Floor Statements

I yield.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from California and the Senator from Massachusetts. I am pleased to have cosponsored it. I commend the Senators for offering this important amendment, and I am extremely pleased to be one of a large group of Senators who have come to the floor to express their concern about this policy and to support this amendment.

I share their concern, as I know that many of our colleagues do, about the provision in the underlying bill that would repeal the 10- year ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Lifting this ban could be the first step in the resumption of nuclear testing and the creation of new classes of nuclear weapons which I oppose.

Our men and women in uniform are facing new threats, but our defense procurement policy remains planted firmly in the cold war by calling for more nuclear weapons. We should not endorse a policy that could start or spark another nuclear arms race.

I am deeply concerned that the administration's Nuclear Posture Review represents a departure from this country's longstanding nuclear weapons policy. Lifting the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons and funding a feasibility study on the so-called robust earth penetrator and directing the Secretary of Energy to accelerate the readiness posture for the Nevada Test Site from 24 to 36 months to 18 months all point toward a disturbing destination--the resumption of an active nuclear weapons program, including underground testing by the United States.

These decisions send dangerous signals to our allies and adversaries alike. The United States has urged nonnuclear states and rogue operators not to pursue nuclear programs. But if we, as a nuclear power with enough of these weapons to destroy the world many times over, begin developing mini-nukes or other new forms of these dangerous weapons, I think we run the risk of inviting other countries and other organizations to do so as well.

I supported the Moscow Treaty earlier this year because, while it is not perfect, it does move us closer to the goal of reducing the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia. I don't think we should undermine this worthy goal by now starting down the path toward smaller, more easily transported nuclear weapons that could fall into the wrong hands.

I recognize that the underlying bill would lift the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons without authorizing that such weapons be tested, acquired, or deployed by the United States. But I still think this is a perilous first step toward a new class of nuclear weapons. It is one we should not take. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the Senators from Massachusetts and California.

I yield the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor the late Mike Jendrzejczyk, the Washington director for the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, and a voice I have trusted and valued for many years. Mike was kind, smart, unquestionably committed, and amazingly energetic. He kept so many of us in Congress informed, always combining savvy and idealism in his updates and enthusiastic calls to action. He brought extraordinary human rights leaders from Asia to the Hill, and by connecting us to these courageous people, he helped to round out our view of faraway places--showing us not just the ugly reality of abuse, but also the promise and bravery of those who resist.

By introducing Washington to these heros, Mike turned resignation to resolve and did the crucial work of sustaining momentum for action and change. He became a hero himself. Mike helped countless people overseas in profound ways, but he helped the Congress as well. Mike helped us to believe that it is possible to do the right thing. His death is a terrible loss.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Durbin amendment, which strikes an important balance between supporting the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, and Malaria and demanding accountability and appropriate burdensharing.

The Global Fund holds tremendous promise for leveraging donations to ensure maximum impact, helping us all to get the most for our money. It not only deserves U.S. support--it needs it to survive, because our leadership sends a critical signal to the rest of the donor community. Today we are being urged to strengthen the President's hand with other donors at the next G-8 meeting. Well Mr. President, I want to strengthen his hand. Making a strong commitment to the fund--and conditioning part of that commitment on a significant effort from other donors, definitely fits the bill.

The President's historic commitment in his State of the Union Address raised expectations around the world. But the United States cannot possibly tackle this pandemic alone. We must throw down the gauntlet, and signal our substantial support for the fund and our respect for its mission. This is the kind of leadership that can make the President's vision a reality, making a real difference in the lives of millions around the world.

It is late, but I cannot let the characterization of the AIDS program in Uganda pass without suggesting that the characterization by the Senator from Kansas is an oversimplification of how they reduced the AIDS incidence in Uganda.

Most importantly, what Uganda did is to destigmatize AIDS, to not make people who have AIDS pariahs, and to talk about a range of alternatives, not simply abstinence.

The House approach to this does not characterize the way in which they succeed in Uganda. In fact, I suggest it does just the opposite.

I object to the use of the Uganda example, which is one of the leading examples of the world. Without the ABC, all three of them, it would not have succeeded. The House approach is too limited to save the lives we all want to save.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senator Kennedy's important amendment. The Senate should not be silent on this issue. Senator Kennedy's amendment requires that pharmaceuticals procured by the United States for treatment initiatives authorized in this bill be purchased at the lowest possible cost while maintaining high quality standards.

In the past, Congress has been reluctant to address treatment issues, shying away from the complexities associated with providing treatment and resources. But just because it has been difficult does not mean it is impossible. And recognizing and accepting complexity is no excuse for ignoring urgent needs.

I have served on the African Affairs Subcommittee in the Senate now for almost 11 years, and I am pleased to be able to say that it appears that the tide is finally beginning to turn on this issue after so many years with people cavalierly dismissing the notion of providing access to antiretroviral drugs in the developing world.

I often recall the very end of almost a marathon meeting with the Senegalese public health community. An extraordinary group of Senegalese doctors, nurses, and volunteers and religious leaders had come out on a Saturday to spend hours talking with me and others about their coordinated campaign to fight AIDS. We were wrapping up when a gentleman who had been among those briefing me stood up, and speaking softly he told me that he was HIV positive. He wanted to know if there would be any help for him, any assistance with the kind of treatment that is out of reach for some in Africa.

There has to be an answer to his question. I heard the President of the United States answer positively in the State of the Union that basic human decency tells us that we cannot stand by while tens of millions die and societies collapse.

Recently, in South Africa I met with pediatricians whose exhaustion showed on their faces and their posture and in their tired, angry voices. They were tired of watching children die when they know that the treatment actually exists to save them.

There is much more to say about what we have seen in Africa. But what we are talking about here is a tremendous commitment of U.S. resources in this bill and in this time of crises. I think we have to get the most that we can for our money.

The amendment is about using taxpayer dollars wisely. It would be beyond shameful and almost reprehensible for us to use the resources authorized in this bill for what might end up being sweetheart deals with big pharmaceutical companies for their products if we could get equally safe and effective products at a better price.

The amendment is in no way targeted to the pharmaceutical industry. It does not prejudge anyone's intentions. It does not exclude any single provider of safe and effective drugs. It simply demands that the U.S. Government get the quality we need at the best available price.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one quick point to reinforce what Senator Kennedy said in response to what the Senator from Indiana said.

Obviously, the Senator from Massachusetts and I are not going to offer an amendment to provide unsafe treatments. In fact, the WHO guarantees the bioequivalency of a given product. And that just means they actually verify that it is exactly the same as a product that has been thoroughly tested for safety by an institution such as the FDA.

So it is not a valid point that somehow this approach that we are suggesting will lead to products that are not safe. They are as safe as the ones we would use ourselves.

Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to the issue of the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2003, S. 950, introduced by the junior Senator from Wyoming. I am cosponsoring this bill because I do not think the United States Government should tell its citizens where they can and cannot travel I also think greater people-to-people contacts with societies living under dictatorial regimes can help encourage the spread of democratic ideas. It is for these reasons that I support S. 950.

Lifting our ban on travel to Cuba is not a gift to Fidel Castro, and it should not be interpreted as an endorsement of his regime or as a sign of diminished commitment to improving human rights conditions for the Cuban people. The recent harsh prison sentences meted out to dozens of peaceful political dissenters in Cuba, and the execution of three men involved in a ferry

hijacking, provide further evidence of the fundamentally repressive and undemocratic nature of the Castro regime. Cuba has been stubbornly impervious to the democratizing trend sweeping the hemisphere in recent years. This, however, merely demonstrates the failure of our 40-year policy isolation.

Lifting travel restrictions on our citizens is not likely to bring about a transformation in Cuba overnight. But we have already seen what perpetuating the ban has accomplished--nothing. We have been depriving our own citizen of their liberty without bringing the blessings of liberty any closer to the Cuban people. It is time to end this fruitless policy.

Mr. President, last week, some of our colleagues came to the floor to discuss the President's recent appearance on the USS Abraham Lincoln and the propriety of that appearance. I, however, come to the floor today to discuss some of what the President said on the Lincoln, especially with regard to the fight against terrorism.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the fight against global terrorism--an effort that is surely our highest national security priority. I want to spend a few minutes talking about the fight against terrorism today because it is not at all clear to me that we are as focused on this mission as we should be. I fear that our mission has become obscured and our approach unfocused. I also fear that this confused approach will undermine our goal rather than enhance our security.

I had planned to make these remarks even before yesterday's terrible terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. Early reports indicate that those deplorable

attacks killed several, including at least 10 Americans. Many more innocent people were wounded. Al-Qaida is strongly suspected to be responsible. Of course, my heart and all of our hearts go out to all of the families who are grieving today and to those who are left with the terrible uncertainty as they wait to hear news of loved ones.

More information will surely be emerging shortly, but Secretary Powell has already pointed out one of the most important conclusions that can be drawn from this incident in Saudi Arabia, and that is that those forces who would have us live in fear have not been destroyed.

I have no doubt that everyone in this Chamber was gratified to hear the recent better news about Pakistan's arrest of several members of an important al-Qaida cell, including a Yemeni man believed to be involved in the October 2000 attack on the U.S. warship Cole in Yemen. I look forward to more information about this development. But I also look forward to more information about another related matter.

The President reminded us on the USS Lincoln that he has pledged that terrorists who attacked America ``would not escape the patient justice of the United States.'' I think the country expects nothing less. But how many people noticed when, according to reports, 10 men escaped from a prison in Yemen on April 11--10 men who apparently were being held on charges of involvement in the terrorist attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors, including one from my home State of Wisconsin?

I want to know--is this so? If so, how did they escape? Did they have assistance? Critically, why are we not hearing more about this? This escape occurred, apparently, just as our brave troops were entering Baghdad--at least in part in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism. But no one seems to be discussing at all this potentially dangerous lapse in Yemen. Did the perpetrators of the murder of 17 Americans on the USS Cole escape or not? And what does this mean? Americans pledge every day to never forget September 11, 2001. We pledge this to ourselves, to each other, and to the rest of the world, but I fear that the administration and the Congress are losing sight of our most important goals and priorities.

September 11 is invoked in some surprising and, I think, largely unrelated contexts. Sometimes the very idea of terrorism is used by some on the right and some on the left as a politically convenient attack on whomever or whatever they do not agree with. Rhetoric about September 11 and the fight against terrorism seems to be everywhere, and our distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, raised this very same issue in his remarks last week.

In many ways, the actual business of combating the terrorist organizations or organization responsible for the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, for the attack on the USS Cole, for the horror of September 11, and now possibly for last night's attacks in Riyadh, seems to be lost in the shuffle.

A few days ago, from the deck of the USS Lincoln, our President told the American people that ``the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001.'' And polls indicate a majority of the American people believe the Saddam Hussein regime was involved in the September 11 attacks. But I have never--I have never-- not in hearings, not in classified briefings, I have never heard once our officials assert we have intelligence indicating this is the case.

President Bush was, of course, right to praise our dedicated service men and women during that speech for they have performed their duties with skill and bravery and superb professionalism. I enthusiastically join the President in thanking them and in welcoming those who are now coming home.

But I cannot and will not join in any attempt to blur what must be the necessary and principal focus on the international terrorist threat by too easily merging it with different issues, including the issue of Iraq.

Last October, I was not able to support the resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. I felt that in terms of the constantly shifting justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the engagement's aftermath, I felt the administration had not made a sufficiently compelling case for Congress to grant war powers to the President.

I had no problem granting such power to the President to make war on those who attacked this country on September 11, but Iraq was a different issue which, of course, is why it required its own resolution authorizing force. If, in fact, there was a connection in planning together for the 9/11 attack by Saddam Hussein and his agents and the perpetrators of 9/11 and al-Qaida, then I believe there was no need for additional authority and resolution.

The administration had and continues to have all the authority required to go after the perpetrators of 9/11, but Iraq was and is a different issue. In fact, many of us feared it would be a distraction from the urgent task of fighting terrorism. I said on the floor in October, right after the President's famous speech in Cincinnati, the administration's arguments regarding Iraq did not add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al-Qaida and related organizations.

Of course, a majority of my colleagues in this Chamber voted in favor of authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. We did proceed, and the brave men and women of the United States military answered the call to service and performed brilliantly.

It is certainly my understanding when the Senate voted to authorize the use of force, and it remains my understanding today, that most Senators were convinced by the most compelling argument that the administration put forward. That is the one relating to Iraq's failures to comply with its obligations to verifiably dismantle and destroy its weapons of mass destruction program.

All of us recognize this as a serious issue, but now we are talking less and less about those weapons, it seems, and there is less and less clarity about this matter. So before returning to the principal issue of the fight against terrorism, let me spend a few minutes on the issue of WMD in Iraq.

I raise this issue not in an attempt to revisit the debate about our wisdom in the approach in Iraq and not because I am searching for a smoking gun. I raise it because it does matter whether or not we find WMD. Most importantly, it matters because if those materials were in the country in the first place and we cannot find them now, that is a security problem. Where did they go? Whose hands are they in? These are, obviously, very serious questions, and accounting for these materials cannot be written off as some sort of distraction or legalistic irrelevance.

