Floor Statements

Mr. President, 8 months ago I took the floor in this Chamber to call attention to some disturbing trends with regard to democracy and civil liberties in Hong Kong. I said that Hong Kong's rulers, at the behest of Beijing, were set upon a path that risked destroying the spirit and vitality that make Hong Kong unique. I urged those who care about Hong Kong, and about freedom, to speak out and alert Hong Kong authorities to the error of their ways. Many did so.

Today, I regret to report, Hong Kong is one step closer to becoming just another Chinese city. Hong Kong's Legislative Council is expected to vote into law next month antisubversion legislation that would significantly erode the barriers that insulate Hong Kong's residents from the antidemocratic legal concepts and practices of the People's Republic of China.

As I said here last October, China's leaders pressured their hand- picked Chief Executive in Hong Kong, Tung Chee-Hwa, to introduce this legislation last year. Hong Kong authorities maintained that they had no choice but to comply, since Article 23 of the Basic Law that became Hong Kong's constitution after the territory reverted from British to Chinese control in 1997 required Hong Kong to adopt laws to protect national security. Many Hong Kong legal experts disagreed. But be that as it may, the same Basic Law says the territory will move toward electing its legislature and executive by universal suffrage. At present, only one-third of the legislators were chosen by direct popular vote, and only 800 of Hong Kong's 7 million residents were allowed to cast ballots in Tung Chee-Hwa's reelection as Chief Executive last year. The Government has yet to announce any plans to expand suffrage.

The sequence of these steps is important. Pushing through legislation curtailing civil liberties to comply with Article 23 before establishing a democratic legislature per Article 68 violates the most fundamental tenet of popular rule--that governmental authority is derived from the consent of the governed. The Hong Kong authorities invited public comments on the legislation, both in its initial outline form and later detailed drafts. But despite serious objections from journalists, lawyers, chambers of commerce, human rights activists, religious groups, and other interested parties, the bill on which the Legislative Council is expected to vote next month reflects only minor revisions from the Government's original draft. Without a legislature accountable to the citizenry, the people were free to speak their views, but the Government was free to ignore them.

As a result, most of the concerns I raised about the legislative proposal last October remain unaddressed:

Definitions of offenses such as ``subversion,'' ``sedition'' and ``secession'' are extremely vague, permitting security officials to prosecute people arbitrarily, as they do on the Mainland.

Merely ``handling'' publications the authorities consider to be ``seditious'' would be a criminal offense, as would ``intimidating'' the Government in Beijing or acting to ``disestablish'' the ``basic system'' of China--meaning the political monopoly of the Communist Party--or endangering China's ``stability.''

``Inciting'' subversion, even if only through speech, would be criminalized. In China, workers have been given long prison sentences for ``inciting subversion'' for simply demanding to be paid. Others have received 10-year terms for criticizing the Government on the Internet.

Hong Kong affiliates of organizations that Beijing decides threaten national security may be banned. This provision is likely to be used to ban Falun Gong, and conceivably it could be applied to the Roman Catholic Church if it does not renounce its ties to Rome. Hong Kong groups that monitor human rights and labor conditions in China have also been labeled ``hostile foreign elements'' by Mainland authorities and thus could be targeted.

Police will be permitted to enter and search private residences and seize property without a warrant.

Journalists and others could be prosecuted for the unauthorized disclosure of official secrets or information related to Hong Kong affairs that are the responsibility of the Central Government. Recall that for 5 months, Mainland authorities treated information about SARS as an official secret, and the world learned about the epidemic only after it spread to Hong Kong. Disclosing that information was clearly in the public's interest. But this bill does not allow a public interest defense, nor is there any counterbalancing right-to-know or freedom-of-information legislation. If this bill becomes law, how long will it take us to find out about China's next epidemic?

These proposed revisions to Hong Kong's laws, demanded by Beijing, run counter to China's commitment in the 1984 Sino-British Declaration to preserve Hong Kong's civil liberties for at least 50 years following the handover. They would significantly undermine such internationally recognized basic human rights as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience, and potentially threaten freedom of religion and the right to due process as well.

Hong Kong's democratic politicians, activists, attorneys, journalists, and other professionals are understandably alarmed about this legislation. To hear some of them tell it, passage of this bill will mean the end of Hong Kong as we know it. In reality, I suspect most Hong Kong residents would wake up on July 10 to find life in their city essentially unchanged. The effects of this legislation will appear only gradually and incrementally. The first to feel the impact will probably be groups on the margins of Hong Kong society, such as Falun Gong practitioners. Perhaps most Hong Kongers will say nothing, because they are not Falun Gong practitioners. But over time, they will come to find themselves living in a poorer place, and the world will be poorer as a result.

If this legislation passes in its present form, it promises to make Hong Kong poorer in more ways than one. Last December, the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong wrote the Government to express its concern about the bill's potential impact on the free flow of information, which it said was essential for the operation of Hong Kong's markets and for maintaining its competitiveness as a business location. The letter came a few weeks after a senior analyst at Bank of China International resigned after China's Premier criticized one of his reports. The British Chamber of Commerce warned Hong Kong could become ``a much less favorable location for international business'' if investors could not obtain free and unfettered information. Some analysts have suggested that investment on the Chinese Mainland could suffer as well, since foreign firms operating in China often rely on their Hong Kong offices for uncensored information about the Mainland.

Through the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, Congress made support for human rights and democratization in Hong Kong a fundamental principle of United States foreign policy. As a concrete expression of support for Hong Kong's continued autonomy, the act stipulated that Hong Kong would continue to receive the same treatment under most United States laws after the handover as it had before. However, it allowed the President to suspend that provision on a case by case basis, whenever he determined that Hong Kong was no longer sufficiently autonomous to justify being treated differently from the rest of China under a particular law. This is not a decision the President should take lightly. However, if the proposed legislation compromises the independence of Hong Kong's judicial system or the integrity of its financial markets, as some analysts fear, the President would have no choice but to review specific United States statutes to evaluate whether separate treatment for Hong Kong can still be justified.

