Floor Statements

Madam President, this weekend we heard extremely troubling news from the State Department. Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the democratically elected National League for Democracy and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, is on a hunger strike to protest her detention by the military government in Burma.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been held in an unknown location without the ability to communicate with the outside world since May 30, 2003. Many of us in Congress have demanded her release. Sadly, her detention is simply the latest installment in the country's 40-year history of suffering and oppression. I have consistently criticized the government for its political repression and human rights violations. Reports of rape, forced labor, human trafficking, suppression of civil liberties, and torture of political dissidents have caused me and my constituents great concern. I supported the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which imposes sanctions on the Burmese military junta, strengthens Burma's democratic forces and supports and recognizes the National League for Democracy as the legitimate representative of the Burmese people. I encourage other countries to join the United States in adopting similar measures toward Burma.

The Burmese Government must release Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners from detention. I also urge our administration, the United Nations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and the international community to continue to exert pressure on the Burmese junta to respect human rights and political freedoms. I ask President Bush to make Burma a high priority as he travels to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Bangkok in early October. As recommended by the Council on Foreign Relations, we should press for a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Aung San Suu Kyi's detention, the junta's human rights violations and their refusal to engage in dialogue with the democratic opposition. We should also encourage the Security Council to hold an emergency session on Burma to discuss implementing targeted sanctions on the regime.

Aung San Suu Kyi's hunger strike adds urgency to the dire predicament of the Burmese people. The Burmese military junta must realize that their egregious offences against their own population can no longer stand.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Joe Garton, a champion of the arts in the State of Wisconsin, and a dear friend who passed away August 2.

Joseph Walter Garton was born August 17, 1946, in Sheboygan, WI. After attending Amherst College in Massachusetts, serving as a VISTA volunteer in the Harlem section of New York City, receiving his doctorate from NYU in film studies, and marrying his beloved wife, Dierdre, Joe returned to Wisconsin to teach film history.

In 1996, Joe demonstrated his love for the arts by rescuing and restoring Ten Chimneys, the one-time summer home of Broadway legends Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne. Thanks to Joe's efforts, Ten Chimneys is now a national center for theater studies and a tourist destination for fans and artists from all over the world.

A husband, father, son, and brother--and soon to be grandfather--Joe Garton was an extraordinary man and I am lucky to have called him a good friend. In addition to restoring Ten Chimneys, Joe also transformed an 1856 farmhouse into Quigley Grove, a popular restaurant in Fitchburg, WI. Our community and our State have been greatly enriched by his work.

His love for the arts and architecture was only surpassed by his love for and dedication to his family. Their kindness to me over the past 20 years means a great deal to me personally. Both through his work and through his family, Joe leaves behind a tremendous legacy.

Joe was my friend and someone who was always there for me over the years. I am forever indebted to him. Mary and I will always remember Joe and have a particularly fond recollection of an incredible evening at Ten Chimneys several years ago. At a very challenging time in my career, Joe and Dierdre welcomed us with tremendous hospitality and Mary and I remain extremely grateful.

He was taken from us too soon, and we will always treasure his memory and his dedication to his family and friends. Joe, Dierdre and their entire family are in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the majority has finally cleared H.R. 2465, to extend Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code for another six months. As a consponsor of companion legislation, S. 1323, I have been working to get this done ever since the House passed its bill on June 23 by a vote 379-3. Chapter 12 expired at the end of June. It is unfortunate that it took an entire month for the Senate to take up this simple bill that keeps in place special simplified bankruptcy provisions for family matters. But with the harvest season just around the corner in many of our States. I am pleased that the Senate has taken this action. We have helped many farmers who are in difficult financial straits. That is a good thing.

It is high time that the Congress made chapter 12 permanent. It has been in place since the mid-1980s and has worked well. Along with the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, I have championed taking this step along with the number of important improvements to chapter 12, including adjusting the income limitations for inflation, which has never been done. The major bankruptcy bill that has been before the Congress for a number of years includes those improvements. I oppose the overall bankruptcy bill, but I believe that the provisions dealing with chapter 12 can and should be passed independently. Family farmers in difficult financial situations deserve our support. I applaud the Senate for finally passing this short extension, and I hope we will make chapter 12 permanent before the end of the year, when another extension will be necessary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak in morning business, and then be followed by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Mr. President, I enjoyed the comments very much of the Senator from South Carolina, and I agree so much with his comments about our trade policy. I think it is possibly the leading issue in the country right now.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on U.S. policy in Iraq. We have heard much about the President's reference in the State of the Union Address to intelligence suggesting that Saddam Hussein had recently attempted to secure uranium from Niger. Now we know our own intelligence agencies did not believe that information to be credible. It was employed in a reckless effort to sell the American public on a predetermined policy course.

I do applaud President Bush for taking responsibility for his words, but for weeks this administration reacted with a combination of denial and spin, and by choosing to make the Central Intelligence Agency, and then much later the Deputy National Security Advisor, the scapegoats for this incident.

I wish to state for the record that in all of the briefings leading up to the decision to go to war in Iraq, I found the CIA to be among the most straightforward and the most professional of those making presentations to help Members of Congress understand the facts. The facts in the briefing room never matched the public rhetoric of the administration's hard sell.

The hard sell was an encompassing thing. It included an array of justifications for taking up arms that seemed to shift from day to day and week to week. Today we find the administration returning to that menu of reasons for invading Iraq, claiming that whatever happened with the State of the Union, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and so at any case we did the right thing.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and I join the vast majority of the world in being happy to see him removed from power. But that was never the bottom line. The bottom line was the regular invocation of the line: ``We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.'' The bottom line was weapons of mass destruction. To pretend otherwise now is to suggest to the world that the United States of America will invoke one pretext for invading another country and then conveniently drop the subject later. That suggestion is so far from what this country's foreign policy should ever be about, so removed from what I firmly believe to be the intentions and desires of the vast majority of Americans, that it must be repudiated. But I fear that the hard sell, the use of debunked intelligence, the implied linkages to other issues have fostered that perception around the world, and that will make it harder for others to cooperate with us on the real foreign policy priority. The real foreign policy priority is the fight against terrorism.

The administration's hard sell recognized that fighting terrorists who attacked this country on September 11, 2001, is the most important national security issue for Americans. So even though they were selling us something else--selling us an invasion and occupation of a major Middle Eastern country even though intelligence did not reveal solid ties to al-Qaida--the administration, nonetheless, incorporated reference to al-Qaida in its hard sell, and they still do.

President Bush told us in his speech on the USS Lincoln that the battle of Iraq was won in a war that began on September 11. But this administration has never made any kind of compelling case to suggest that one had anything to do with the other.

This week, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Defense

Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suggested that Iraq--Iraq--rather than Afghanistan is the ``central battle'' in the fight against terrorism, and he claimed that al-Qaida attacks occurred in part because the United States was pursuing a policy to contain Saddam Hussein.

Secretary Wolfowitz did not say that the Iraqi Government had anything to do with the planning of the attacks on Khobar Towers or the attack on the USS Cole, but there these things are, in the same breath, in the same context. The rhetorical linkages continue because the hard sell is a hard job, especially now as the magnitude of the task before us is becoming clearer.

Five American soldiers were killed in Iraq over the weekend and another was killed on Monday and another on Wednesday and another on Thursday, marking 51 United States combat deaths and over 100 United States troops killed since the President declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq in May. We can all hope and pray that these attacks will decrease in their frequency and lethality, but there is no certainty that the attacks will let up anytime soon.

Despite the ``triumphant mission accomplished'' rhetoric in which the administration indulged several weeks ago, the friends and families of our men and women in uniform are living with the possibility of the knock on the door, the horrible news coming home. They are suffering with every news story, with every report, desperately worried about their husbands and wives, sons and daughters, and fathers and mothers. While, of course, they feel proud of their loved one's service, they also feel tremendously worried.

Yes, across America, there is a growing sense of unease--unease about the hostility our troops are facing; unease about the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom are nearly alone in trying to take this on, having alienated potential allies in the lead-up to war; unease about the giant task that lies ahead and the tremendous resources that will be required in terms of manpower, in terms of time, and in terms of money to see this through; unease about intelligence suggesting that the terrorists are planning more hijackings this summer, just as we read reports about insufficient homeland security resources forcing cuts in the number of flights that will have Federal air marshals on board. The fact is, many Americans do not feel more secure today; they feel vulnerable.