Just yesterday the New York Times reported that the nuclear expert for the Army's Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha was unaware of any U.S. policy as to how to handle radioactive material that may be found in Iraq, material that could be used to make a dirty bomb. On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the group directing the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is ``winding down operations'' after a host of fruitless missions.

For months, I and others asked the administration: What is the plan for securing these weapons? We tried to understand how we would use the intelligence that was shared in the briefing room to quickly secure weapons of mass destruction and the means to make them. We asked the question for good reason. We were concerned that in the midst of the disorder and disarray likely to accompany military action and the fall of Saddam that WMD could be spirited out of the country or sold to the highest bidder, compounding the threat to the United States rather than eliminating it.

We were right to ask about this issue, and today it appears we either had a problem with our intelligence or we had an inadequate plan. Either way, we are talking about a serious problem that should be examined carefully and one that should not be repeated.

I also think the issue of weapons of mass destruction matters in terms of how the rest of the world and history will understand this undertaking in Iraq. Those perceptions and judgments do affect our security and global stability. We cannot afford to have the world believing the United States will

conjure up pretexts to wage wars and overthrow governments around the world at will. That is not who we are, and it is not in our interest to be perceived in that fashion.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting at all this was conjured up. There is no doubt that Iraq was not in compliance with Security Council Resolution 1441 when this conflict began, but I think we need to continue to focus on disarmament to keep from muddying the waters with regard to our intentions, and I believe we should accept credible and qualified international assistance in this regard. Yes, what the rest of the world thinks surely matters.

Turning back to the paramount issue of the fight against terrorism, I believe we have to keep this truth about how we are perceived throughout the rest of the world in mind. Perhaps the most important form of American power projected over the last century has been the power of our ideas and our values. If we lose our capacity to lead in that sense, then all of us in Government will have presided over the greatest loss of power in American history, regardless of how much we spend on our mighty and admirable military forces. And we will have put ourselves at a great disadvantage, likely a decisive and crippling disadvantage, in the fight against terrorism, which is our first national priority, which is our first priority in terms of national security.

I recognize many issues are interlinked, that our approach to one policy issue may affect the course of the campaign against terrorism. There can be no doubt about our primary responsibility and our most important security concern. We should be having a more focused dialog and exercising our oversight responsibilities in a more focused way.

A tremendous number of questions came to the surface on September 11. How can we win a war against a shadowy network of nonstate actors? How can we define success? How will we know when we have been victorious? All of us, Democrats and Republicans, the Congress and the executive branch, waded through these questions recognizing that some answers would take time to take shape.

So today many questions remain. Where are we in this fight against terrorism? Our colleague Senator Graham of Florida, one of the most respected Members of this body, suggested recently on the Today show that the war on terrorism has been ``essentially abandoned over the past year,'' and that it is ``a fundamental mis- characterization'' to describe the war in Iraq as part of the fight against global terrorism.'' Both issues should be the subject of intense focus in Congress. How are we finding our way in this new kind of conflict? How stable and robust is the multilateral coalition committed to combating terrorism of global reach?

The task at hand is difficult enough without obscuring the issues. Recently when Secretary Powell testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he noted that Americans have concluded that terrorism must be eradicated. But, he said:

Some in Europe see it differently. Some see terrorism as a

regrettable but inevitable part of society and they want to

keep it at arm-length and as low key as possible.

At this point, I am uncertain as to how to interpret this. Are our European partners really unconvinced of the need to fight terrorism? Which partners is he talking about? What steps are they unwilling to take to combat international terrorist organizations? These are real issues and the Secretary is quite right to raise them. But I am left uncertain. Are we conflating policy divergence on Iraq with divergence on international terrorism? Is that what we are talking about?

The President has asserted that:

Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist

attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this

country, and a target of American justice. . . . Any person,

organization, or government that supports, protects, or

harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the

innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

But if it is our policy to eradicate terrorist networks of global reach, then what does it mean when U.S. forces sign a cease-fire agreement with a designated foreign terrorist organization, as they did on April 15 with the Iraq-based Iranian organization known as the People's Mujahedeen or more formally as the Mujahedeen Khalq, the MEK? Are we making peace with terrorist organizations? For what purpose; to what end? Is there a question about the way we apply the terrorist organization designation? Now we read that the organization is surrendering weapons to U.S. forces in a reversal of the April 15 decision. What are the terms of this new agreement? The issues are difficult, but the elected representatives of the American people should be working on shaping the answers together, not picking up hints about ad-hoc decisions by scanning the wires.

Few would argue with the fact that this administration is intensely secretive. And, in this atmosphere of tightly controlled information, too often the elected representatives of the American people are stifled in our ability to fulfill Congress's very important oversight role. With only vague information at our disposal, it is difficult to assess progress or the wisdom of our policy course. The absence of clarity and the absence of data are dangerous. I think it endangers the American people.

The President was right when he said that we have not forgotten the victims of September 11. We have not, and we cannot. But in the same vein, we must not allow the mission that we accepted in the aftermath of that day to become an ever-shifting idea, one that we can never pin down in order to evaluate our performance and take stock of our needs. Let us hear less rhetoric and more about disturbing reports, such as the possible escape of the perpetrators of the dastardly attack on the USS Cole. That surely relates to the fight against terrorism. We certainly cannot permit the fight on terrorism, this most serious of issues, this horror that unites all Americans in resistance and resolve, to become a matter of rhetorical convenience. Our national security is at stake. We need clarity, we need focus, and we need candor. The American people deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) in introducing comprehensive legislation to address the problem of chronic wasting disease. This legislation is similar to legislation we introduced last year, updated to reflect current status of this issue. I am delighted to be continuing my efforts with him on this bill and to again also be working with my senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and commend them and their staff for all their tireless efforts.

This disease is a serious problem affecting both wild and captive deer in my home State of Wisconsin. It has spread from Wisconsin to the neighboring states of Minnesota and Illinois. This legislation is acutely needed, as Wisconsin's experience in getting Federal assistance to address this problem, though eventually forthcoming, has been extremely slow and frustrating. The Federal Government must make chronic wasting disease a higher priority, and Congress must provide the relevant federal agencies with the additional funds and authority so that they can do so.

Congress delayed action on this bill in the last Congress, under promises that the Department of the Interior, DOI, and the Department of Agriculture, USDA, would be acting quickly to put together and implement a comprehensive CWD management plan. It has now been nearly a year, and no such plan has emerged. I was successful in getting a provision included in the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill calling for the plan to be released no later than May 20, 2003. That deadline is rapidly approaching, and the legislation we introduce today will provide a clear message--CWD must be a priority for the Federal Government and for this administration.