I hope we never get to that point. I hope that Hong Kong's freedom and its creativity can be preserved and that its people will be given more say in how they are governed, not less. For that reason, I urge those in the Hong Kong Government and Legislative Council who care about Hong Kong's future--and I am sure most of them do--to turn back from the course they are on before it is too late.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, Schumer, McCain, Kennedy and others in introducing the Gregg-Schumer- McCain-Kennedy Amendment to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit bill.

As we all know, the sky-rocketing cost of prescription drugs is a problem deeply affecting senior citizens across the country. During my listening sessions and travels around my State of Wisconsin, health care, and specifically the cost of prescription drugs, continue to be the number one issue on people's minds. The problem of access to affordable prescription drugs is particularly acute among Wisconsin senior citizens who live on fixed incomes. Nationally, prescription drugs are senior citizens' largest single out-of-pocket health care expenditure, and the amount they are spending is rapidly increasing: this year, the average senior spends $996 a year for their prescription drugs. This is expected to rise to $1,147 in 2004.

I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill on which this amendment is based, the Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act. This important legislation will improve access to prescription drugs, and make them more affordable for our Nation's seniors. By closing a series of loopholes that are hindering true competition in the prescription drug market, this legislation will bring lower-cost generic drugs to the market faster, passing on approximately $60 billion in savings to consumers over the next ten years.

A Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit is absolutely necessary, and the debate we are having on this bill is an important one. But there are no real cost-control measures for the rapidly escalating costs of prescription drugs. This amendment is truly a cost-savings measure for not only our Nation's seniors, but also all Americans who need prescription drugs. This amendment offers a way to help halt the rising costs of prescription drugs, without costing the taxpayers a dime.

Drug companies have every right to profit from their innovations. We need drug companies to continue the important research that brings life-saving drugs to the market. But once a prescription drug patent expires, we cannot allow the drug companies to keep renewing their patents for frivolous reasons, denying consumers affordable access to a generic alternative.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment and want to detail the reasons for my support. The amendment strikes subtitle B of title IV of the bill, the section on deployment of new nuclear plants. This section would provide new loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear plants. In addition to providing the nuclear industry loan guarantees, the Senate Energy Bill appears to also authorize the Federal Government to enter into power purchase agreements to buy power back from new reactors--potentially at rates above market prices.

I think subtitle B goes too far and the amendment to strike is necessary for several reasons. First, the bill places no ceiling on these loans, making the Federal Government liable, according to the Congressional Research Service, for between $14-$16 billion in loan guarantees.

Second, I feel strongly that if private investors are not willing to put their own money on the line to support new nuclear plants, then the Federal Government should not put taxpayers' money at risk either. Yet, under the provisions currently included in the Senate bill, taxpayers would be required to subsidize up to 50 percent of the cost of constructing and operating 8,400 megawatts of power. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the risk of default would be ``well above 50 percent.'' I feel that $14-$16 billion is a lot of money to gamble on an investment that has a 50/50 risk of failure.

Finally, as I have expressed in the past, I am concerned that our current nuclear waste storage program is of insufficient size to handle our current nuclear waste problem. I do not think it is wise to build more plants, when we do not have enough storage for our current waste. Yucca Mountain is not authorized at a size that is big enough to take all of the current nuclear waste. Among the reasons that I opposed the Yucca Mountain resolution was its insufficient size. I was concerned that my home state of Wisconsin would go back on the list as a possible site for a large-scale nuclear repository. Constructing new nuclear plants does nothing to relieve those concerns, and instead makes it more likely that we will have a growing nuclear waste problem for which we will need a permanent storage solution, putting Wisconsin back at risk.

I think this amendment makes fiscal and policy sense, and deserves the support of the Senate.

Madam President, today I draw my colleagues' attention to the situation in Zimbabwe, where courageous citizens continue to protest the political repression and economic collapse that have plunged their country into crisis.

Since 2000, President Mugabe has made a series of decisions intended to tighten his grip on power regardless of the cost to the country, trampling on the independence of the judiciary, harassing the independent media, manipulating the political process, intimidating opposition supporters, destroying the economy, and exacerbating a food crisis. A very real and legitimate issue--the need for meaningful land reform--was for a time employed as a fig leaf for the regime. But it has long been clear that this government is not interested in justice, only in power.

Last week's general strike has been the latest manifestation of public dissatisfaction. Reports from the region indicate that security forces are violently suppressing efforts to demonstrate in the streets, using rubber clubs, rifle butts, water cannons, tear gas, and live ammunition to disperse crowds, according to the Associated Press. Some 300 people have been arrested, including opposition parliamentarians. At this difficult time, it is important that the people of Zimbabwe know that the world is watching, and that like the Zimbabweans demanding change, the international community has not lost hope for the country.

I was proud to work with the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, on the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, a bill which was passed into law in the last Congress. This legislation makes it clear that when the rule of law is restored in Zimbabwe, and when the civil and political rights of citizens are respected, the United States will come forward to help the country recover, rebuild. We will continue to fight the AIDS pandemic that is taking such a terrible toll on Zimbabwean society. I look forward to the day when we can follow through on that commitment, Mr. President, and help Zimbabwe to realize its tremendous potential as an engine of growth and model of participatory democracy in the region. Time after time, news reports confirm that Zimbabwe is full of patriots--citizens who refuse to allow their country to be hijacked by a self-serving cabal, independent journalists who risk torture when they seek to report the truth rather than the ruling party line, parents who want their children to grow up in a Zimbabwe free from repression and corruption. These people deserve our support and our admiration.

