, and in retrospect I believe it represented a fundamentally flawed approach to the threat our Nation faced then, and will continue to face for years to come.

What the President's challenge has come to mean is that regardless of who you are, including our oldest, closest allies, if you do not agree with us we will ignore what you say, we will dismiss you as irrelevant, we will punish you if we can, and we will go our own way in spite of you. That, I believe, is a recipe for failure. It is beneath the United States. It weakens the United States.

Not only has the White House done grave damage to our foreign relations, it has squandered its credibility with the Congress and the American people.

After handily defeating Saddam Hussein's army, virtually everything this administration predicted about Iraq has turned out to be wrong. Yet one would hardly know that from listening to senior administration officials on television or in testimony before Congress. Rather than give an honest assessment of the pros and cons, they have preferred to make personal attacks against those of us who ask legitimate questions. Since jamming through a Gulf of Tonkin-like resolution last year, top administration officials have continually ridiculed those opposed to the war in Iraq, calling them pro-Saddam Hussein or pro-Osama bin Laden.

Only weeks ago, Secretary Rumsfeld accused those who were asking questions about the deteriorating security situation in Iraq of giving comfort to our enemies.

That is baloney. Every one of us wanted Saddam Hussein gone. But it is the duty of each Senator to ask questions when young Americans are dying overseas.

The administration said, over and over, that the reason we had to invade Iraq was because of weapons of mass destruction. The Vice President said, ``We believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons,'' although there was apparently virtually no evidence to support that.

But after blaming the United Nations inspectors for being duped, and after months of searching without any interference, the administration has yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. And now, as reported in the press, they want to spend another $600 million to continue the search.

Not long ago, the Secretary of State said the weapons were the chemical weapons used against the Kurds in 1988, before the first gulf war. The gassing of the Kurds was a horrific war crime, but as much as I respect the Secretary, it is absurd, and contrary to everything we were told a year ago, to use an atrocity of 15 years ago to justify a pre-emptive war.

In fact, when Saddam Hussein used mustard gas against the Kurds, the Reagan-Bush administration did little about it. And they continued to sell weapons to Saddam Hussein for years after. The Secretary of State was a member of that administration.

This Administration apparently has no idea what happened to the weapons of mass destruction, did next to nothing to secure the sites where it believed them to be after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, and now seems to want to forget about them altogether.

This time last year, there were daily warnings about mushroom clouds. Yet in his speech to the Nation on September 7, the President barely mentioned the issue.

This is not, as some have suggested, a partisan issue. It is an American issue. These are questions that get to the heart of U.S. security and credibility. Where are these weapons? Were they destroyed? Are they in the hands of terrorists, like the Islamic extremists who are flooding into Iraq to attack our troops? Are they in Syria or Iran? Was this a massive intelligence failure?

The administration's handling of this issue has severely undermined the credibility of our intelligence and of the President's justification for rushing into war.

The White House's other major justification for the invasion of Iraq was to fight al-Qaida and combat international terrorism. Over and over again, hardliners in this administration tried to make this connection. They created a special unit in the Pentagon. They worked hard to link Saddam Hussein with 9/11, even if the facts did not support it.

Only recently, after misleading a majority of the American people, did the President publically concede that there is no evidence of a link. Yet, Vice President Cheney continues to suggest there is. It would be helpful if the Vice President would agree with the President on this point.

Mr. President, I want as much as any person to mount an effective campaign to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism. But what we have been given is a partisan, ``take it or leave it,'' rushed approach costing scores of billions of dollars that is not backed up with a credible plan.

And by a plan I mean a detailed strategy that shows us a way to internationalize this policy and bring our troops home within a reasonable time.

Many in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, warned of the costs and pitfalls of fighting a war to enforce U.N. resolutions without the support of the U.N. Security Council, and of rebuilding Iraq without the support of other nations. Iraq is a complex country with a long history of ethnic and religious conflict, and it was crucial to have a sound postwar plan and a viable exit strategy. But the administration did not want to hear those warnings. I think my good friend Senator Hagel spoke for many of us, when he said the administration ``did a miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq'' and ``treated many in the Congress, most of the Congress like a nuisance.''