A coordinated approach is needed, due to the severity of this disease, its ability to spread, and our urgent need for information to address it. Chronic wasting disease belongs to the family of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, TSEs, diseases. TSEs are a group of transmissible, slowly progressive, degenerative diseases of the central nervous systems of several species of animals. Animal TSEs include, in addition to chronic wasting disease, CWD, in deer and elk, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, scrapie in sheep and goats, feline spongiform encephalopathy in cats, and mink spongiform encephalopathy in mink.

The State of Wisconsin has just completed an historic effort to test the deer in our State. Results from more than 41,000 whitetail deer tested in our State have turned up 207 CWD positive animals. Almost all of the infected deer, 201 of the total, came from a 411 square mile eradication zone of Dane,

Iowa and Sauk counties. My State began intensive testing of deer after CWD was discovered on February 28, 2002. Over 1,200 people in my State have been involved, conducting thousands of hours of work at millions of dollars of expense. CWD has also been found in several captive herds in my State as well.

In that vein, the legislation we are introducing in comprehensive, addressing both captive and wild animals and short term and long term needs. It authorizes a $34.5 million Federal chronic wasting disease program that will be administered by the United States Departments of Interior and Agriculture, USDA. It is similar to legislation being introduced today in the House of Representatives by the Representatives from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), and from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and was cosponsored on a bipartisan basis by Wisconsin delegation members in the House Of Representatives in the last Congress. I think it is extremely appropriate that legislators from Colorado, the state that has the longest history in chronic wasting disease, have made a concerted effort to work with Wisconsin members who are struggling with a new outbreak. I deeply appreciate the commitment of the Representative from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), toward finding a solution that works for both our States. I think these are good comprehensive efforts, and I would like to highlight a few provisions in detail.

The bill I am introducing with the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), authorizes $16 million for grants to States and tribal governments battling CWD. The Interior Department to give up to $10 million in grants to States to help them plan and implement management strategies to address chronic wasting disease in both wild herds of deer and elk. The Interior Department is directed, in addition, to develop a national chronic wasting disease incident database, building on the existing USDA reporting program. The USDA is authorized to award up to $6 million in grants to those same entities for the management of CWD in captive deer and elk. These amounts are nearly triple $5.6 million that USDA made available to States for use to address CWD in both captive and wild cervids.

I am particularly pleased that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), has incorporated provisions that I authored to address Wisconsin's ongoing need for enhanced testing capacity to move toward a system of widely available testing for hunters. Under the bill, USDA is required to release, within 30 days, protocols both for labs to use in performing tests for chronic wasting disease and for the proper collection of animal tissue to be tested. USDA is further required to develop a certification program for Federal and non-Federal labs, including private labs, conducting chronic wasting disease tests within 30 days of enactment. I hope all these measures will enhance Wisconsin's capacity to continue its deer testing program. To address longer term needs, the USDA is directed to accelerate research into the development of live animal tests for chronic wasting disease, including field diagnostic tests, and the development of testing protocols that reduce laboratory test processing time.

This bill is needed, because State wildlife and agriculture departments do not have the fiscal or scientific capacity to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding, research grants, and scientific expertise is urgently needed. Federal and state cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health.

I look forward to working with my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Allard), to seek passage of this measure. This is a good bill and it deserves the Senate's support.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) in introducing comprehensive legislation to address the problem of chronic wasting disease. This legislation is similar to legislation we introduced last year, updated to reflect current status of this issue. I am delighted to be continuing my efforts with him on this bill and to again also be working with my senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and commend them and their staff for all their tireless efforts.

This disease is a serious problem affecting both wild and captive deer in my home State of Wisconsin. It has spread from Wisconsin to the neighboring states of Minnesota and Illinois. This legislation is acutely needed, as Wisconsin's experience in getting Federal assistance to address this problem, though eventually forthcoming, has been extremely slow and frustrating. The Federal Government must make chronic wasting disease a higher priority, and Congress must provide the relevant federal agencies with the additional funds and authority so that they can do so.

Congress delayed action on this bill in the last Congress, under promises that the Department of the Interior, DOI, and the Department of Agriculture, USDA, would be acting quickly to put together and implement a comprehensive CWD management plan. It has now been nearly a year, and no such plan has emerged. I was successful in getting a provision included in the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill calling for the plan to be released no later than May 20, 2003. That deadline is rapidly approaching, and the legislation we introduce today will provide a clear message--CWD must be a priority for the Federal Government and for this administration.

A coordinated approach is needed, due to the severity of this disease, its ability to spread, and our urgent need for information to address it. Chronic wasting disease belongs to the family of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, TSEs, diseases. TSEs are a group of transmissible, slowly progressive, degenerative diseases of the central nervous systems of several species of animals. Animal TSEs include, in addition to chronic wasting disease, CWD, in deer and elk, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, scrapie in sheep and goats, feline spongiform encephalopathy in cats, and mink spongiform encephalopathy in mink.

The State of Wisconsin has just completed an historic effort to test the deer in our State. Results from more than 41,000 whitetail deer tested in our State have turned up 207 CWD positive animals. Almost all of the infected deer, 201 of the total, came from a 411 square mile eradication zone of Dane,

Iowa and Sauk counties. My State began intensive testing of deer after CWD was discovered on February 28, 2002. Over 1,200 people in my State have been involved, conducting thousands of hours of work at millions of dollars of expense. CWD has also been found in several captive herds in my State as well.

In that vein, the legislation we are introducing in comprehensive, addressing both captive and wild animals and short term and long term needs. It authorizes a $34.5 million Federal chronic wasting disease program that will be administered by the United States Departments of Interior and Agriculture, USDA. It is similar to legislation being introduced today in the House of Representatives by the Representatives from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), and from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and was cosponsored on a bipartisan basis by Wisconsin delegation members in the House Of Representatives in the last Congress. I think it is extremely appropriate that legislators from Colorado, the state that has the longest history in chronic wasting disease, have made a concerted effort to work with Wisconsin members who are struggling with a new outbreak. I deeply appreciate the commitment of the Representative from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), toward finding a solution that works for both our States. I think these are good comprehensive efforts, and I would like to highlight a few provisions in detail.

The bill I am introducing with the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), authorizes $16 million for grants to States and tribal governments battling CWD. The Interior Department to give up to $10 million in grants to States to help them plan and implement management strategies to address chronic wasting disease in both wild herds of deer and elk. The Interior Department is directed, in addition, to develop a national chronic wasting disease incident database, building on the existing USDA reporting program. The USDA is authorized to award up to $6 million in grants to those same entities for the management of CWD in captive deer and elk. These amounts are nearly triple $5.6 million that USDA made available to States for use to address CWD in both captive and wild cervids.