Madam President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Ituri Province. Recently, international attention has been focused on the alarming ethic violence in the region, where thousands have been killed in the past year. Credible reports suggest that over 50,000 people have died in Ituri since 1999, and a half a million more have been displaced. For years, this horror was lost in the larger tragedy of Congo's conflict, in which over 4 million people are estimated to have lost their lives.

Clashes between Hema and Lendu militia forces in Ituri escalated recently as external actors fuel the fire with increasingly sophisticated arms and support, essentially waging proxy wars at the expense of Congolese civilians. The reports from the region are truly appalling, featuring horrific murders, mutilation, cannibalism, rape, and the use of child soldiers. The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo, which has no mandate or capacity to enforce peace, has been reduced to struggling to to protect the civilians who have fled in desperation to U.N. sites in Bunia, but their capabilities are severely limited, and most civilians frantically searching for help and security are left with no help at all.

Congo's suffering is more than a humanitarian crisis. It is a massively destabilizing force in Africa. The war has drawn in other states and provided lucrative opportunities for international criminals. We cannot forget that our security is at risk when these shadowy forces are making gains.

The pattern of massive human rights abuses and constant destabilization has to stop. I recently offered an amendment to the foreign assistance authorization bill in the Foreign Relations Committee designed to bolster U.S. support for activities in central Africa aimed at pursuing justice and accountability, deterring abuses, and holding those responsible for such abuses accountable for their actions. That is one small step toward a constructive policy in the region over the long-term. But with regard to Ituri, the U.S. must take action urgently today.

On May 30, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution authorizing the Secretary-General to reinforce the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the northeastern town of Bunia. France has

agreed to lead the multinational force, and while our relationship with France has certainly not been an easy one lately, their leadership on this issue is admirable. The United States should provide all appropriate assistance to this mission, and I am grateful to be joined by Senator Alexander, Senator Biden, and Senator Lugar in making that point clear in communications to the administration.

We have spent a great deal on MONUC to date, but if we do not take action to defuse this explosive situation, if we stand by and let militia forces rip apart the province in a struggle for power and mineral wealth, then I am at a loss as to how to explain this investment. The U.S. must also work closely with other international actors to move forward on a process of disarmament and a meaningful political solution to the conflict, so that the respite that may be offered by this new force is not short-lived. Perhaps most importantly, the U.S. must take concrete steps to insist that the government in Kinshasa and the governments of Rwanda and Uganda stop use their influence with the parties to stop the violence. We cannot simply stand by, reading reports of grotesque violence and massive suffering, and claim that there is nothing we can do. There is actually a great deal of work to be done. We should start today.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the majority and minority leaders, Mr. Frist and Mr. Daschle, on renewable motor fuels. Others may support this amendment for different reasons, but I support the amendment because of its potential to increase motor fuels supply, especially in the Federal reformulated fuels, or RFG, program. This amendment includes provisions that I, and my Wisconsin House colleagues, Congressman Paul Ryan and Mark Green, have long advocated to address supply shortages that the Midwest has experienced in recent years.

This amendment makes significant changes to the Clean Air Act motor fuels programs that will increase the supply of cleaner fuels nationwide. It bans methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, which is no longer used in my home State of Wisconsin. MTBE, as others will likely discuss in detail, is a reformulated gasoline additive that has contaminated drinking water supplies nationwide.

The amendment also contains a mandate to increase the supply of ethanol to 5 billion barrels by 2012 both to replace MTBE as an oxygenate in reformulated gasoline and to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. It also would allow Governors the ability to increase reformulated gasoline supply by opting their entire State into the reformulated fuels program, and increasing the market demand for RFG in their State.

The amendment also has a provision to increase the amount of reformulated gasoline by reducing the number of boutique fuel blends. The bill reduces the number of Federal reformulated fuel blends by creating a single set of standards. This would broaden the supply from which Wisconsin could draw in times of tight supply.

If enacted, this amendment would improve fungibility of RFG nationwide, by standardizing volatile organic compound, VOC, reduction requirements. In practice, when combined with the renewable fuels mandate, this would enable States like Wisconsin that use Federal RFG to draw on supplies of Federal RFG from other areas, such as St. Louis and Detroit, if necessary. The ability to rely on other sources of RFG is especially important when sudden supply shortages arise due to unexpected events such as refinery fires or breakdowns which the Midwest has also experienced in recent years.

This amendment is important because, at present, southeastern Wisconsin cannot draw on RFG from other areas because the Chicago/ Wisconsin RFG formula is not used elsewhere in the country. This amendment would help address this boutique fuel problem by bringing other areas that use Federal RFG in line and standardizing VOC reduction requirements and requirements for the production of renewable fuels such as ethanol--the Chicago/Wisconsin area is the only part of the country that uses solely ethanol in its blend of RFG.

As the use of ethanol blended RFG becomes more widespread, supply problems will become easier to address. This benefits Wisconsin drivers because easing supply shortages will help put an end to severe price spikes, and drivers nationwide by continuing to supply them with RFG that meets Federal Clean Air Act standards in light of State bans on

Mr. President, yesterday the Special Court for Sierra Leone unsealed an indictment of President Charles Taylor of Liberia. Taylor is accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and serious violations of international humanitarian law. I commend the Court for taking its mandate seriously and for following the evidence where it led--directly to a sitting head of state.

I have long been a strong supporter of accountability mechanisms in Sierra Leone--both the Special Court and the Truth and Reconciliation that will address the horrible crimes committed by the foot soldiers in the field--soldiers who were, all too often, children. I have worked to ensure that the United States provides appropriate financial support to these mechanisms, and I have raised the importance of our political support at the highest levels. West Africa must break the cycle of violence and impunity, and all of us in the international community have a role to play in that effort.