Months ago, I found I could not support a march to war without getting real answers to some basic questions about the cost and commitments we would be undertaking in the name of the American people. And I could not support a march to war when it appeared that our unilateral approach to Iraq would harm the progress of the fight against terrorism. But I want to tell you, Mr. President, I was deeply concerned about the issue of weapons of mass destruction. So I kept asking about the plan for securing such weapons and the means to make them so that they would not slip away in the chaos of war, secreted across borders or sold off to the highest bidder. No matter how hard I tried, over and over, I never got a real answer. And today we still have not found this material, a plain fact that raises very serious security concerns.

At some point in this debate, some seemed to be under the impression that asking questions and demanding that questions be answered signified something less than full support for our Armed Forces and something less than a complete commitment to the security of the United States of America. They were dead wrong. Asking questions, demanding answers, and exercising our judgment are just what the American people send us here to do. It is how we protect our interests. It is how we ensure that the brave men and women of our military do not find themselves in harm's way without an adequate explanation of their mission, without adequate training for the task before them, without the sense of futility or confusion that makes it that much harder to cope with constant threats and pervasive danger.

Now that we are beginning to get some answers, now that we are hearing that our military presence alone is costing about $1 billion a week, now that it is clear that rosy scenarios about reconstruction in Iraq will be self-financing are revealed to be the worst kind of self- deluding, wishful thinking, it is now that we need to look at the facts and adjust our course accordingly. Now we have GEN Tommy Franks' successor, General Abizaid, acknowledging that our troops are facing a ``classical guerrilla-type campaign'' that is ``getting more organized.''

Do you know what is happening? The hard sell is giving way to the hard truth. These probably are not the answers the American people were expecting when their questions were met with evasion or with vague exhortations to ``just trust us.'' I did not support the decision that led us to this place, but I wholeheartedly support the troops who are in the hot seat now, and I support their families. I support the next generation of Americans who deserve better than to be saddled with massive debts, in part because their Government was unwilling to do what it takes to get capable partners on board to help us shoulder the burden that now weighs so very heavily on this country.

I believe we must keep the questions coming. We must get real answers, and we must all work together to move toward a wiser approach. I do not want to hear a hard sell anymore. I want to hear the answers to the hard questions, and I want to work on the hard problems and the hard choices that are before us.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, energy policy is an important issue for America and one which my Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. The bill before us seeks to address important issues, such as the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the tradeoffs between the need for energy and the need to protect the quality of our environment, and the need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the importance of energy policy, an Energy bill is a very serious matter and I do not take a decision to oppose such a bill lightly. In my view, this bill does not achieve the correct balance on several important issues, which is why I will oppose it. In addition, I am deeply troubled by the process that has led us to abandon efforts to develop meaningful energy legislation, and instead simply stop our work, take up last year's bill, and pass it.

In my work on this legislation, I have heard from large numbers of my constituents. Of the many pieces of correspondence I received on the matter of a national energy policy was a detailed paper prepared by a group of students at Marquette University. The students wrote, as part of their interdisciplinary minor in environmental ethics, a comprehensive analysis and a series of recommendations regarding energy usage and efficiency. I commend and compliment these students on their hard work, and I am very pleased to see young people becoming so involved in our political process.

In conducting their analysis and crafting their recommendations, the students underscored that it is imperative that our focus in developing energy policy remains resolutely long term. I share this belief, and I agree with the students' assessment that sensitivity is required in working to craft an energy policy because of its effect on consumers, on our society, and on the environment. During my time in the Senate I have consistently worked to ensure that energy policy is both environmentally and fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, I cannot assure these students, or any of my other constituents, that this bill meets those goals.

This bill now contains a renewable portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to generate or purchase 10 percent of the electricity they sell from renewable sources by 2020. I supported an amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, last year to increase this percentage to 20 percent, but it was watered down to 8 percent. Additional exemptions in this bill make this target actually a target of 4-5 percent of new generation from renewable sources by 2010. We can and should do better on renewable energy sources. This bill should have set a serious target, and we should have had a floor debate on this issue.

In addition, this bill repeals the pro-consumer Public Utility Holding Company Act, the Federal Government's most important mechanism to protect electricity consumers. The Senate failed to adopt my amendment to protect electricity consumers, investors, and small businesses from abusive transactions between utilities and affiliate companies within the same corporate family. It also failed to pass a proposal by my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, banning Enron- like trading schemes. The bill should have given the Federal Government more oversight of utility mergers and tried to prevent utilities from passing on the costs of bad investments to consumers and from using affiliate companies to out-compete small businesses. Also, the electricity provisions of the bill do not provide additional oversight of energy markets. This would have been addressed by an amendment by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, that passed and which I supported, that would have fostered a more stable market with transparent transactions and helped to prevent another Enron.

Finally, I am also concerned that we included $14 billion in tax breaks without paying for them on this bill. Our budget position has deteriorated significantly over the last year, in large part because of the massive tax cut that was enacted. We now face years of projected budget deficits. The only way we will climb out of this deficit hole is to return to some sense of fiscal responsibility, and first and foremost that means making sure the bills we pass are offset. Without offsetting the cost of the tax package, we are digging our deficit hole even deeper and adding to the massive debt already facing our children and grandchildren.

The American people deserve better than this bill, and I cannot vote in favor of it. This measure will need to be greatly improved in conference to get my vote.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act.

This bill would amend the Patriot Act to protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. It would set reasonable limits on the Federal Government's access to library, bookseller, medical, and other sensitive, personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related foreign intelligence authority.

I am pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues--Senators Bingaman, Kennedy, Cantwell, Durbin, Wyden, Corzine, Akaka, and Jeffords--have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

I and millions of other patriotic Americans love our country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad, but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home.

Much of our Nation's strength comes from our constitutional liberties and respect for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for our two and a quarter century history. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values, are what make our country worth fighting for in the fight against terrorism.

Here at home, there is no question that the FBI needs ample resources and legal authority to prevent future acts of terrorism. But the Patriot Act went too far when it comes to the government's access to personal information about law-abiding Americans.

Even though in the end I opposed the Patriot Act, there were several provisions that I did support. For example, Congress was right to expand the category of business records that the FBI could obtain by subpoena pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prior to the Patriot Act, the FBI could seek a court order to obtain only travel records--such as airline, hotel, and car rental records--and records maintained by storage facilities. The Patriot Act allows any business records to be subpoenaed. I don't quibble with that change.

But what my colleagues and I do find problematic--and an increasing number of Americans who value their privacy and First Amendment rights agree with us--is that the current law allows the FBI broad, almost unfettered access to personal information about law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism or spying.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act requires the FBI to show in an application to the court for a subpoena that the documents are ``sought for'' an international terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. There is no requirement that the FBI make a showing of individualized suspicion that the documents relate to a suspected terrorism or spy.

In other words, under current law, the FBI could serve a subpoena on a library for all the borrowing records of its patrons or on a bookseller for the

purchasing records of its customers simply by asserting that they want the records for a terrorism investigation.

During the last year, librarians and booksellers have become increasingly concerned by the potential for abuse of this law. I was pleased to stand with the American Booksellers Association and the Free Expression Network a little over a year ago when we first started to raise these concerns.

Librarians and booksellers are concerned that under the Patriot Act, the FBI could seize records from libraries and booksellers in order to monitor what books Americans have purchased or borrowed, or who has used a library's or bookstore's internet computer stations, even if there is no evidence that the person is a terrorist or spy, or has any connection to a terrorist or spy.

These concerns are so strong, that some librarians across the country have taken the unusual step of destroying records of patrons' book and computer use, as well as posting signs on computer stations warning patrons that whatever they read or access on the internet could be monitored by the Federal Government.

As a librarian in California said, ``We felt strongly that this had to be done. . . . The government has never had this kind of power before. It feels like Big Brother.''

And as the executive director of the American Library Association said, ``This law is dangerous. . . . I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy? There's no clear link between a person's intellectual pursuits and their actions.''

The American people do not know how many or what kind of requests federal agents have made for library records under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department refuses to release that information to the public.

But in a survey released by the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, about 550 libraries around the Nation reported having received requests from Federal or local law enforcement during the past year. About half of the libraries said they complied with the law enforcement request, and another half indicated that they had not.

Americans don't know much about these incidents, because the law also contains a provision that prohibits anyone who receives a subpoena from disclosing that fact to anyone.