I am particularly pleased that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), has incorporated provisions that I authored to address Wisconsin's ongoing need for enhanced testing capacity to move toward a system of widely available testing for hunters. Under the bill, USDA is required to release, within 30 days, protocols both for labs to use in performing tests for chronic wasting disease and for the proper collection of animal tissue to be tested. USDA is further required to develop a certification program for Federal and non-Federal labs, including private labs, conducting chronic wasting disease tests within 30 days of enactment. I hope all these measures will enhance Wisconsin's capacity to continue its deer testing program. To address longer term needs, the USDA is directed to accelerate research into the development of live animal tests for chronic wasting disease, including field diagnostic tests, and the development of testing protocols that reduce laboratory test processing time.

This bill is needed, because State wildlife and agriculture departments do not have the fiscal or scientific capacity to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding, research grants, and scientific expertise is urgently needed. Federal and state cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health.

I look forward to working with my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Allard), to seek passage of this measure. This is a good bill and it deserves the Senate's support.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 536.

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

Mr. President, this amendment would simply require the Department of Justice to report to the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee about the use of this new lone-wolf exception to FISA. With this information, Congress will be better able to assess the need for reauthorization as the sunset provision in the bill approaches. I am pleased that the amendment has been agreed to by the sponsors of the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be agreed to under the previous order.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his cooperation in working together to provide this measure of accountability to this important piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California to yield me some time so I can speak in support of the amendment.

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from California that S. 113 is the wrong way to fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The approach taken in S. 113 would eliminate the current requirement in FISA that the individual who is the target of a warrant must be an agent of a foreign power. This means that S. 113 may very well result in FISA serving as a substitute for some of the most important criminal laws we have in this country. Senator Feinstein's permissive presumption amendment would allow the Government to obtain FISA warrants against suspected lone wolf international terrorists without unnecessarily eliminating an essential element of FISA, and that is the agent of a foreign power requirement.

FISA, as the Senator from California has very carefully and effectively pointed out, represents an important exception to traditional constitutional restraints on criminal investigations, allowing the Government to gather foreign intelligence information without having probable cause that a crime has been or is going to be committed. I will repeat that. This is something the Government can do without having probable cause that a crime has been or is going to be committed. That is a major exception to our normal understanding about how criminal proceedings should be conducted under our Constitution. The courts have permitted the Government to proceed with surveillance in this country under FISA's lesser standard of suspicion because the power is limited to investigations of foreign powers and their agents.

Senator Feinstein ably pointed out the history behind this and the careful balance that Attorney General Griffin Bell discussed at the time, and how important that balance was for such an unusual exception to be made to our rules about criminal proceedings.

S. 113 writes out of the statute a key requirement necessary to the lawfulness of intrusive surveillance powers that would otherwise simply be unconstitutional.

FISA's own appellate court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, discussed in a November 2002 decision why a FISA warrant does not require a showing of probable cause of criminal activity. The court stated that FISA is constitutional in part because it provides ``another safeguard . . . that is, the requirement that there be probable cause to believe the target is acting `for or on behalf of a foreign power.' '' So this is supposed to be about people acting in connection with a foreign power. S. 113, as currently drafted, simply eliminates that safeguard.

Even if S. 113 survived constitutional challenge, it would mean that non-U.S. persons could have either electronic surveillance and searches authorized against them using the lesser standards of FISA, even though there is no conceivable foreign intelligence aspect to their case. S. 113 will then likely result in a dramatic increase in the use of FISA warrants in situations that do not justify such extraordinary Government power.

I think Senator Feinstein's amendment is a thoughtful and reasonable alternative to make sure that FISA can be used against a lone wolf terrorist, which I commend the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from New York for trying to address. But at the same time her amendment means we can do this without eliminating the important agent of a foreign power requirement. The amendment would create a permissive presumption that if there is probable cause to believe a non-U.S. person is engaged in or preparing to engage in international terrorism, the individual can be considered to be an agent of a foreign power even if the evidence of a connection to a foreign power is not clear. The use of a permissive presumption, rather than eliminating the foreign power requirement, maintains judicial oversight and review on a case- by-case basis on the question of whether the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. The permissive presumption would permit the FISA judge to decide, in a given case, if the Government has gone too far in requesting a FISA warrant.

I want to be clear about one point that apparently came up this morning. I understand the Senator from Arizona argued this morning that this amendment would weaken or impact on the FISA law as a whole. That is just not true. This amendment applies only to the changes made in the bill to address the lone wolf problem. It is a narrow, carefully drafted, very important amendment to this bill.

Any concern that the FISA judges would not use their discretion wisely is, I think--as the Senator from California pointed out-- misplaced. What is the reason for any concern whatsoever about the proper use of this provision by judges? In the 23 years that the FISA court has been reviewing FISA applications, they have only declined to issue the warrant on one occasion. In that case, the decision of the court was reversed on appeal. The FISA judges clearly take their responsibility seriously and execute it carefully. The experience of the last two decades shows we can trust them not to the deny FISA applications too hastily. We should also be able to trust them enough to maintain their power to serve as a reasonable check on Government overreaching.

We are told that one of the inspirations for this bill was the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker. One of the FBI's excuses for not seeking a warrant to search Mr. Moussaoui's computer prior to September 11 was that they could not identify a foreign power or group with which Moussaoui was associated. In other words, they could not meet the agent of a foreign power requirement to get a FISA warrant. In the case of Moussaoui, a warrant application was never even submitted to the FISA court.

As Senator Specter pointed out, many legal observers think the FBI simply misread the law, and it could and should have obtained a FISA warrant against Mr. Moussaoui if it had tried.

No matter, in any event, Senator Feinstein's amendment would fix the so-called Moussaoui problem just as well as the current bill. The permissive presumption would still ensure that future investigators do not need to show specific evidence of a particular foreign power or group for which the individual was an agent if they have other good evidence that the subject is preparing to engage in international terrorism, as they did in Moussaoui's case, but have not been able to identify the specific agent of a foreign power.

At the same time, Senator Feinstein's formulation would put some limit on the Government's ability to use this new power to dramatically extend FISA's reach. If the Government comes to a conclusion that an individual is truly acting on his or her own, then our criminal laws concerning when electronic surveillance and searches can be used, in my view, and I think in the view of many, are more than sufficient. True lone wolves can and should be investigated and prosecuted in our criminal justice system.

Under this amendment, the FISA court could presume that any non-U.S. person preparing to engage in international terrorism is an agent of a foreign power. At the time of the initial warrant application, and perhaps even later, this presumption makes sense. It is somewhat difficult to envision a foreigner in the United States planning an international terrorist attack who is not an agent of a foreign power, which includes a terrorist organization. But one can envision a situation where, at the time of a request for a reauthorization, a FISA warrant is made, the Government has now determined that the suspect is truly a lone wolf.