The Special Court is charged with prosecuting those who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Sierra Leone since November 1996. For over a decade, Sierra Leone was one of the most insecure places on Earth. Civilians not only suffered from deprivation and displacement, they also had to contend with the forced recruitment of child soldiers, widespread and brutal sexual violence, and horrifying murders and mutilations. Those responsible for these crimes abandoned all human decency in their simple quest for power and wealth.

The indictment announced yesterday had been sealed for months, but for years there has been no secret about one basic fact--Charles Taylor is a war criminal. I said so years ago, and it remains true today. He should be brought before the Court and held accountable for his actions.

I also strongly support continued American efforts to isolate and pressure the Taylor regime. But at the same time, the situation of the Liberian people cannot be overlooked. Pressuring and condemning Taylor is not a complete policy toward this troubled and volatile country. The armed rebel groups currently fighting for dominance in Liberia have proven all to willing to prey on Liberian civilians in their own lust for power. We must ask ourselves, what will Liberia look like in 10 years, and what will that mean for the Liberian people, for the West African region, and for international criminal networks? What steps can be taken today to influence that outcome? And then we must muster the will and the means to act before the trend most recently exemplified by crisis in Cote d'Ivoire dominates the region.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Three years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, WDVA, launched a statewide program called ``I Owe You.'' Under the direction of Secretary Ray Boland, the program encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service in the United States military.

As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored six events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for Federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible. More than 11,000 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I was proud to have members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries.

The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was also featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine.

The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the VA. These are Federal benefits that we owe to our veterans and it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse to halt or reduce these efforts.

The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 11,000 Wisconsin veterans are unaware of benefits that may be owed to them, it is troubling to think how many veterans around our country are also unaware of them. We can and should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the globe.

In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach.''

My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its agencies, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. Currently funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding with other crucial VA programs.

I have long supported efforts adequately fund VA programs. We can and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim processed.

Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding.

Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative agreements with State Departments of Veterans Affairs regarding outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are awarded to State departments under this program could be used to enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits process. State departments that receive grants under this program may choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other public entities, or private or non-profit organizations that engage in veterans outreach activities.

I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives of our Nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the Wisconsin Department of Disabled American Veterans; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans Association; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Three years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, WDVA, launched a statewide program called ``I Owe You.'' Under the direction of Secretary Ray Boland, the program encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service in the United States military.

As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored six events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for Federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible. More than 11,000 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I was proud to have members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries.

The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was also featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine.

The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the VA. These are Federal benefits that we owe to our veterans and it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse to halt or reduce these efforts.

The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 11,000 Wisconsin veterans are unaware of benefits that may be owed to them, it is troubling to think how many veterans around our country are also unaware of them. We can and should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the globe.

In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach.''

My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its agencies, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. Currently funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding with other crucial VA programs.

I have long supported efforts adequately fund VA programs. We can and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim processed.

Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding.

Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative agreements with State Departments of Veterans Affairs regarding outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are awarded to State departments under this program could be used to enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits process. State departments that receive grants under this program may choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other public entities, or private or non-profit organizations that engage in veterans outreach activities.

I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives of our Nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the Wisconsin Department of Disabled American Veterans; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans Association; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America.

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

I yield for the purpose of a question.

It sounds like a good plan. I hope that is done while I offer my amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, in offering this straightforward amendment. Our amendment would simply extend the pay- as-you-go law that has been in force in one way or another since 1990.

On October 16 of last year, Senators Conrad, Domenici, Gregg, and I joined to offer an amendment to extend the budget process. The Senate agreed to our amendment, but with a modification that limited the extension to April 15.

During debate on the budget resolution, a number of us offered an amendment to extend the critical budget process rules, known as pay-go, and I was pleased that the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Nickles, accepted our amendment.

I regret that this absolutely critical budget rule was dropped in the final version of the budget resolution. In its place, the conference committee approved a far weaker set of rules. In fact, instead of acting to restrain the fiscal appetites of Congress, the rules established in the budget resolution actually whet those appetites.

They carve out an enormous exception in the pay-go rules, exempting over one-and-a-half trillion dollars in tax cuts and spending increases from the sensible restraints we had long imposed on ourselves.

The result is that we are currently legislating in an environment that is almost completely unconstrained by any budget discipline at all.

Were our budget position stronger than it is, the lack of budget restraint would be troubling enough. But given the extremely serious fiscal challenges we face, the inadequate budget rules adopted in the budget resolution are simply and grossly irresponsible.

The last two years have seen a dramatic deterioration in the government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs-- balancing the nation's fiscal books.

In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in the 10 years thereafter, the government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion.

With the adoption of the budget resolution, we are now facing unified budget deficits of $1.7 trillion through 2013. That is a dramatic swing of nearly $7 trillion, just in the space of a little more than two years.

And without counting Social Security, we are expected to run deficits of $4.5 trillion through 2013 under the policies outlined in the budget resolution. And many have noted that the assumptions on which those projections are based are overly optimistic, that in particular they assume spending levels that Congress is unlikely to observe.

This kind of budgeting is absolutely reckless. There is no other word for it. And the lack of adequate rules compound the damage.

We must stop running these debilitating deficits.

We must stop running deficits because they cause the government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.

We must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits.

When the government in this generation chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle our kids with debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. And that is not right.

That is why I am offering this amendment to reinstate the budget statute under which we operated for many years. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline.

This amendment would simply return us to the pay-go budget discipline that was in effect until September of last year. It would reinstate the across-the-board sequester law that imposed some useful budget discipline during the 1990s.

That is what this amendment would do. It is the least that we should do to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound budgeting.