David Schwartz, president of Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops, the oldest and largest independent bookseller in Milwaukee, summed up well the American values at stake when he said: ``The FBI already has significant subpoena powers to obtain records. There is no need for the government to invade a person's privacy in this way. This is a uniquely un-American tool, and it should be rejected. The books we read are a very private part of our lives. People could stop buying books, and they could be terrified into silence.''

Afraid to read books, terrified into silence. Is that the America we want? Is that the America where we'd like to live? I don't think so. And I hope my colleagues will agree.

It is time to reconsider those provisions of the Patriot Act that are un-American and, frankly, un-patriotic.

Bu my concerns with the Patriot Act go beyond library and bookseller records. Under section 215 of the Patriot Act, the FBI could seek any records maintained by a business. These business records could contain sensitive, personal information--for example, medical records maintained by a doctor or hospital or credit records maintained by a credit agency. All the FBI would have to do is simply assert that the records are ``sought for'' its terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act goes too far. Americans rightfully have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their library, bookstore, medical, financial, or other records containing personal information. Prudent safeguards are need to protect these legitimate privacy interests.

The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act is a reasonable solution. It would restore a pre-Patriot Act requirement that the FBI make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy.

My bill will not prevent the FBI from doing its job. My bill recognizes that the post-September 11 world is a different world. There are circumstances when the FBI should legitimately have access to library, bookseller, or other personal information.

I would like to take a moment to explain how the safeguard in my bill would be applied. Suppose the FBI is conducting an investigation of an international terrorist organization. It has information that suspected members of the group live in a particular neighborhood. The FBI would like to serve a subpoena on the library in the suspects' neighborhood. Under current law, the FBI could decide to ask the library for all records concerning anyone who has ever borrowed a book or used a computer, and what books were borrowed, simply by asserting that the documents are sought for a terrorism investigation. But under my bill, the FBI could not do so. The FBI would have to set forth specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a suspected terrorist. The FBI could subpoena only those library records--such as borrowing records or computer sign-in logs--that pertain to the suspected terrorists. The FBI could not obtain library records concerning individuals who are not suspected terrorists.

So, under my bill, the FBI can still obtain documents that it legitimately needs, but my bill would also protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. I might add, that if, as the Justice Department says, the FBI is using its Patriot Act powers in a responsible manner, does not seek the records of law-abiding Americans, and only seeks the records of suspected terrorists or suspected spies, then there is no reason for the Department to object to my bill.

The second part of my bill would address privacy concerns with another Federal law enforcement power expanded by the Patriot Act--the FBI's national security letter authority, or what is sometimes referred to as ``administrative subpoena'' authority because the FBI does not need court approval to use this power.

My bill would amend section 505 of the Patriot Act. Part of this section relates to the production of records maintained by electronic communications providers. Libraries or bookstores with internet access for customers could be deemed ``electronic communication providers'' and therefore be subject to a request by the FBI under its administrative subpoena authority.

As I mentioned earlier, some librarians are so concerned about the potential for abuse by the FBI that they have taken matters into their own hands before the FBI knocks on their door. Some librarians have begun shredding on a daily basis sign-in logs and other documents relating to the public's use of library computer terminals to access the Internet.

Again, safeguards are needed to ensure that any individual who accesses the internet at a library or bookstore does not automatically give up all expectations of privacy. Like the section 215 I've discussed, my bill would require an individualized showing by the FBI of how the records of internet usage maintained by a library or bookseller pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy.

Yes, the American people want the FBI to be focused on preventing terrorism. And, yes, it may make sense to make some changes to the law to allow the FBI access to the information that it needs to prevent terrorism. But we do not need to change the values that constitute who we are as a nation in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We can protect both our nation and our privacy and civil liberties.

An increasing number of Americans are beginning to understand that the Patriot Act went too far. Three States and over 130 cities and counties across the country have now passed resolutions expressing opposition to the Patriot Act. And it's not just the Berkeleys and Madisons of the Nation, but other States and communities with strong libertarian values, such as Alaska and cities in Montana, have passed such resolutions.

I have many concerns with the Patriot Act. I am not seeking to repeal it, in whole or in part. My colleagues and I are only seeking to modify two provisions that pose serious potential for abuse.

The privacy of law-abiding Americans is at stake. Congress should act to

protect our privacy. And my bill is a reasonable approach to do just that.

I urge my colleagues to join me and support the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to offer the Data- Mining Reporting Act of 2003. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as data-mining is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and private records on each and every American. Almost weekly, we learn about a new data-mining program under development like the newly named Terrorism Information Awareness program. Congress should not be learning the details about these programs after millions of dollars are spent testing and using data- mining against unsuspecting Americans.

Coupled with the expanded domestic surveillance already undertaken by this Administration, the unchecked development of data-mining is a dangerous step that threatens one of the most important values that we are fighting for in the war against terrorism--freedom. My bill would require all Federal agencies to report to Congress within 90 days and every year thereafter on data-mining programs used to find a pattern indicating terrorist or other criminal activity and how these programs implicate the civil liberties and privacy of all Americans. If it was necessary, information in the various reports would even be classified.

The bill does not end funding for any program, determine the rules for use of the technology or threaten any on-going investigation that uses data-mining technology. But, with complete information about the current data-mining plans and practices of the Federal Government, Congress will be able to conduct a thorough review of the costs and benefits of the practice of data-mining on a program by program basis and make considered judgments about which programs should go forward and which should not.

My bill would provide Congress with information about the nature of the technology and the data that will be used. The Data-Mining Reporting Act would require all government agencies to assess the efficacy of the data-mining technology and whether the technology can deliver on the promises of each program. In addition, my bill would make sure that the federal agencies using data-mining technology have considered and developed policies to protect the privacy and due process rights of individuals and ensure that only accurate information is collected and used.

Without Congressional review and oversight, government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense will be able to collect and analyze a combination of intelligence data and personal information like individuals' traffic violations, credit card purchases, travel records, medical records, communications records, and virtually any information contained in commercial or public databases. Through comprehensive data-mining, everything from people's video rentals or drugstore purchases made with a credit card to their most private health records could be fed into a computer and monitored and reviewed by the Federal Government.

Using massive data mining, the government hopes to be able to detect potential terrorists. There is no evidence, however, that data-mining will, in fact, prevent terrorism. Data-mining programs under development are being used to look into the future before being tested to determine if they would have even been able to anticipate past events, like September 11 or the Oklahoma City bombing. Before we develop the ability to feed personal information about every man, woman and child into a giant computer, we should learn what data-mining can and can't do and what limits and protections are needed.

One must also consider the potential for errors in data-mining for example, credit agencies that have data about John R. Smith on John D. Smith's credit report make the prospect of ensnaring many innocents is real.

Most Americans believe that their private lives should remain private. Data-mining programs run the risk of intruding into the lives of individuals who have nothing to do with terrorism but who trust that their credit reports, shopping habits and doctor visits would not become a part of a gigantic computerized search engine, operating without any controls or oversight.

The Administration should be required to report to Congress about the impact of the various data-mining programs now underway or being studied, and the impact those programs may have on our privacy and civil liberties so that Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of this practice come at too high a price to our privacy and personal liberties.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. All it asks for is information to which Congress and the American people are entitled.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act.

This bill would amend the Patriot Act to protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. It would set reasonable limits on the Federal Government's access to library, bookseller, medical, and other sensitive, personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related foreign intelligence authority.

I am pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues--Senators Bingaman, Kennedy, Cantwell, Durbin, Wyden, Corzine, Akaka, and Jeffords--have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

I and millions of other patriotic Americans love our country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad, but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home.

Much of our Nation's strength comes from our constitutional liberties and respect for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for our two and a quarter century history. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values, are what make our country worth fighting for in the fight against terrorism.

Here at home, there is no question that the FBI needs ample resources and legal authority to prevent future acts of terrorism. But the Patriot Act went too far when it comes to the government's access to personal information about law-abiding Americans.

Even though in the end I opposed the Patriot Act, there were several provisions that I did support. For example, Congress was right to expand the category of business records that the FBI could obtain by subpoena pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prior to the Patriot Act, the FBI could seek a court order to obtain only travel records--such as airline, hotel, and car rental records--and records maintained by storage facilities. The Patriot Act allows any business records to be subpoenaed. I don't quibble with that change.

But what my colleagues and I do find problematic--and an increasing number of Americans who value their privacy and First Amendment rights agree with us--is that the current law allows the FBI broad, almost unfettered access to personal information about law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism or spying.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act requires the FBI to show in an application to the court for a subpoena that the documents are ``sought for'' an international terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. There is no requirement that the FBI make a showing of individualized suspicion that the documents relate to a suspected terrorism or spy.