In those situations where the person is simply a lone wolf in every sense of the word and is not connected with a foreign power or terrorist organization, FISA should not apply. The Government should then use all the tools of the criminal process because--and this is the key issue--in that circumstance, the foreign intelligence rationale, the entire basis for the creation of a FISA law, that entire rationale for FISA's lesser standard no longer exists.

Senator Feinstein's amendment retains FISA's agent of a foreign power requirement, maintains the independence of the FISA court, and preserves judicial oversight of the abuse of the new power. It protects national security by addressing the lone wolf problem, and it does not threaten the constitutional freedoms we cherish.

I am grateful to the Senator from California for her leadership role on this important amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this reasonable amendment that will simply make this a much better bill and, frankly, a bill that would cause many of us to feel comfortable supporting the bill.

I urge my colleagues who are proponents of this bill to consider how important it is that we have as many Senators as possible support such a bill. This goes right to the heart of the question of whether in times of crisis this Nation is going to get the balance right between civil liberties and our Constitution and the important paramount issue of fighting terrorism. We need as many people supporting this to send a message to the American people that we are getting this right. The Feinstein amendment is a reasonable, modest attempt to achieve that kind of consensus. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from California for yielding time and for her leadership. I thank the Senator from Arizona. He is a person of great integrity, and the way he concedes if he didn't say something exactly perfectly this morning is an example of exactly the kind of relationship I have with him on these debates. They are good debates. I appreciate that.

It is also true the Senator from California and the Senator from Arizona almost always agree on these kinds of issues. They are one of the most formidable combinations here in the Senate, in a bipartisan combination. I take great pride in the bipartisan work I have had a chance to do with people such as the other Senator from Arizona and the Senators from Maine.

So I take my hat off to them for having done that. I have often been on the other side of their view, which is not easy because they are well prepared and they are very dedicated and they like to get things done.

I guess that is why I think this is kind of a significant moment, when Senator Feinstein and I actually agree on a point, when the two of you so frequently agree. I think it is a sign that there is something that needs to be fixed in this bill.

It is modest, but it is very important. I remind the Senator from Arizona that I think I essentially said this: I voted for this in committee in the hope it would be fixed on the floor.

My goal here is not to kill this bill. I do know how to vote against bills I don't like. My goal is to fix it because I think there is a problem with this issue. That is where we are with this amendment. This is an attempt to fix this bill on a very important point without, in my view, doing any serious harm at all to the goal of the Senator from Arizona and the goal of the Senator from New York.

The way I understand this operates is that in these cases the FISA court is going to grant this warrant upfront, essentially every time in the first request, because there will be the evidence or the presumption that there is a problem.

Where this, the Feinstein amendment, has a real impact is where they come back later and they have to come back for a renewal. If after a couple of years there is just no evidence at all or virtually no sign at all that the original belief about what this guy was about to do isn't bearing any fruit at all, in that case, and only in that case, should this, in terms of our laws and our tradition, be returned to the regular criminal court--only in that circumstance.

In other words, yes, the Government was trying to protect the American people, as they should. They had a person here who they believed might have a connection to a foreign power or be connected to a terrorist organization. But it turns out after some period of time that it just didn't happen to be one of those cases where that was true.

It is still a person who intended, perhaps, to do something very wrong. It is still a person who should be prosecuted. But it is a person who deserves the protections of the laws of the United States-- because I am sure the Senator from Arizona agrees with me, barring this unusual kind of circumstance that is the basis for the FISA law, everyone who commits a crime on our soil, whether an American citizen or not, is entitled to the protections of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a criminal proceeding.

The FISA law is only a narrow exception to that. So let's be very clear on the record. I do want to get at these lone wolves who may have some connection to international actors, such as foreign powers, or to terrorist organizations. As the Senator from California pointed out, if it is simply a person committing a bad act on our soil, a person who is not an American citizen, that is what our criminal courts are for. That is what title III is for. That is the foundation of our system.

This is really an incredibly narrow exception, a backstop, a safeguard to make sure that the good intentions of what this bill is all about don't go too far. That is what the Senator from California said, so that there is not overreaching.

I have just one other point about what the Senator from New York said. He seemed to be setting up a scenario where there might be a conflict between the FISA judges, almost as if there were different circuits like in the regular courts. That is not the way the FISA courts are set up. There are different FISA judges, but together they constitute the appeals courts. There would not be different areas of the country that would have different laws of this kind of thing that would present any kind of problem in terms of a conflict in the circuits. I don't think this argument holds up.

Let me return to the point. The Senator from California has been so careful in making sure this is just a safeguard down the line, when somebody has been identified as a potential lone wolf and it does not really pan out, that there is some discretion rather than a permanent warrant into perpetuity for eavesdropping on somebody who certainly maybe needs to be evesdropped upon, but for whom that authority should be obtained through the normal criminal procedure, not on the basis of a law that was crafted under the assumption that this is a foreign threat to our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alex Busansky, a detailee with my office from the Department of Justice, be granted floor privileges for the duration of this Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to the situation in the Central African country of Burundi, where a remarkable step has been taken to end that country's brutal civil war. Last week, President Pierre Buyoya voluntarily ceded power to Domitien Ndayizeye, who will now lead the country through the second half of a 3-year transitional power-sharing government. This orderly transfer of power, conducted in compliance with the Arusha Accords signed in 2000, is an important symbol of ethnic reconciliation, as a Tutsi President with a Hutu Vice President gives way to a Hutu head of state with a Tutsi Vice President. An African Union force is slated to help provide stability during this transitional period. This is a development to be celebrated, and the United Nations Security Council was right to praise this milestone achievement.

But much more needs to be done. Rather than being satisfied with President Ndayizeye's inauguration, the people of Burundi and the international community should seize on this moment as a catalyst for more energetic and focused efforts to bring Burundi out of crisis. A comprehensive cease-fire among all parties to the conflict is still not in place. Little progress has been made to date toward comprehensively reforming the security services to reflect a multiethnic society. Burundi's future will also depend upon increasing respect for basic human rights, ending the climate of impunity in which these rights have been violated, and establishing viable mechanisms for holding those responsible for abuses accountable for their actions. The international community must maintain an engaged policy that both supports these reforms and pressures those who resist them.

Most importantly, the international community and the Burundian leadership must take this opportunity to establish a firm relationship between positive developments in the political sphere and the conditions of the Burundian people, who languish, sometimes in grave and consistent insecurity, and often in desperate humanitarian crisis. Abject poverty, a dramatic decline in primary school enrollment, soaring infant mortality rates, and displacement on a massive scale characterize the situation of Burundian society. If we allow paper agreements and political milestones to remain disconnected from concrete improvements for the people of Burundi, we are only empowering the spoilers in this process, and only encouraging the kind of hideous violence that has become all too common in Central Africa.