We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other government programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We must continue the discipline of the budget process.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, if Senator Cantwell wishes to speak, I would want to reserve an opportunity for that.

Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, is it necessary for me to move to waive the point of order at this point?

Mr. President, those of us who came here in the early 1990s found an incredible fiscal mess in this country. And we believed--so many of us worked on both sides of the aisle; and it was bipartisan--that without these kinds of budget rules, we never would have been able to get the deficit eliminated and actually have a surplus by the early part of this decade.

That is why it is so important that we restore this statutory language and move in the direction of fiscal discipline.

I do appreciate the words and the actions of the chairman of the Budget Committee. He has shown a genuine interest in trying to get these rules in place. I appreciate his commitment to work with us on a bipartisan basis to do it. I can tell you that this is not the first effort in this regard. I worked all last year with Senators from both sides of the aisle to try to figure this out. Senator Gregg, Senator Phil Gramm, and others tried every approach we could to make sure these rules would be in place. Unfortunately, it did not work. So there is no lack of willingness on this side of the aisle to work together to restore these budget rules. I think a good chance to do that is right now, on this amendment today, on a bipartisan basis to get some fiscal discipline to return.

I thank the Senator from Delaware. He has been absolutely determined since he came to the Senate to help us restore these kinds of rules and have some kind of fiscal discipline.

Finally, as I yield time to the Senator from North Dakota, who in my view has been the leading advocate for fiscal discipline in this body over many years, I am grateful to his leadership and commitment to have these rules in place. Even though it is possible that we won't prevail on this amendment today, I do believe there is a bipartisan interest in trying to resolve this problem.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I want to make a point. Of course, my amendment does not prevent the prescription drug benefit. It just means that we have to actually pay for it. It seems to me that is reasonable. The amendment in no way prevents a paid-for prescription drug benefit. I would not support such an amendment if I were given that.

How much time remains?

Let me again thank not only the current chairman but the previous chairman of the Budget Committee. They have sincerely shown an interest--I am a member of the committee--in trying to get these budget rules back in place. I understand why this motion is being made. The point is, the chairman has indicated a willingness to move forward. I understand he will hold those hearings the Senator from New Mexico was just referring to that are a part of the process. I want them to know I sincerely would like to see us come together on this in the coming months.

It was absolutely essential for the American people to have the confidence that we cared about the deficit issue, that we finally gave the American people that wonderful sense of confidence that it mattered to us that we were running deficits. It helped everybody's mood. It helped the economy. It was a terrific thing for this country.

That confidence is now gone. The way you rebuild it is by getting these rules in place so people can point to those rules and say: We can't go beyond these limits.

That is what we need. I think we need it in statute as well as in the rules of the Senate.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield back my time, Mr. President. I assume this would be the appropriate time for me to move to waive the point of order?

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would restore a valuable--and statutorily mandate--service to our Nation's veterans and their families.

In July 2002, Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management Laura Miller sent a memo to Veterans Integrated Service Network Directors ordering them to ``ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within [their] networks.''

This memo cited an increased demand for VA health care services as the reason for this change in policy. While it is clear that more funding should be provided for VA health care and other programs, it is inappropriate for the VA to institute a policy to stop making veterans aware of the health care services for which they may be eligible.

I joined with a number of our colleagues last year in sending a letter to the President asking that this policy be immediately reversed. I regret that the VA's reply indicated that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs stands by this policy, which remains in effect.

The bill that I am introducing today, Veterans Outreach Protection Act, would rescind the policy issued in this memorandum and prohibit the VA from using Federal funding to enforce this policy. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced in the House by Congressman Paul Kanjorski earlier this year.

I have long been concerned that tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible. We can and should do more to educate our veterans and their families about these benefits, and to provide adequate funding to ensure that all veterans who wish to take advantage of their benefits are able to do so. Halting health care marketing activities is not the answer. Our brave veterans have earned these benefits. The Federal department that is charged with advocating for and providing benefits to our veterans should not be allowed to continue to restrict health care outreach activities.

In addition to this bill, I am currently working to draft legislation to improve VA-wide outreach efforts. Our veterans and their families have made great personal sacrifices to protect our freedoms. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Making sure that our veterans know about the benefits that they have earned is an important first step in starting to reply this debt.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would restore a valuable--and statutorily mandate--service to our Nation's veterans and their families.

In July 2002, Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management Laura Miller sent a memo to Veterans Integrated Service Network Directors ordering them to ``ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within [their] networks.''

This memo cited an increased demand for VA health care services as the reason for this change in policy. While it is clear that more funding should be provided for VA health care and other programs, it is inappropriate for the VA to institute a policy to stop making veterans aware of the health care services for which they may be eligible.

I joined with a number of our colleagues last year in sending a letter to the President asking that this policy be immediately reversed. I regret that the VA's reply indicated that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs stands by this policy, which remains in effect.

The bill that I am introducing today, Veterans Outreach Protection Act, would rescind the policy issued in this memorandum and prohibit the VA from using Federal funding to enforce this policy. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced in the House by Congressman Paul Kanjorski earlier this year.

I have long been concerned that tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible. We can and should do more to educate our veterans and their families about these benefits, and to provide adequate funding to ensure that all veterans who wish to take advantage of their benefits are able to do so. Halting health care marketing activities is not the answer. Our brave veterans have earned these benefits. The Federal department that is charged with advocating for and providing benefits to our veterans should not be allowed to continue to restrict health care outreach activities.

In addition to this bill, I am currently working to draft legislation to improve VA-wide outreach efforts. Our veterans and their families have made great personal sacrifices to protect our freedoms. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Making sure that our veterans know about the benefits that they have earned is an important first step in starting to reply this debt.

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

Mr. President, I rise to add my thoughts to the debate on the defense budget for fiscal year 2004.