In other words, under current law, the FBI could serve a subpoena on a library for all the borrowing records of its patrons or on a bookseller for the

purchasing records of its customers simply by asserting that they want the records for a terrorism investigation.

During the last year, librarians and booksellers have become increasingly concerned by the potential for abuse of this law. I was pleased to stand with the American Booksellers Association and the Free Expression Network a little over a year ago when we first started to raise these concerns.

Librarians and booksellers are concerned that under the Patriot Act, the FBI could seize records from libraries and booksellers in order to monitor what books Americans have purchased or borrowed, or who has used a library's or bookstore's internet computer stations, even if there is no evidence that the person is a terrorist or spy, or has any connection to a terrorist or spy.

These concerns are so strong, that some librarians across the country have taken the unusual step of destroying records of patrons' book and computer use, as well as posting signs on computer stations warning patrons that whatever they read or access on the internet could be monitored by the Federal Government.

As a librarian in California said, ``We felt strongly that this had to be done. . . . The government has never had this kind of power before. It feels like Big Brother.''

And as the executive director of the American Library Association said, ``This law is dangerous. . . . I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy? There's no clear link between a person's intellectual pursuits and their actions.''

The American people do not know how many or what kind of requests federal agents have made for library records under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department refuses to release that information to the public.

But in a survey released by the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, about 550 libraries around the Nation reported having received requests from Federal or local law enforcement during the past year. About half of the libraries said they complied with the law enforcement request, and another half indicated that they had not.

Americans don't know much about these incidents, because the law also contains a provision that prohibits anyone who receives a subpoena from disclosing that fact to anyone.

David Schwartz, president of Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops, the oldest and largest independent bookseller in Milwaukee, summed up well the American values at stake when he said: ``The FBI already has significant subpoena powers to obtain records. There is no need for the government to invade a person's privacy in this way. This is a uniquely un-American tool, and it should be rejected. The books we read are a very private part of our lives. People could stop buying books, and they could be terrified into silence.''

Afraid to read books, terrified into silence. Is that the America we want? Is that the America where we'd like to live? I don't think so. And I hope my colleagues will agree.

It is time to reconsider those provisions of the Patriot Act that are un-American and, frankly, un-patriotic.

Bu my concerns with the Patriot Act go beyond library and bookseller records. Under section 215 of the Patriot Act, the FBI could seek any records maintained by a business. These business records could contain sensitive, personal information--for example, medical records maintained by a doctor or hospital or credit records maintained by a credit agency. All the FBI would have to do is simply assert that the records are ``sought for'' its terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act goes too far. Americans rightfully have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their library, bookstore, medical, financial, or other records containing personal information. Prudent safeguards are need to protect these legitimate privacy interests.

The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act is a reasonable solution. It would restore a pre-Patriot Act requirement that the FBI make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy.

My bill will not prevent the FBI from doing its job. My bill recognizes that the post-September 11 world is a different world. There are circumstances when the FBI should legitimately have access to library, bookseller, or other personal information.

I would like to take a moment to explain how the safeguard in my bill would be applied. Suppose the FBI is conducting an investigation of an international terrorist organization. It has information that suspected members of the group live in a particular neighborhood. The FBI would like to serve a subpoena on the library in the suspects' neighborhood. Under current law, the FBI could decide to ask the library for all records concerning anyone who has ever borrowed a book or used a computer, and what books were borrowed, simply by asserting that the documents are sought for a terrorism investigation. But under my bill, the FBI could not do so. The FBI would have to set forth specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a suspected terrorist. The FBI could subpoena only those library records--such as borrowing records or computer sign-in logs--that pertain to the suspected terrorists. The FBI could not obtain library records concerning individuals who are not suspected terrorists.

So, under my bill, the FBI can still obtain documents that it legitimately needs, but my bill would also protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. I might add, that if, as the Justice Department says, the FBI is using its Patriot Act powers in a responsible manner, does not seek the records of law-abiding Americans, and only seeks the records of suspected terrorists or suspected spies, then there is no reason for the Department to object to my bill.

The second part of my bill would address privacy concerns with another Federal law enforcement power expanded by the Patriot Act--the FBI's national security letter authority, or what is sometimes referred to as ``administrative subpoena'' authority because the FBI does not need court approval to use this power.

My bill would amend section 505 of the Patriot Act. Part of this section relates to the production of records maintained by electronic communications providers. Libraries or bookstores with internet access for customers could be deemed ``electronic communication providers'' and therefore be subject to a request by the FBI under its administrative subpoena authority.

As I mentioned earlier, some librarians are so concerned about the potential for abuse by the FBI that they have taken matters into their own hands before the FBI knocks on their door. Some librarians have begun shredding on a daily basis sign-in logs and other documents relating to the public's use of library computer terminals to access the Internet.

Again, safeguards are needed to ensure that any individual who accesses the internet at a library or bookstore does not automatically give up all expectations of privacy. Like the section 215 I've discussed, my bill would require an individualized showing by the FBI of how the records of internet usage maintained by a library or bookseller pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy.

Yes, the American people want the FBI to be focused on preventing terrorism. And, yes, it may make sense to make some changes to the law to allow the FBI access to the information that it needs to prevent terrorism. But we do not need to change the values that constitute who we are as a nation in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We can protect both our nation and our privacy and civil liberties.

An increasing number of Americans are beginning to understand that the Patriot Act went too far. Three States and over 130 cities and counties across the country have now passed resolutions expressing opposition to the Patriot Act. And it's not just the Berkeleys and Madisons of the Nation, but other States and communities with strong libertarian values, such as Alaska and cities in Montana, have passed such resolutions.

I have many concerns with the Patriot Act. I am not seeking to repeal it, in whole or in part. My colleagues and I are only seeking to modify two provisions that pose serious potential for abuse.

The privacy of law-abiding Americans is at stake. Congress should act to

protect our privacy. And my bill is a reasonable approach to do just that.

I urge my colleagues to join me and support the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to offer the Data- Mining Reporting Act of 2003. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as data-mining is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and private records on each and every American. Almost weekly, we learn about a new data-mining program under development like the newly named Terrorism Information Awareness program. Congress should not be learning the details about these programs after millions of dollars are spent testing and using data- mining against unsuspecting Americans.

Coupled with the expanded domestic surveillance already undertaken by this Administration, the unchecked development of data-mining is a dangerous step that threatens one of the most important values that we are fighting for in the war against terrorism--freedom. My bill would require all Federal agencies to report to Congress within 90 days and every year thereafter on data-mining programs used to find a pattern indicating terrorist or other criminal activity and how these programs implicate the civil liberties and privacy of all Americans. If it was necessary, information in the various reports would even be classified.

The bill does not end funding for any program, determine the rules for use of the technology or threaten any on-going investigation that uses data-mining technology. But, with complete information about the current data-mining plans and practices of the Federal Government, Congress will be able to conduct a thorough review of the costs and benefits of the practice of data-mining on a program by program basis and make considered judgments about which programs should go forward and which should not.

My bill would provide Congress with information about the nature of the technology and the data that will be used. The Data-Mining Reporting Act would require all government agencies to assess the efficacy of the data-mining technology and whether the technology can deliver on the promises of each program. In addition, my bill would make sure that the federal agencies using data-mining technology have considered and developed policies to protect the privacy and due process rights of individuals and ensure that only accurate information is collected and used.

Without Congressional review and oversight, government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense will be able to collect and analyze a combination of intelligence data and personal information like individuals' traffic violations, credit card purchases, travel records, medical records, communications records, and virtually any information contained in commercial or public databases. Through comprehensive data-mining, everything from people's video rentals or drugstore purchases made with a credit card to their most private health records could be fed into a computer and monitored and reviewed by the Federal Government.

Using massive data mining, the government hopes to be able to detect potential terrorists. There is no evidence, however, that data-mining will, in fact, prevent terrorism. Data-mining programs under development are being used to look into the future before being tested to determine if they would have even been able to anticipate past events, like September 11 or the Oklahoma City bombing. Before we develop the ability to feed personal information about every man, woman and child into a giant computer, we should learn what data-mining can and can't do and what limits and protections are needed.

One must also consider the potential for errors in data-mining for example, credit agencies that have data about John R. Smith on John D. Smith's credit report make the prospect of ensnaring many innocents is real.