We also know that the White House ignored concerns expressed by some in the administration, especially in the CIA and the State Department, about the difficulties and dangers involved. Instead, a small, secretive group in the Pentagon dominated postwar planning, and miscalculated. Vice President Cheney said ``[t]here's no question [that the people of Iraq] want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.''

Many Iraqis are grateful. But the Vice President says almost nothing about the fact that our soldiers, who have performed so bravely, are under constant attack or threat of attack from terrorists and remnants of the Baathist regime. He and others in the White House don't talk about the hundreds of Americans who have died, or the nearly 2,000 wounded. And many of these injuries are not just a broken bone or scrapes. They are lost limbs. Lost eyesight. Lifetime disabilities.

The Secretary of Defense does not talk about the billions of dollars in this supplemental to repair damage caused by the catastrophic looting of government buildings, electric generating equipment, hospitals, oil refineries, railroads, and communications infrastructure, because the Pentagon did not plan for the war's end and did not have enough troops in place to keep order after the fall of Saddam's government.

This $87 billion request is made by the President of the party that just a few years ago gave great speeches in support of a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. In fact, it was the Clinton administration that actually had the fiscal discipline to achieve a balanced budget, which President Bush inherited. President Bush and Vice President Cheney say they are deficit hawks. Yet today we are on the road to putting a $1 trillion deficit squarely on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

This is also a President who says we cannot spend another $1 billion in emergency funds to combat AIDS this year, a disease that kills 8,000 people every day. This Administration's AIDS initiative, which has such promise, is starting looking like more talk than action. Others here have recounted the statements of former chief economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, who estimated that it would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion to rebuild Iraq. He was right, but his analysis was disputed again and again by administration officials who wanted to paint a much rosier picture. For telling the truth, he was forced out of the administration.

Former OMB Director Daniels said between $50 billion and $60 billion.

Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said ``We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years.''

Andrew Natsios, Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said that $1.7 billion was all that America's taxpayers would have to pay. $1.7 billion. That is incredible.

These estimates were wildly off the mark. After so many misstatements, misjudgments, and distortions, I have no idea who to believe. This Administration has been wrong, wrong, and wrong.

As Senator Byrd has pointed out, this $87 billion brings to $194 billion the amount the United States is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan--more than twice what the administration had led the public to believe just a few months ago.

The 1991 gulf war, by contrast, cost $61 billion, of which the United States paid only $7 billion. That is $7 billion spent in 1991 compared to $194 billion today--almost 28 times higher, and this is only the beginning.

The $20 billion that the President wants for rebuilding Iraq is more than we are spending this year on foreign aid for the entire rest of the world. The $87 billion is one and a half times the amount we spend on education in the United States. It is larger than the total economies of almost half the states of the Union.

The administration hopes that it will receive an additional $55 billion for Iraqi reconstruction from other countries and Iraqi oil revenues over the next 2 years. But that, again, may be wildly optimistic.

We are going to rebuild Iraq and put the Iraqis back to work. The President says there is money for that--$87 billion. But there is no supplemental to help the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs here at home. There is no money to fix our broken public schools. There is no money for health care for 44 million Americans who are without insurance. None for affordable housing for the growing number of Americans living in poverty.

Instead of a plan, we get more rhetoric about winning the war on terrorism. Instead of specifics, we get abstract talk about democracy in the Middle East--civilizations that predate ours by a thousand years. This administration continues to support autocratic regimes in the Middle East, Central Asia, and elsewhere, whenever it suits them. Instead of a timetable and a detailed justification of costs, we get simplistic and inaccurate comparisons with the Marshall plan.

The Marshall plan, as I, Senator Daschle, and others have pointed out, bore little resemblance to what we are dealing with here. The most specific thing the President has talked about is the pricetag: $87 billion. This is staggering. It gave many Americans sticker shock and awe.

Their so-called ``plan'' is a July 23rd document, totaling 8 pages of text and 19 pages of a hypothetical time line. It is not a plan of anything. It is a vague statement of objectives, which begins by saying, not a little presumptiously, that ``now that Saddam Hussein's regime has been removed, the Iraqi people have the opportunity to realize the President's vision'' for Iraq. I wonder if anyone asked the Iraqi people about their own vision for their country.