First and foremost, I want to thank the members of the United States Armed Forces for the excellent work that they are doing in the ongoing fight against terrorism, their efforts in Iraq, and the many missions they have been assigned elsewhere at home and abroad. These dedicated men and women do an exemplary job in every mission that they have been asked to undertake, often at great personal sacrifice. They spend time away from their homes and families in different parts of the country and the world, and are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to all our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and members of the Coast Guard for their selfless service.

I am pleased that this bill authorizes a 3.7-percent pay raise for our men and women in uniform, and that it includes a provision authorizing additional pay for members of the Guard and Reserve who have been called to active duty multiple times.

The men and women of our National Guard and Reserve are a cornerstone of our national defense, and we should ensure that they have adequate pay and benefits. I am pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment to give guardsmen and reservists the opportunity to enroll in TRICARE, the military's health care program, whether or not they are on active duty. The provision also would enable these personnel to elect to keep their civilian health insurance for their families while on active duty with a federal reimbursement program. We owe it to our guardsmen and reservists to give these options to help to ensure that they and their families have access to affordable, stable health care coverage.

I have long advocated for the creation of an additional 23 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, which are staffed by full-time members of the National Guard. These important teams play a vital role in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating these new threats. As the events of September 11, 2001, so clearly and tragically demonstrated, local first responders are on the front lines of combating terrorism and responding to other large-scale incidents. The tragic events of September 11, the ongoing threat of terrorist activities, and the ongoing military action in Iraq make the presence of at least one WMD-CST in each State all the more imperative.

Currently, there are 32 full-time WMD-CSTs and 23 part-time teams. As a Senator representing one of the states without a full-time team, I was pleased that last year's DoD authorization bill included a statutory requirement that 23 additional full-time teams be established, and that at least one team be located in every State and territory. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for working with me to ensure that resources for 12 of these 23 teams are provided in this bill. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee to ensure that the resources authorized in this bill for the new WMD-CSTs are appropriated.

I am also pleased that the committee report contains language asking the Pentagon to include funding for the remaining 11 full-time WMD-CSTs in its fiscal year 2005 budget request. I urge the Secretary of Defense to do so, and to make every effort to select and begin staffing, training, and equipping the 12 new teams authorized by this bill as expeditiously as possible. These teams will improve the overall capability of Wisconsin and other States with part-time teams to respond to potential WMD threats in the future.

On a related matter, as I noted on the floor earlier this week, I share the

concern expressed by many of our colleagues about a provision in the Committee-passed bill that would repeal the 10-year ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, or so-called ``mini-nukes.'' Lifting this ban could be the first step in a resumption of nuclear testing and the creation of new classes of nuclear weapons, which I oppose. I regret that the Senate failed to pass an amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, of which I was a cosponsor, that would have reinstated this ban. While proponents of lifting the ban argue that it will permit only study into the development of mini-nukes, I am concerned that such study will be the first step toward the eventual resumption of an active nuclear program by the United States.

Nuclear weapons, low-yield or otherwise, are relics of the cold war. Instead of a true transformation during which outdated systems are replaced with new technology geared toward combating emerging threats, this bill regrettably continues the process of piling on expensive new versions of the weapon systems that we used to fight and win the cold war. We cannot keep adding on to this behemoth defense budget. There are projects and programs that can and should be subtracted.

As an editorial in the May 20 New York Times points out:

[G]ood ideas for reforming the military are included [in

this bill]. But so are outdated submarines and jet fighters

designed for combat against the defunct Soviet threat. There

is a reasonable $1.7 billion for the next generation of

unmanned aerial drones and an unreasonable $42 billion for

anachronistic fighter planes. As social, education and health

care programs are being squeezed, the Pentagon is asking for

$9.1 billion to build a missile defense system that does not

work yet.

On that last point, I am deeply concerned about the $9.1 billion included in this bill for missile defense. We continue to pour billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into this still unproven program year after year, despite the fact that DoD has not developed performance criteria for this system and does not have an operational testing program in place to verify whether such criteria can be met.

I remain concerned about the President's December 2002 decision to field a ground-based interceptor system by October 2004, despite the fact that the system has not yet been fully tested. I am troubled that, despite this accelerated scheduled, the Pentagon has proposed cutting the number of tests that were slated to be conducted on this costly program. While not everyone agrees on whether we actually need a missile defense system, I think we can all agree that such a system should work.

I was pleased to support an amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, that will require the Pentagon to develop performance criteria for the missile defense system and an operational test plan for these criteria. I am pleased that the Senate adopted a modified version of the amendment, and I look forward to reviewing these performance criteria.

I will support this flawed bill, but with some reluctance. While it provides a well-deserved pay increase and other benefits for our men and women in uniform, it clings to the hardware of the cold war. Our military personnel deserve top-notch equipment that will help them to combat the threats of the 21st century. I regret that there is little in the way of true transformation in this bill, and I will continue to work to change the cold war mentality of the Pentagon.

I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the New York Times editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2003. This bill provides that when plaintiffs bring a lawsuit that acts as a catalyst for a change in position by the opposing party, they will be considered the ``prevailing party'' for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees under Federal law. The bill will help ensure that people who are the victims of civil rights, environmental and worker rights' abuses can obtain legal representation to enforce their rights.

Over the course of our history, Congress has often enacted laws encouraging private litigants to implement public policy through our court system. An integral part of many such laws are provisions that help individuals obtain adequate legal representation by providing that the defendants will pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees in cases were the plaintiff prevails. In laws involving public accommodations, housing, labor, disabilities, age discrimination, violence against women, voting rights, pollution and others, Congress has acted over and over again to empower private litigants in their pursuit of justice. Presently, there are over two hundred statutory fee-shifting provisions that allow for some sort of payment of attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

Until 2001, in interpreting these fee-shifting statutes in cases where a settlement was reached before trial, nine circuit courts of appeals embraced the ``catalyst theory'' to determine whether attorneys' fees could be obtained. The catalyst theory required the payment of fees where the lawsuit caused a change in the position or conduct of the defendant. Only one circuit court, the Fourth Circuit, applied a more narrow definition of prevailing party, requiring a judgment or a court approved settlement in order for a plaintiff to obtain attorneys' fees.