Most Americans believe that their private lives should remain private. Data-mining programs run the risk of intruding into the lives of individuals who have nothing to do with terrorism but who trust that their credit reports, shopping habits and doctor visits would not become a part of a gigantic computerized search engine, operating without any controls or oversight.

The Administration should be required to report to Congress about the impact of the various data-mining programs now underway or being studied, and the impact those programs may have on our privacy and civil liberties so that Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of this practice come at too high a price to our privacy and personal liberties.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. All it asks for is information to which Congress and the American people are entitled.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Yes.

My attempt was to set aside what I thought was a pending amendment to your amendment and then to offer a different amendment to your amendment. And I make that request again.

Madam President, I ask that in the form of a unanimous consent request, that the pending amendment to the Domenici amendment be set aside.

I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Thank you, Madam President.

Amendment No. 1416 To Amendment No. 1412

Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback. I am pleased that the Senator from Kansas is joining me in this effort, and he has done so because I know he shares my view that the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act in the underlying bill creates a serious regulatory void and market flaw that Congress should correct.

I am so pleased this is a bipartisan effort. I believe we have broad support in this body and beyond for these amendments.

These amendments would improve on the bill by making clear the actions that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--or FERC--must take to ensure that deregulated holding companies do not outcompete our small businesses, damage their financial standing, and then pass the costs of bad investments to consumers.

Our amendment is supported by a wide and impressive coalition of business, labor, financial, and consumer groups which include: the Independent Electrical Contractors, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors, Associated Builders and Contractors, National Electrical Contractors Association, Mechanical Contractors, Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the National Alliance for Fair Competition, the Small Business Legislative Council, Consumers for Fair Competition, and the Association of Financial Guaranty Insurors.

The Senator from Kansas and I are concerned because electricity is not like other commodities. Electricity is essential to public well- being. When this bill is enacted and the Public Utility Holding Company Act is repealed, a strong incentive will exist for large utilities with the financial resources and the potential to exercise market power to get larger. Already, the electric utility industry is undergoing rapid consolidation. In the past 3 years alone, there have been more than 30 major utility mergers and acquisitions, creating large multistate holding companies, including several in my own home State and with utilities in Minnesota that serve Wisconsin. Many companies have seen their stock plunge and credit ratings downgraded, and these companies are now prime buy-out targets.

I acknowledge that deregulation is not inherently bad and should not always be prevented. It can produce efficiencies, economies of scale and cost savings for electrical consumers. However, it can also reduce competition, increase costs, and frustrate effective regulator oversight. This amendment protects consumers from assuming the costs and risks of utility diversification into non-utility businesses, prevents utilities from subsidizing affiliate ventures and competing unfairly with independent businesses, and protects utility investors. It does so by requiring FERC to issue regulations that require affiliate, associate, and subsidiary companies to be independent, separate, and distinct entities from public utilities; maintain separate books and records; structure their governance in a manner that would prevent creditors from having recourse against the assets of public utilities; and prohibit cross-subsidizing, or shifting costs from affiliate, associate, or subsidiary companies to the public utilities.

The Public Utility Holding Company Act was enacted in 1935 to rein in the pervasive economic and political sway that holding companies held over the Nation's public utilities at that time. Studies conducted by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. House of Representatives at the time demonstrated that the holding companies, which controlled approximately 80 percent of the Nation's gas and electric utilities, were exploiting both consumers and investors. At the time PUHCA was passed, 16 major holding companies and their utility subsidiaries produced more than three-quarters of the electric energy in this country.

Individual States and localities enacted their own laws, but were unable to control these multi-State holding companies--many of which also held investments in foreign countries--and their utility subsidiaries. Holding companies created organizational structures that extended across State lines, specifically to place the holding companies beyond the regulatory reach of the individual State commissions. In fact, registered holding companies were formed specifically for the purpose of avoiding regulation. Holding companies leveraged their utility assets to gain financing for risky investment ventures and engaged in anticompetitive behavior.

PUHCA requires that proposed investments benefit the utility system, and not harm ratepayers, shareholders or the public interest.

PUHCA requires that holding companies seeking to acquire utilities obtain preapproval from the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, a particular class of holding companies, known as ``registered holding companies,'' those holding companies with utility subsidiaries in more than one State, must obtain SEC approval also for acquisitions of nonutility businesses. The SEC has authority to oversee and provide advance approval for the complicated financial transactions of the registered holding companies,

including intrasystem transactions and diversification into unregulated businesses.

PUHCA does these things, but the bill before us repeals PUHCA. As a result, registered holding companies will be able to freely diversity into unregulated businesses, and to engage in interaffiliate transactions in which the holding company and nonutility businesses drain financial resources and key assets from the utility businesses.

In California, for example, holding company maneuvers have left California utilities in a weakened financial condition. Billions of dollars have been moved out of their utility companies into the holding company and then into their unregulated affiliates which are protected by laws that now put this cash beyond the reach of even the holding company. As a result, the utilities have had too little cash to carry out their utility obligations.

In addition, even with PUHCA, we are already experiencing concerns about utilities expanding into electricity-related services and outcompeting small businesses in my State. Small contractors can't compete against big utilities in areas like energy efficiency upgrades to private homes, when big utilities can use existing assets like personnel, equipment, and vehicles to perform those services. When PUCHA is repealed, utilities will be able to expand into other business areas, and we should make certain that we protect small businesses.

This amendment is good public policy, and it will strengthen the Senate's position in Conference with the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues concerned about ensuring fairness in a deregulated system to support this amendment.

Let me say how delighted I am to be working with the Senator from Kansas who I know has a deep and abiding commitment to small businesses as well.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his excellent work. It is an excellent example of why this is so important. I appreciate his support in working with me on it.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of organizations in support of the amendment be printed in the Record at this time.

Madam President, I am pleased that the ranking member of the committee, Senator Bingaman, is indicating positive remarks about this amendment as well. I wonder if he may wish to make some remarks in support at this time.

Madam President, I do not expect a great deal of time at all. I would like the opportunity to respond to any comments the chairman of the committee might make.

First, I thank the Senator for the kind remarks. I do not believe we disagree with the goals with regard to the underlying amendment. In fact, I regard this, and I think Senator Brownback regards this, as a friendly amendment; that is, an attempt to make sure this dramatic change, the repeal of PUHCA, gets off the ground properly and does not, in effect, throw out the baby with the bathwater.

My amendment does not attempt to repeal the repeal. I think if one was listening to the remarks of the Senator from New Mexico they might have gotten the impression we were sort of pretending we were repealing PUHCA and then putting it back in effect. That is not in any way, shape, or form what we are trying to do.

We are trying to address a very specific problem the Senator from Kansas laid out very well, the cross-subsidization problem, when a utility holding company owns other affiliated entities and the problems that occur when those assets are moving back and forth in a way I and many people think threatens ratepayers as well as investors.

Specifically, the Senator from New Mexico talks about the fact that there are those who are poised and ready to invest in the utility industry if changes are made, presumably such as the repeal of PUHCA. It is my belief that is exactly what our amendment helps do. I think it helps create a scenario that will make investors more positive rather than less positive.

The Senator's argument about somehow our amendment will scare off investors is really a 5-year-old argument. PUHCA repeal, without the bottom-up regulation these ring-fencing provisions of this amendment provide, will continue to keep capital away. We do not have some kind of insurance for investors in utilities that the resources of those utilities will not be spirited away to these affiliates. Then they will not have the confidence in investing, and I want that investment to happen.

Regulatory insulation, and that is what the Feingold-Brownback amendment does, will help restore investor confidence. It will actually help achieve the chairman's goal. Our belief, and our hope, is our amendment will help bring order to what is a beleaguered sector, not that it will wreak havoc.

Utilities provide an essential public service. Our amendment insulates these utilities wherever they are in a corporate family. So what we are doing is providing a clear distinction of what entities are regulated or not.

Now, if we are looking at investments, that is what we want to see. We want to know exactly what we are getting into. We want to know what our dollars are going to be used for and it helps restore investor confidence and consumer confidence, not the reverse.

This is a good amendment. It has strong bipartisan support. There have not been a lot of Feingold-Brownback amendments over the years, even though I thoroughly enjoy working with the Senator. I think what it represents is a powerful commitment on the part of those of us who are working on this to protect small businesses in our State.

I will not read again the list of the contractors and small business organizations that support this effort, but it is the kind of mainstream people that made my State. It is the kind of mainstream people that made the Chair's State. It is the kind of mainstream people that made the Senator from Kansas's State. They do not want to be driven out of business by utilities able to somehow move these assets back and forth through affiliates that are not properly regulated. That is a reasonable request.