Nine years ago Burundi's neighbor erupted in genocide. Ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has cost the lives of millions. Crises spill across borders, poisoning the prospects for progress throughout the region, and creating lucrative opportunities for international criminals. Burundi may be small, but its suffering is great, and its capacity to help or hinder efforts to stabilize a vast swathe of Africa should not be underestimated. We know what the consequences of indifference are; we have seen them in the millions dead, displaced, mourning and grieving. For a brief moment, Burundi has captured global attention. We should not look away again; the stakes are too high.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to use such time as I may consume as in morning business.

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

Mr. President, at 3:45 p.m. on Friday afternoon, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia released a long-awaited decision in the case of McConnell v. FEC. That is the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sometimes known as the McCain- Feingold bill.

Over 80 different plaintiffs participated in the case, which was defended by the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission. Six congressional sponsors of the law, Senator John McCain, Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator James Jeffords, Representative Christopher Shays, Representative Marty Meehan, and I, intervened as defendants in the case.

A number of commentators and lawyers for the parties have commented that the most important aspect of this decision is that it has finally come down. I agree with that. From the very beginning of our effort to reform the campaign laws over a period of 7 years, we knew that the Supreme Court of the United States would decide the fate of the law. We provided for expedited consideration of any challenge to the law's constitutionality by having a three-judge panel hear the case as the trial court with a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

Discovery and briefing in the case proceeded on a very fast track, and the court heard oral argument on December 4, 2002, an argument which I had a chance to attend in part. At that argument, the chief judge of the panel suggested that the panel would rule by the end of January. It took considerably longer than that, and now we know why. On Friday, the court released over 1,600 pages of opinions. A shifting majority among the three judges upheld some of the most important portions of the law while it struck down some others.

Now that the three-judge panel has finally ruled, the Supreme Court can take the case and begin its consideration of the constitutional issues raised by the law. I hope the Court will act quickly, but I also hope it will act carefully and judiciously as, of course, we assume it will. The decision of the Court will shape the conduct of elections and fundraising in this country for many years to come.

While the district court opinion will become a mere footnote to history once the Supreme Court rules, I believe it is useful to comment on the decision today because the press coverage of the details of the ruling has been sometimes contradictory, and unfortunately in a number of cases the press reports were simply inaccurate about what had happened with the court decision. This is not surprising given the complexity of the ruling and the length of the opinions. For the benefit of my colleagues, particularly those who supported our long effort to pass reform, I wanted to discuss today what the court did and did not do.

The court's ruling was shaped by two different 2-1 majorities. U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson would have struck down much of the law, while U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly would have upheld most of it. The deciding vote in most cases was U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who sided with Judge Henderson on some issues and with Judge Kollar-Kotelly on others. The three judges were unanimous on a handful of issues, mostly on some of the minor provisions in the bill, but also on one very significant portion of the soft money ban.

Let me start with soft money, especially in light of the headlines that screamed ``soft money ban struck down.'' Those headlines were not correct.

Let me start with soft money, which was the core of the reform effort and was dealt with in title I of the McCain-Feingold bill.

The court struck down our prohibition on national parties raising soft

money. Under this ruling, national party committees may again raise unlimited contributions from unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals. That, of course, assumes that the Supreme Court agrees with this point, which frankly I believe they will not. State parties were never prohibited from raising such money under McCain-Feingold. Each State's fundraising activities are governed by State law. That is quite key to understanding exactly what happened by the ruling.

The court left intact, however, the prohibition on the national parties spending soft money on public communications, such as broadcast advertising, television ads, that promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes a Federal candidate. Over the past four election cycles, dating back to the 1996 campaign, both Federal and State parties have spent millions upon millions of dollars of soft money on television ads attacking candidates of the other party.

Frankly, it was this practice, the use of soft money for television ads, that more than anything else drove Senator McCain and I, and the other authors and supporters of the bill, to work so hard for 7 years.

This court, this district court, upheld the ban on ads being paid for by soft money.

The so-called issue ads are the biggest end run around the campaign finance laws out there, and they were the core of what McCain-Feingold is trying to stop. I am pleased to say the district court upheld our efforts in that area.

Under this ruling, party committees can raise soft money but they cannot spend it on all those phony issue ads you see on television all throughout the campaigns and about which so many people have complained. They can spend it, however, under this rule, on other activities that Congress determined in BCRA had a significant effect on Federal elections, such as voter registration drives conducted near in time to Federal elections and voter identification and voter registration efforts.

In upholding the prohibitions on the parties spending soft money to finance election-related advertising, I firmly believe the basic principle of McCain-Feingold was upheld. The court recognized the corrupting effect of this money and the power of Congress to regulate it when it affects Federal elections. That is a significant finding.

Note that the court did not find that the first amendment or free speech rulings or practices restrict or prevent a complete ban on ads paid for by soft money. That was the biggest issue out here in the debate over 7 years, and even this district court agreed with that fundamental principle of McCain-Feingold.

When the case goes to the Supreme Court, congressional supporters of the law and the United States will urge the Court to recognize that the corrupting effect of soft money on our political process is not eliminated by simply restricting its use to so-called party-building activities. So there is no question, we hope for an even stronger ruling from the Supreme Court. Furthermore, there is ample evidence, we believe, that the kinds of activities the district court determined can still be financed with soft money do, in fact, have a major impact on Federal elections.

The same 2-to-1 majority that struck down the ban on national parties raising soft money also held unconstitutional the prohibition of parties raising soft money for or transferring soft money to advocacy groups. The other 2-to-1 majority upheld the prohibition on State candidates spending money on advertisements that mention Federal candidates and promote, support, attack, or oppose these candidates.

Again, not only did the court say that at the Federal level the parties could not buy soft money TV ads, but also the State parties cannot run ads on behalf of Federal candidates using soft money--again, very different from what you might have assumed had you been watching CNN late Friday afternoon.

All three judges, however--and I think this is very significant-- uphold the crucial portion of the new law that simply prohibits Federal officeholders and candidates from raising and spending soft money. This is a significant blow to those who wanted to believe when they first heard about this decision that it had somehow restored the status quo of political fundraising and campaign spending in this country.

Even Judge Henderson, who ruled against our side on virtually every other matter, rejected most of the new justifications of the new law offered by its proponents. Even she recognized the fact that there is an appearance of corruption created when Members of Congress or other Federal officials seek to raise huge donations from corporations, unions, or wealthy individuals. She upheld this provision under the highest standard of review, strict scrutiny.

Today, just like last Thursday, it is still against the law--a criminal violation--for a Member of Congress to call up a union, an individual, or a corporate entity and ask for unlimited campaign contributions. It cannot be done today any more than it could have been done a few days ago.