In Buckhannon Board of Care & Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (2001), a case arising out of the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that plaintiffs may recover attorneys' fees from defendants only if they have been awarded relief by a court, not if they prevailed through a voluntary change in the defendant's behavior or a private settlement. The Buckhannon ruling eliminated the catalyst theory for all fee shifting statutes in federal law.

The bill I introduce today restores the catalyst theory that the vast majority of courts had approved prior to the Buckhannon decision as a basis for seeking attorneys fees under Federal fee shifting statutes. It provides a new definition of ``prevailing party'' for all such statutes to encompass the common situation where defendants alter their conduct after a lawsuit has commenced but without waiting for a court order requiring them to do so. This critical change in the definition of ``prevailing party'' will allow attorneys representing clients who cannot otherwise afford to hire a lawyer to recover their costs and to be paid a reasonable rate for their work.

The Buckhannon case itself illustrates the need for this legislation. Buckhannon Board and Care Home in West Virginia, an operator of assisted living residences, failed a state inspection because some residents were incapable of ``self-preservation'' as defined by state law. After receiving orders to close its facilities, Buckhannon sued the state seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the ``self- preservation'' requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the lawsuit was pending but before the court ruled, the state legislature eliminated the ``self- preservation'' requirement.

Imagine how the plaintiffs felt when they learned that their lawsuit had forced a change in the law not only for their own case but also for all of the other individuals who had been subject to the improper self- preservation doctrine. If ever there was a complete and total victory caused by litigation, this was it. But, as Casey Stengall once said, ``It ain't over 'til it's over.'' Once the state legislature changed the law, the District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case as moot and denied Buckhannon's request for attorneys' fees. The court ruled that the legislative action did not amount to a judicially required change in position that would permit Buckhannon to be considered a ``prevailing party'' in the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court denied attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs, ruling that because the change in the defendants' conduct was voluntary rather than ordered by the court, Buckhannon was not a prevailing party.

I believe the narrow definition of ``prevailing party'' endorsed by the Buckhannon decision will result in many injustices going unchallenged. Indeed, in calculating whether to take a case, an attorney for a plaintiff will have to consider not only the chances of losing, but the chances of winning too easily. If businesses or individuals are able to engage in egregious conduct, refuse to change their behavior without a lawsuit being filed against them, and then avoid paying attorneys' fees by changing their conduct on the eve of trial, the effect will be that

some lawyers will decide they cannot afford to take a case even if the claims are very strong.

Imagine a case involving a legitimate claim of housing discrimination where, after many months, perhaps even years of work, as the attorney who labored for the plaintiff prepares into the evening for opening statements, the attorney learns that the defendant has admitted its wrongful conduct and offered substantial compensation and a promise to change its practices. This offer came about only because of the spotlight the lawsuit put on the defendant and the possibility of a large jury verdict. This would be a complete victory for the plaintiff, but under Buckhannon, the attorney who labored for years to bring about this result may not be paid. Later, if the same defendant returns to discriminatory practices, the next plaintiff might very well not be able to find competent counsel who will take the case.

Ironically, the failure to correct the Buckhannon decision could lead to plaintiffs' attorneys dragging out law suits far beyond a point in time where the parties could reach a fair settlement, in order to insure that they meet the Buckhannon definition of ``prevailing party.'' This will increase the costs of litigation and discourage settlement. Simply put, Buckhannon creates unnatural tensions between attorneys and clients and may even push attorneys to not act in the best interest of their clients.

Certainly we can do better. Congress has passed important laws to protect the public in the work place and in our communities; we must ensure that these laws can be enforced, when necessary, in court. The Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2003 will help insure that all our citizens have the ability to meaningfully challenge injustice.

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement Act,'' along with Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and my colleague Senator Kohl, the senior Senator from Wisconsin. This bill addresses the growing problem of the use of involuntary bankruptcy petitions as a means to harass public officials. A similar bill has been introduced in the other body by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. I believe this bill should be enacted on its own as soon as possible or, if necessary, be a part of any bankruptcy-related legislation that goes through the Congress this year.

Involuntary bankruptcy petitions are a rarely used, but legitimate, creditor tool to prevent the wasting of an asset that would otherwise be available to satisfy creditor claims. Unfortunately, tax protestors and others with real or imagined grievances against the government have filed fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petitions against government officials as a way to harass and harm them. This problem came to my attention recently because of a case in my home State of Wisconsin.

In that case, a man named Steven Magritz undertook a vendetta against thirty-six Ozaukee County officials after the County pursued a foreclosure action against him for failing to pay taxes by filing involuntary bankruptcy petitions against those officials. Although the petitions were ultimately dismissed and Magritz was convicted of criminal slander and sentenced to five years in prison, the petitions had, and are still having, an impact on the credit ratings of the officials.

Current law provides for punitive damages to be assessed against someone who files an erroneous petition of this kind. But because bankruptcy filings are public records and credit reporting agencies include information in their reports for ten years, erroneous or fraudulent filings can have a devastating impact on the credit ratings of the individuals involved even if the perpetrator is punished. The local government officials that were the subject of this vendetta have had great difficulty in obtaining loans or refinancing their homes.

Although a comprehensive study of this problem has not been done, I understand that fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petitions have been filed against federal district court judges in Ohio and Maine, a U.S. Attorney in Maine, and IRS agents in Ohio. A district in California reported that over 10 percent of the involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed in recent years were likely filed in bad faith.