Even more importantly and in response to the Senator from New Mexico, we are trying to make sure investors feel comfortable so it will help the utility industry. The worst thing we can do is raise the specter of another Enron. The phrase ``cooking the books'' dominated our headlines a year ago, and our amendment is about making sure there will not be any accusations or reality of cooking the books when it comes to a utility and its affiliates, that they will have two separate sets of books.

Yes, the Senator's underlying amendment is good. It allows FERC to look at the books. If they look at the books and there are no standards or rules about keeping the entities separate, what is the good? There need to be some teeth in it. That is what our amendment does.

I suggest this is a reasonable, fairly modest amendment that will make the Domenici substitute even better. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to bring this debate to a close, but I want to quickly respond to a couple of comments from the Senators from New Mexico and Idaho.

When the Senator from New Mexico was making his comments he talked about the fact the State commissions, public service commissions, and others would be able to sort of take care of these kinds of problems that would exist in a post-PUHCA repeal era. I don't think that is an adequate answer.

The fact is, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, in many cases these are interstate utility entities, and it is that very fact that has made it so difficult, prior to PUHCA, for there to be any appropriate regulation at all. So we do need some kind of appropriate law that homes in on this problem of utility holding companies and affiliates and the cross-subsidization problem that exists. That is the first point I want to make, that the State level is simply not going to do it.

The second point relates to the comments of the Senator from Idaho. The premise of the remarks of the Senator is that somehow my amendment undoes the repeal of PUHCA. It does not do that. Our amendment is necessary and helpful and good for investors and consumers and ratepayers and small business, whether PUHCA is repealed or not. The argument is a red herring. The argument has no relationship to the issue of whether these provisions are needed.

Maybe we could put it this way: The Senator from Idaho believes that a 1933 law known as PUHCA is no longer the right law for this time. We are proposing what we believe to be the appropriate, measured, consumer confidence and investor confidence provision for 2003, not 1935. So we are accepting in the amendment the repeal of PUHCA, but we are adding this provision that is necessary in 2003, not 1935.

The only other alternative, if we do not do at least our amendment, is we are going to be returning to the environment that we are just coming out of, the environment that everyone admits was a disaster for consumers and that it destroyed consumer confidence and investor confidence because of the recklessness and the cooking of the books that went on all over this country, particularly in the utility industry.

We have to make sure what we do here does not undercut the confidence we want to increase for consumers and for investors. That is the purpose of our amendment. We are not trying to undo the chairman's primary purpose of his amendment.

I yield the floor. Assuming that is the end of the debate, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join with the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, in introducing legislation that we believe will significantly improve media coverage of elections and reduce the negative impact that skyrocketing TV advertising costs have on Federal campaigns. And I am very glad that the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has again joined us as an original cosponsor of this bill.

Although broadcast advertising is one of the most effective forms of communication in our democracy, it also diminishes the quality of our electoral process in two ways. First, broadcasters often fail to provide adequate coverage to the issues in elections, focusing instead on the horse race, if they cover elections at all. Second, the extraordinarily high cost of advertising time fuels the insatiable need for candidates to spend more and more time fundraising instead of talking with voters. These two problems interact to undermine the great promise that television has for promoting democratic discourse in our country.

It need not be this way. The public owns the airwaves and licenses them to broadcasters. Broadcasters pay nothing for their use of this scarce and very valuable public resource. Their only ``payment'' is a promise to serve the public interest, a promise that often goes unfulfilled. A study by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that only 18 percent of gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional debates held in 2000 were televised by network TV and an additional 18 percent were covered by PBS or small independent TV stations. More than 63 percent were not televised at all. This is shocking in a democracy that depends on information and open debate.

The bill we introduce today addresses these problems by requiring broadcast stations to devote a reasonable amount of air time to election programming. It would also direct the FCC to create a voucher system in which candidates and parties would receive vouchers they could use for paid radio or TV advertising time, financed by a broadcast spectrum usage fee. Candidates would qualify for vouchers based on a ratio matched to the amount of small dollar donations they raise.

Our proposal would allow candidates to leverage their grassroots fundraising and would provide greater campaign resources to candidates without requiring them to become more beholden to special interests. The proposal would also make air time available to political parties, which could be directed to underfunded candidates and challengers who have a harder and harder time getting their message out under the current system as the costs of advertising continue to rise.

Senator McCain and I remain devoted to improving the way our electoral process functions and reducing the impact of big money on our democracy. This bill will advance that cause in a very significant and necessary way. I look forward to working with my colleagues to fine tune this bill and enact it into law. Together we can make campaigns less expensive, and more informative, using the public airwaves as a tool to improve our democracy.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join with the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, in introducing legislation that we believe will significantly improve media coverage of elections and reduce the negative impact that skyrocketing TV advertising costs have on Federal campaigns. And I am very glad that the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has again joined us as an original cosponsor of this bill.

Although broadcast advertising is one of the most effective forms of communication in our democracy, it also diminishes the quality of our electoral process in two ways. First, broadcasters often fail to provide adequate coverage to the issues in elections, focusing instead on the horse race, if they cover elections at all. Second, the extraordinarily high cost of advertising time fuels the insatiable need for candidates to spend more and more time fundraising instead of talking with voters. These two problems interact to undermine the great promise that television has for promoting democratic discourse in our country.

It need not be this way. The public owns the airwaves and licenses them to broadcasters. Broadcasters pay nothing for their use of this scarce and very valuable public resource. Their only ``payment'' is a promise to serve the public interest, a promise that often goes unfulfilled. A study by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that only 18 percent of gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional debates held in 2000 were televised by network TV and an additional 18 percent were covered by PBS or small independent TV stations. More than 63 percent were not televised at all. This is shocking in a democracy that depends on information and open debate.

The bill we introduce today addresses these problems by requiring broadcast stations to devote a reasonable amount of air time to election programming. It would also direct the FCC to create a voucher system in which candidates and parties would receive vouchers they could use for paid radio or TV advertising time, financed by a broadcast spectrum usage fee. Candidates would qualify for vouchers based on a ratio matched to the amount of small dollar donations they raise.

Our proposal would allow candidates to leverage their grassroots fundraising and would provide greater campaign resources to candidates without requiring them to become more beholden to special interests. The proposal would also make air time available to political parties, which could be directed to underfunded candidates and challengers who have a harder and harder time getting their message out under the current system as the costs of advertising continue to rise.

Senator McCain and I remain devoted to improving the way our electoral process functions and reducing the impact of big money on our democracy. This bill will advance that cause in a very significant and necessary way. I look forward to working with my colleagues to fine tune this bill and enact it into law. Together we can make campaigns less expensive, and more informative, using the public airwaves as a tool to improve our democracy.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S. 1480 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I am voting in favor of the Bond-Levin Amendment, and I want to explain my views in detail. Fuel efficiency is a critically important issue for our country, for my home State of Wisconsin, and for our future. I remain committed to the goal that significant improvements in automobile and light truck fuel efficiency can be achieved over an appropriate time frame. Some will argue that my vote for Levin-Bond is a vote against increasing Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards; I do not share that view. The Bond-Levin amendment seeks to renew the Department of Transportation's role in setting CAFE standards acting through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA. It requires NHTSA to set new standards by a time certain. If Congress does not act today to try to restore normalcy to the NHTSA process, Congress will always either block or act to set CAFE standards, every 20 years or so, when the political will is sufficient to do so. It will never become part of the normal process of reviewing and incrementally improving fuel efficiency for automobiles, as Congress originally intended when it passed the CAFE law in the 1970s.

As I did in the debate on last year's energy bill, I am committing myself to a consistent position on CAFE. Other interests have not done so. With my vote, I am affirming my past position, and I want to explain the evolution of that position.

Months prior to the midterm elections in 1994, NHTSA published a notice of possible adjustment to the fuel economy standards for trucks before the end of the decade. The following year, however, the House- passed version of the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill prohibited the use of authorized funds to promulgate any CAFE rules. The Senate version did not include the language, but it was restored in conference. Much the same scenario occurred in the second session of the 104th and the first session of the 105th Congresses. In both those sessions, a similar rider was passed by the House and not by the Senate, but included by the conferees and enacted. However, the growth in gasoline consumption and the size of the light-duty truck fleet were concerns cited behind introduction in the Senate of an amendment to the bill expressing the Sense of the Senate that the conferees should not agree to the House- passed rider for fiscal year 2000. The amendment, sponsored by the former Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, was defeated in the Senate on September 15, 1999 by a vote of 55-40 and the rider was once again enacted into law.