This plan, which we did not receive until August 22--the day Ambassador Bremer came to testify before the Appropriations Committee-- tells us only what has become obvious to everyone--the President sent our troops into war without a postwar plan.

Is everything going badly? No. Iraq is not engulfed in flames, as some press reports might suggest. The port has been rebuilt. Businesses and schools are opening. Electric power and health services are being restored. Rubble is being cleared. A new police force is being trained. There has been progress, and I commend Ambassador Bremer, USAID, and the many private voluntary organizations who are working assiduously in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions.

But there is another picture that the White House prefers not to talk about. The coordinated, deadly attacks against our troops and Iraqi police are growing in frequency. Aid workers are facing daily threats and acts of sabotage. Many relief organizations are evacuating their employees, as the U.N. has done. Horrific bombings of civilian targets are becoming routine. There is growing resentment among the Iraqi people.

Mr. President, we are at a crossroads, not only in Iraq, but in our relations with the rest of the world. A year ago, I listened as the President suddenly, inexplicably, changed his focus from defeating al- Qaida in Afghanistan to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. I listened to his reasons, which were unconvincing given what we knew at the time, and they are less convincing today. Like many, including some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, I urged patience. We were ignored.

We waited for the evidence. It was distorted and manipulated.

After a brilliant military victory, the postwar strategy and the justification for the war itself have largely evaporated. Faced with an $87 billion down payment on what is likely to be a far more costly, far longer United States involvement in Iraq, I have tried, through hearings and amendments, to promote an approach which I believe could succeed. But the White House and the Republican Majority have been inflexible.

This has been a difficult process. I do not believe the United States, having destroyed Iraq's government, should walk away. But neither can I support a policy that was ill-conceived from the beginning, has seriously eroded our influence with our allies, further poisoned our already frayed relations with the Muslim world and weakened the United Nations. It is a policy which cannot succeed over the long term without a significant change of course.

I have listened to some in the majority argue that ``we have no choice'' but to ``stay the course.'' We may have no choice but to stay in Iraq, but we do have a choice about the course. I believe we need to change course.

We should change course in three key ways.

First, as I and so many others have urged, we should internationalize our policy. The amendment I sponsored with Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy would have helped do that, and the U.N. resolution that was adopted yesterday is a welcome and encouraging step, for which I commend Secretary of State Powell. But it is nothing more than an expression of good intentions. We have no idea if it will change anything, as this White House has steadfastly resisted meaningful input from other nations.

Will the multinational force be anything more than a fig leaf for an ongoing U.S. military occupation involving over 120,000 troops? Will other nations contribute significant resources? Or will U.S. taxpayers continue to shoulder 99 percent of the costs?

We need to know if the U.N. resolution represents the change in policy that is long overdue, or if it is nothing more than political cover to continue drifting along as we are today alone, with our troops under fire and U.S. taxpayers mortgaging their children's savings.

Second, we must do a far better job of protecting the taxpayers' money.

Today we should be voting to appropriate not a penny more than the amount of funds that can be spent wisely in Iraq and Afghanistan during the next 12 months. It should be paid for by repealing a portion of the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, as proposed by Senator Biden, not by increasing the deficit. By mid-year we should hold thorough hearings, and vote again on whether to stay the course.

Third, we should get the Secretary of Defense out of the business of nation building and put the Secretary of State back in charge. My amendment would have done that.

These are not radical alternatives, but the President's advisers decided that nothing was open for discussion. It has been their latest version of ``if you're not with us, you're against us.'' They have treated this supplemental as a referendum on the President's policy in Iraq, a policy which I believe is fraught with dangers for our Nation. It is no more the right way to build the peace than the pre-emptive, unilateral use of force was the right way to go to war.

Mr. President, I voted for every amendment that I felt would make the best use of the taxpayer's hard earned money. I voted for every amendment that I felt would support our troops and help them do their jobs better, and come home safely. I support them by spending money wisely. And I support them by voting to change course when I believe the course we are on endangers them unnecessarily.

I yield the floor.