The bill I am introducing today will address this problem in two ways. First, it requires the bankruptcy court on motion of the debtor to expunge from the court's file all records relating to the filing of an involuntary petition and any references to such petition, if 1. the debtor is an individual; 2. the petition is dismissed; and 3. the petition is false or contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement.

Second, the bill authorizes a bankruptcy court to prohibit credit reporting agencies from issuing a consumer report that contains any information relating to an involuntary bankruptcy petition or to the case commenced by such petition where the debtor is an individual and the court has dismissed the petition.

These steps will retain involuntary bankruptcy as a legitimate tool to preserve debtor assets, but will allow the courts to address the real harm that can befall an innocent victim of harassment. I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and necessary reform of the bankruptcy laws. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2003. This bill provides that when plaintiffs bring a lawsuit that acts as a catalyst for a change in position by the opposing party, they will be considered the ``prevailing party'' for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees under Federal law. The bill will help ensure that people who are the victims of civil rights, environmental and worker rights' abuses can obtain legal representation to enforce their rights.

Over the course of our history, Congress has often enacted laws encouraging private litigants to implement public policy through our court system. An integral part of many such laws are provisions that help individuals obtain adequate legal representation by providing that the defendants will pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees in cases were the plaintiff prevails. In laws involving public accommodations, housing, labor, disabilities, age discrimination, violence against women, voting rights, pollution and others, Congress has acted over and over again to empower private litigants in their pursuit of justice. Presently, there are over two hundred statutory fee-shifting provisions that allow for some sort of payment of attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

Until 2001, in interpreting these fee-shifting statutes in cases where a settlement was reached before trial, nine circuit courts of appeals embraced the ``catalyst theory'' to determine whether attorneys' fees could be obtained. The catalyst theory required the payment of fees where the lawsuit caused a change in the position or conduct of the defendant. Only one circuit court, the Fourth Circuit, applied a more narrow definition of prevailing party, requiring a judgment or a court approved settlement in order for a plaintiff to obtain attorneys' fees.

In Buckhannon Board of Care & Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (2001), a case arising out of the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that plaintiffs may recover attorneys' fees from defendants only if they have been awarded relief by a court, not if they prevailed through a voluntary change in the defendant's behavior or a private settlement. The Buckhannon ruling eliminated the catalyst theory for all fee shifting statutes in federal law.

The bill I introduce today restores the catalyst theory that the vast majority of courts had approved prior to the Buckhannon decision as a basis for seeking attorneys fees under Federal fee shifting statutes. It provides a new definition of ``prevailing party'' for all such statutes to encompass the common situation where defendants alter their conduct after a lawsuit has commenced but without waiting for a court order requiring them to do so. This critical change in the definition of ``prevailing party'' will allow attorneys representing clients who cannot otherwise afford to hire a lawyer to recover their costs and to be paid a reasonable rate for their work.

The Buckhannon case itself illustrates the need for this legislation. Buckhannon Board and Care Home in West Virginia, an operator of assisted living residences, failed a state inspection because some residents were incapable of ``self-preservation'' as defined by state law. After receiving orders to close its facilities, Buckhannon sued the state seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the ``self- preservation'' requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the lawsuit was pending but before the court ruled, the state legislature eliminated the ``self- preservation'' requirement.

Imagine how the plaintiffs felt when they learned that their lawsuit had forced a change in the law not only for their own case but also for all of the other individuals who had been subject to the improper self- preservation doctrine. If ever there was a complete and total victory caused by litigation, this was it. But, as Casey Stengall once said, ``It ain't over 'til it's over.'' Once the state legislature changed the law, the District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case as moot and denied Buckhannon's request for attorneys' fees. The court ruled that the legislative action did not amount to a judicially required change in position that would permit Buckhannon to be considered a ``prevailing party'' in the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court denied attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs, ruling that because the change in the defendants' conduct was voluntary rather than ordered by the court, Buckhannon was not a prevailing party.

I believe the narrow definition of ``prevailing party'' endorsed by the Buckhannon decision will result in many injustices going unchallenged. Indeed, in calculating whether to take a case, an attorney for a plaintiff will have to consider not only the chances of losing, but the chances of winning too easily. If businesses or individuals are able to engage in egregious conduct, refuse to change their behavior without a lawsuit being filed against them, and then avoid paying attorneys' fees by changing their conduct on the eve of trial, the effect will be that

some lawyers will decide they cannot afford to take a case even if the claims are very strong.

Imagine a case involving a legitimate claim of housing discrimination where, after many months, perhaps even years of work, as the attorney who labored for the plaintiff prepares into the evening for opening statements, the attorney learns that the defendant has admitted its wrongful conduct and offered substantial compensation and a promise to change its practices. This offer came about only because of the spotlight the lawsuit put on the defendant and the possibility of a large jury verdict. This would be a complete victory for the plaintiff, but under Buckhannon, the attorney who labored for years to bring about this result may not be paid. Later, if the same defendant returns to discriminatory practices, the next plaintiff might very well not be able to find competent counsel who will take the case.

Ironically, the failure to correct the Buckhannon decision could lead to plaintiffs' attorneys dragging out law suits far beyond a point in time where the parties could reach a fair settlement, in order to insure that they meet the Buckhannon definition of ``prevailing party.'' This will increase the costs of litigation and discourage settlement. Simply put, Buckhannon creates unnatural tensions between attorneys and clients and may even push attorneys to not act in the best interest of their clients.

Certainly we can do better. Congress has passed important laws to protect the public in the work place and in our communities; we must ensure that these laws can be enforced, when necessary, in court. The Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2003 will help insure that all our citizens have the ability to meaningfully challenge injustice.