As I stated on the Senate floor in the debates on the CAFE rider on June 15, 2000, my vote was about ``Congress getting out of the way and letting a federal agency meet the requirements of federal law originally imposed by Congress.'' I supported removing the rider because I was concerned that Congress had blocked NHTSA from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there is a need to modify fuel economy standards by legislative rider.

As I made clear then, I have made no determination about what fuel economy standards should be, though I do think that additional increases are possible, and that the recent rulemaking affirms that view. NHTSA has the authority to set new standards for a given model year taking into account several factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, other vehicle standards such as those for safety and environmental performance, the need

to conserve energy, and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. I want NHTSA to fully and fairly evaluate all the criteria, and then make an objective recommendation on the basis of those facts. I expect NHTSA to consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental interests, auto manufacturers, and interested citizens-- in developing this rule. And, I expect NHTSA to act, and if it does not, this amendment requires Congress to act on a standard.

Voting against the Bond-Levin amendment would mean that I subscribe to the view that the rulemaking process cannot work. I do not support that view, just as I could not support retaining the CAFE rider in law.

The NHTSA should be allowed to set this standard. Congress is not the best forum for understanding whether or not improvements in fuel economy can and should be made using existing technologies or whether emerging technologies may have the potential to improve fuel economy. Changes in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. I seek to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of those interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of reducing gasoline consumption, dependence upon foreign oil, and associated pollution.

In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers, indeed all consumers, have a wide range of new automobiles, SUVs, and trucks available to them that are as fuel efficient as can be achieved while balancing energy concerns with technological and economic impacts. That balancing is required by the law. I fully expect NHTSA to proceed expeditiously with the intent to fully consider all those factors, and this amendment ensures they do so.

In supporting this amendment, I maintain the position that it is my job to ensure that the agency responsible for setting fuel economy be allowed to do its job. I expect them to be fair and neutral in that process and I will work with interested Wisconsinites to ensure that their views are represented and the regulatory process proceeds in a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions the merits will support.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to strengthen the Buy American Act of 1933, the statute that governs procurement by the federal government. The name of the act accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the federal government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods.

While I a strong supporter of the act, I am concerned that, through abuse of its 5 broad waivers, the spirit--if not the letter--of the act is being weakened time and again.

It only makes sense, Mr. President, for the federal government to make every effort to purchase goods that are made in America. A law requiring this common-sense approach should not be necessary. Unfortunately, this law is necessary, and the way in which its many loopholes are being used also makes strengthening it necessary.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. This Congress should do more to ensure that the federal government adheres to this sentiment by enforcing and strengthening the provisions of the Buy American Act.

As we all know the United States manufacturing industry is hemorrhaging, as jobs and companies move overseas or are lost all together. According to the AFL-CIO, the United States has lost more than 2.4 million manufacturing jobs since April 1998. This disturbing trend is of particular concern in my home state of Wisconsin.

A March 2003 report by the Wisconsin State Department of Workforce Development notes that ``a combination of weak domestic and global demand, mergers and consolidations, automation, globalization of operations, and uncertainty surrounding war have caused employment in Wisconsin's manufacturing sector to shrink in recent years.'' The Department found that there were 594,100 manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin in 2000, and the Department estimates that this figure had dropped to 517,100 jobs by June of this year. More than 77,000 jobs lost in just 2\1/2\ years, Mr. President. And the people of my state can expect more of the same during the rest of this decade if we don't take action soon.

While the Department expects some sectors to experience an upturn by 2010, it estimates that the people of my state can still expect to lose thousands more manufacturing jobs by 2010.

Much of this can be blamed on flawed trade agreements that the United States has entered into in recent years. The trade policy of this country over the past several years has been appalling. The trade agreements into which we have entered have contributed to the loss of key employers, ravaging entire communities. But despite that clear evidence, we continue to see trade agreements being reached that will only aggravate this problem

This has to stop. We cannot afford to pursue trade policies that gut our manufacturing sector and send good jobs overseas. We cannot afford to undermine the protections we have established for workers, the environment, and for our public health and safety. And we cannot afford to squander our democratic heritage by entering into trade agreements that supercede our right to govern ourselves through open, democratic institutions.

I will be introducing legislation in the near future to address that problem directly by establishing minimum standards for the trade agreements into which our nation enters. That measure is a companion to a resolution that will be introduced in the other body by my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Regrettably, some of the blame for the dire situation in which American manufacturing finds itself also lies in our own federal tax and procurement policies, some of which actually encourage American companies to move or incorporate abroad. The Buy American law was enacted 70 years ago to ensure that Federal procurement policies support American jobs.

Some argue that the Buy American Act has outlived its usefulness in today's global economy. I argue that it is as relevant today as it was when it was enacted in 1933. The passage of 70 years has not diminished the importance of this Act for American manufacturing companies or for those who are employed in this crucial sector of our economy. In fact, a strong argument can be made that this Act is even more necessary today than it was 70 years ago. With American jobs heading overseas at an alarming rate, the Government should be doing all it can to make sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent to support American jobs.

Some argue that the Buy American Act is protectionist and anti-free trade. I disagree. Supporting American industry is not protectionist-- it is common sense. The erosion of our manufacturing base needs to be stopped, and Congress should support procurement and trade policies that help to ensure that we do not continue to lose portions of this vital segment of our economy.

The legislation that I introduce today, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing Act by tightening existing waivers and would require that information be provided to Congress and to the American people about how often the provisions of this Act are waived by Federal departments and agencies.

As I noted earlier, there are currently five primary waivers in the Buy American Act. The first allows an agency head to waive the Act's provisions if a determination is made that complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives broad discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would clarify this so-called ``public interest'' waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for procurement (RFP) has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy

American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a procurement up for bid.

The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would amend this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there will be occasions when the Federal Government will need to procure items quickly that will be used outside the United States, such as in a time of war. However, items that are bought on a regular basis and are used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require an analysis of the difference in cost for obtaining articles, materials, or supplies that are used on a regular basis outside the United States, or that are not needed on an immediate basis, from an American company, including the cost of shipping, and a foreign company before issuing a waiver and awarding the contract to a foreign company.

The fourth waiver allowed under the Buy American Act states that the domestic source requirements of the Act may be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such as waiver, conduct a study that determines that domestic production cannot be initiated to meet the procurement needs and that a comparable article, material, or supply is not available from an American company.

The newest Buy American Act waiver, which was enacted in 1994, exempts purchases of less than $2,500 from the domestic source requirements of the Act. While this waiver is not addressed in my bill, I have requested that the General Accounting Office conduct a study of this so-called ``micro purchase'' exemption, including how often it is used and its impact on American businesses.

My bill also strengthens the Buy American Act in four other ways.

First, it expands annual reporting requirements regarding the use of waivers that currently apply only to the Department of Defense to include all Federal departments and agencies. My bill specifies that these reports should include an itemized list of waivers, including the items procured, their dollar value, and their source. In addition, these reports would have to be made available on the Internet.

The bill also increases the minimum American-made content standard for qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American- made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a 75 percent minimum.

My bill also addresses the crucial issue of dual-use technologies and efforts to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries of concern. My bill would prohibit the awarding of a contract or sub-contract to a foreign company to manufacture goods containing any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the Export Administration Act process.

Finally, my bill would require the General Accounting Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would be required to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as on establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all Federal agencies.

I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups including: Save American Manufacturing, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Milwaukee Valve Company, and the National and Wisconsin AFL-CIO.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to strengthen the Buy American Act of 1933, the statute that governs procurement by the federal government. The name of the act accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the federal government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods.

While I a strong supporter of the act, I am concerned that, through abuse of its 5 broad waivers, the spirit--if not the letter--of the act is being weakened time and again.

It only makes sense, Mr. President, for the federal government to make every effort to purchase goods that are made in America. A law requiring this common-sense approach should not be necessary. Unfortunately, this law is necessary, and the way in which its many loopholes are being used also makes strengthening it necessary.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. This Congress should do more to ensure that the federal government adheres to this sentiment by enforcing and strengthening the provisions of the Buy American Act.

As we all know the United States manufacturing industry is hemorrhaging, as jobs and companies move overseas or are lost all together. According to the AFL-CIO, the United States has lost more than 2.4 million manufacturing jobs since April 1998. This disturbing trend is of particular concern in my home state of Wisconsin.