It is important to know that the provision of the law upheld in this part of the court's opinion includes a prohibition not only on Members themselves doing this, raising soft money for purposes of broadcast, but also on entities directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by Federal candidates or officeholders. As a matter of fact, this is a complete prohibition on soft money fundraising by these entities.

I misspoke a minute ago saying it only related to broadcast. This prohibition on Federal officeholders and entities directly or indirectly established by them relates to any kind of fundraising for any kind of soft money whatever. Therefore, leadership PACs maintained by Members of Congress may still not raise soft money under this ruling; nor can the congressional campaign committees which are clearly established and controlled by Members of Congress to aid the reelection efforts of themselves and their colleagues.

Now, unfortunately the former head of one such committee quickly announced he would begin raising soft money immediately anyway. He might want to get some legal advice first. Although the soft money portion of the court's ruling certainly changes much in the political fundraising landscape, it leaves one very important part of the new regime imposed by the McCain-Feingold bill: Members of Congress and the executive branch must stay out of the soft money game altogether. Especially in this period of uncertainty between now and when the Supreme Court issues its decision, the spectacle of Members of Congress getting out their old soft money Rolodexes and dialing for dollars again would be more than the American people would stand.

So I am not only very pleased but relieved that the district court recognized the importance of stopping the part of the soft money system that some of us have referred to as legalized extortion or legalized bribery or, more directly, simply a shakedown.

Title II of the McCain-Feingold bill dealt with what we called electioneering communications, the phony issue ads by outside groups that commanded so much attention during the last few election cycles. Here again, the court was divided. It did strike down the primary definition of electioneering communications we had referred to on the floor as the bright line test. Actually, we also referred to it as the Snowe-Jeffords provision. Under that formulation, an ad that ran within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary could be financed only with hard money; that is, only through a PAC set up by the company, union, or group running the ad.

Now, a majority of the district court panel believed this definition was overly broad because it would capture a substantial number of ``true issue ads'' as well as those aimed at electioneering.

Again, despite the initial erroneous reports, there was more to the decision than that--quite dramatically more. The court upheld a fallback definition which was originally added on the floor by Senator Specter during the debate in 2001. That definition uses language similar to that which we employed in the soft money ban to address phony issue ads run by the parties. So if an ad promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes a candidate, it still must be paid for with hard money. The court also

upheld the Wellstone amendment that applied this definition to ads run by advocacy groups in addition to labor unions and for-profit corporations and upheld the disclosure requirements in the law.

The definition upheld by the district court actually is not limited to a 30- or 60-day window. So at any time during the election cycle, including today, groups may not use soft money to run ads attacking candidates in this manner. This is very significant. The definition is broader and will very likely cover many more ads in the primary definition of electioneering communications that we passed. The court even threw out a clause included by Senator Specter to attempt to narrow the definition, declaring it made the overall definition too vague. Frankly, I don't know whether this ruling will survive when the Supreme Court rules on the case.

What is most interesting here is the majority of the court decided that Congress is not limited to regulating advertisements that use the so-called magic words of express advocacy. Year after year, opponents of McCain-Feingold said you could only limit this to the magic words, vote for or vote against. That is not true under this court's ruling, and that is a major step forward, potentially. It recognizes the Constitution is not a straitjacket leaving the Congress powerless to address clear efforts to evade the law through phony issue ads.

In our appeal to the Supreme Court, we will argue that the 30/60 provision drafted by Senators Snowe and Jeffords is constitutionally defensible because it gives groups certainty over what ad is covered and what is not. But either definition is preferable to the current very narrow magic words test that allows a massive evasion of disclosure and source requirements for the attack ads that tend to dominate the airways in the weeks before an election.

The court reached decisions on a number of other provisions of the bill. A number of these decisions were unanimous, and I will not take time right now to go through each of them. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of those rulings be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. President, in the next few days a decision will be made whether to seek a stay of the district court's decision. I think the arguments for such a stay are strong. The parties have been working under the new campaign finance rules since November of last year.

To shift to another system for a few months while the Supreme Court reviews the case only to shift again when the Supreme Court rules, whatever its decision might be, does not make much sense. It would be preferable for a variety of reasons to keep things the way they are now until the Supreme Court makes a final decision. That decision should come in plenty of time for the parties to prepare for the upcoming elections.

One of the main arguments for a stay is that in order to put the district court's decision in place, the FEC would almost certainly have to undertake a whole new set of rulemaking proceedings. The FEC worked to put implementing regulations in place in a timely manner, as instructed by the new law. Many of those regulations are not particularly useful under the law established by the district court's decision. In any event, I call on the parties to act with restraint, especially until the courts rule on any requests for a stay.

As I mentioned at the outset, we have always known that this case was headed to the Supreme Court. I am pleased that the decision of the three judge panel has come down and that the final stage of this legal process can now begin. I have great confidence in the Department of Justice and in the legal team that is representing the congressional sponsors. They did an extraordinary job in assembling a factual record and laying out the arguments for the law's constitutionality in the district court.

These lawyers are acting to defend a legislative product that reflects not only political compromise, but also great care and attention to constitutional principles and the American people's desire for a political system that is based on ideas and not money. I am proud to continue the fight for campaign finance reform in the courts, and I again thank my colleagues for their support in this long effort.

I chose to come to the floor because if anybody had read the news accounts on Friday and Saturday, frankly, they would not have any idea of what the actual effect of this ruling was which was, on balance, positive, in favor of campaign finance reform. But we do hope the U.S. Supreme Court will even go further and complete the job.

Exhibit 1

Coordionation--A 2-1 majority of the court rejected

challenges to the coordination provisions. It held that a

challenge to the provision that requires the FEC to issue new

regulations was premature.

Independent/coordinated party expenditures--By a 3-0 vote,

the court struck down the provision of the bill that requires

parties to choose once a candidate had been nominated between

making independent or 441a(d) expenditures.

Millionaire provisions--By a 3-0 vote, the court decided

that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the

millionaire amendments.

Stand by your ad--By a 3-0 vote, the court determined that

the candidate plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge

the Wyden amendment requiring candidates to personally appear

in ads that attack their opponents in order to get the lowest

unit rate.

Increased contribution limits--By a 3-0 vote, the court

ruled that the Adams plaintiffs do not have standing to

challenge the increased contributions limits.

Minors' contributions--By a 3-0 vote, the court struck down

the ban on contributions by minors.

ID of sponsors--The court upheld the Durbin amendment

requiring more identifying information on the identification

of the sponsor or sponsors of a political ad.

Disclosure of broadcasting records--By a 3-0 vote, but for

differing reasons, the court struck down the Hagel amendment

requiring broadcasting stations to maintain and make publicly

available records of requests to purchase political

advertising time.