A March 2003 report by the Wisconsin State Department of Workforce Development notes that ``a combination of weak domestic and global demand, mergers and consolidations, automation, globalization of operations, and uncertainty surrounding war have caused employment in Wisconsin's manufacturing sector to shrink in recent years.'' The Department found that there were 594,100 manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin in 2000, and the Department estimates that this figure had dropped to 517,100 jobs by June of this year. More than 77,000 jobs lost in just 2\1/2\ years, Mr. President. And the people of my state can expect more of the same during the rest of this decade if we don't take action soon.

While the Department expects some sectors to experience an upturn by 2010, it estimates that the people of my state can still expect to lose thousands more manufacturing jobs by 2010.

Much of this can be blamed on flawed trade agreements that the United States has entered into in recent years. The trade policy of this country over the past several years has been appalling. The trade agreements into which we have entered have contributed to the loss of key employers, ravaging entire communities. But despite that clear evidence, we continue to see trade agreements being reached that will only aggravate this problem

This has to stop. We cannot afford to pursue trade policies that gut our manufacturing sector and send good jobs overseas. We cannot afford to undermine the protections we have established for workers, the environment, and for our public health and safety. And we cannot afford to squander our democratic heritage by entering into trade agreements that supercede our right to govern ourselves through open, democratic institutions.

I will be introducing legislation in the near future to address that problem directly by establishing minimum standards for the trade agreements into which our nation enters. That measure is a companion to a resolution that will be introduced in the other body by my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Regrettably, some of the blame for the dire situation in which American manufacturing finds itself also lies in our own federal tax and procurement policies, some of which actually encourage American companies to move or incorporate abroad. The Buy American law was enacted 70 years ago to ensure that Federal procurement policies support American jobs.

Some argue that the Buy American Act has outlived its usefulness in today's global economy. I argue that it is as relevant today as it was when it was enacted in 1933. The passage of 70 years has not diminished the importance of this Act for American manufacturing companies or for those who are employed in this crucial sector of our economy. In fact, a strong argument can be made that this Act is even more necessary today than it was 70 years ago. With American jobs heading overseas at an alarming rate, the Government should be doing all it can to make sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent to support American jobs.

Some argue that the Buy American Act is protectionist and anti-free trade. I disagree. Supporting American industry is not protectionist-- it is common sense. The erosion of our manufacturing base needs to be stopped, and Congress should support procurement and trade policies that help to ensure that we do not continue to lose portions of this vital segment of our economy.

The legislation that I introduce today, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing Act by tightening existing waivers and would require that information be provided to Congress and to the American people about how often the provisions of this Act are waived by Federal departments and agencies.

As I noted earlier, there are currently five primary waivers in the Buy American Act. The first allows an agency head to waive the Act's provisions if a determination is made that complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives broad discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would clarify this so-called ``public interest'' waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for procurement (RFP) has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy

American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a procurement up for bid.

The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would amend this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there will be occasions when the Federal Government will need to procure items quickly that will be used outside the United States, such as in a time of war. However, items that are bought on a regular basis and are used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require an analysis of the difference in cost for obtaining articles, materials, or supplies that are used on a regular basis outside the United States, or that are not needed on an immediate basis, from an American company, including the cost of shipping, and a foreign company before issuing a waiver and awarding the contract to a foreign company.

The fourth waiver allowed under the Buy American Act states that the domestic source requirements of the Act may be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such as waiver, conduct a study that determines that domestic production cannot be initiated to meet the procurement needs and that a comparable article, material, or supply is not available from an American company.

The newest Buy American Act waiver, which was enacted in 1994, exempts purchases of less than $2,500 from the domestic source requirements of the Act. While this waiver is not addressed in my bill, I have requested that the General Accounting Office conduct a study of this so-called ``micro purchase'' exemption, including how often it is used and its impact on American businesses.

My bill also strengthens the Buy American Act in four other ways.

First, it expands annual reporting requirements regarding the use of waivers that currently apply only to the Department of Defense to include all Federal departments and agencies. My bill specifies that these reports should include an itemized list of waivers, including the items procured, their dollar value, and their source. In addition, these reports would have to be made available on the Internet.

The bill also increases the minimum American-made content standard for qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American- made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a 75 percent minimum.

My bill also addresses the crucial issue of dual-use technologies and efforts to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries of concern. My bill would prohibit the awarding of a contract or sub-contract to a foreign company to manufacture goods containing any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the Export Administration Act process.

Finally, my bill would require the General Accounting Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would be required to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as on establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all Federal agencies.

I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups including: Save American Manufacturing, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Milwaukee Valve Company, and the National and Wisconsin AFL-CIO.

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

Mr. President, I want to add my thoughts to the debate on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.

First, I want to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished chairman and distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security for working so diligently on this bill before us. These leaders had the difficult job of allocating a very limited amount of money for one of the Nation's most pressing needs and they have done an admirable job.

I also thank this Nation's first responders. They are the ones who are on the front lines of this fight against terrorism. They are the ones who will be the first to react to any future attack upon our Nation. These brave men and women must, at a moment's notice, be ready to respond to a host of possible horrifying scenarios, including those involving nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical devices.

Congress has been working hard to support our first responders, including providing almost $3.9 billion in this appropriations bill. I am particularly pleased that the committee chose to maintain the successful firefighter assistance grants and fund them at $750

million rather than the President's requested $500 million. I thank the committee for their wisdom in this matter.

Although this bill does a lot to help our first responders, it does not do enough. As my colleagues know, the Council on Foreign Relations recently released the report of an independent task force chaired by former Senator Warren B. Rudman. The title of this report says it all: ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.'' I supported Senator Byrd and others in trying to address the drastic underfunding of our first responders pointed out in the Rudman Report and am disappointed that we in the Senate were unable to do more.

I point out to my colleagues that I do not take lightly my decision to vote in favor of spending more money. Fiscal responsibility is one of my highest priorities and I constantly look for ways to limit government spending. I am honored that the Concord Coalition and others have recognized me for my efforts in this regard. Although fiscal responsibility remains one of my highest priorities, the fight against terrorism is also a high priority. I regret that the Republican budget resolution did not provide adequate funding for homeland security, choosing instead to place tax cuts as its highest priority. I agree with the distinguished Senators from Connecticut and Michigan that we ought to pay for increased funding in this bill by reviewing tax breaks for those making over a million dollars. This is a reasonable way to approach the current underfunding of this top priority.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that local first responders, emergency preparedness professional associations, and others have responded to the tragic events of 9/11 by re-examining emergency response procedures, compiling lessons learned, and developing new and innovative practices to best deal with possible terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the Rudman Report found that ``(T)he task Force found insufficient national coordination of efforts to systematically capture and disseminate best practices for emergency responders.'' First responders in Wisconsin back up this finding.

The Department of Homeland Security is supposed to be gathering and disseminating first responder best practices to all relevant parties. I am concerned that they are not adequately fulfilling their responsibility in this area. I understand that the newly formed Department of Homeland Security has many important responsibilities and is being pulled in many different directions. I am concerned, however, that the Department is wasting an important opportunity to increase the efficiency of our first responders. The Rudman Report recommends establishing a national institute to collect and disseminate best practices for first responders. This would ``allow all emergency responders to learn from past experiences and improve the quality of their efforts, thereby assuring taxpayers the maximum return on their investment in homeland security.''

I offered an amendment directing the Department to report on its efforts to assess and disseminate best practices and its plans for improving the coordination and sharing of such information. This amendment was designed to prompt the Department into action so that all of us can reap the benefits of shared best practices. I am pleased that the Senate adopted this amendment.

I am also concerned that in our hasty efforts to protect the homeland we may be sacrificing some of our civil liberties. One item of particular concern to me is the use of data-mining by the Department of Homeland Security. Such programs give the Government the ability to peer into virtually every facet of an individual's life, including credit card use, bank statements, health records, and on and on. Congress must make sure that civil liberties are being protected and so must carefully monitor Government entities that may try to use data- mining technology. I am pleased that the Senate adopted my amendment requiring the Comptroller General to conduct a review and report to Congress on the development and use of data-mining by the Department of Homeland Security.

I will vote for this bill. This legislation includes many good elements, such as the funds available for first responders. However, I must also express my disappointment that funding for homeland security, one of our highest priorities, is being forced to play second fiddle to tax cuts. This is unacceptable and I hope we in Congress will soon rectify this situation.