Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of Wisconsin's seniors and taxpayers whose wallets are being gauged by certain pharmaceutical companies. My legislation is in response to certain pharmaceutical companies' decision to target seniors who are crossing into Canada to get more affordable prescription drugs for their own use.

If these pharmaceutical companies are going to price gauge seniors's wallets, they don't deserve the taxpayers' support.

A growing number of American seniors are obtaining their prescription drugs from Canada for personal use.

Unfortunately, many of these seniors who are crossing the boarder to access more affordable prescription drugs for their personal use are being targeted by the very pharmaceutical companies that receive millions in tax breaks.

I recently received a call from seniors in my state that Glaxo Smith Klein had decided to stop supplying Canadian pharmacies that resell its drugs to Americans, thereby preventing them from receiving the same benefits these pharmacies provide to Canadians.

The Seniors in my State were not the only ones who took notice of this action. On February 21st of this month, Seniors groups from 12 States, including Wisconsin, sent Glaxo a message by launching a boycott of nonprescription products of Glaxo-Smith-Kline.

Congress should also send all pharmaceutical companies a message that this practice simply is unacceptable.

I think the single most important step we can take is to modernize Medicare and make it better is to eliminate the current inequities in the Medicare system and provide the prescription drug coverage senior citizens need.

At the same time Congress should pass legislation, that Senators Schumer, McCain, and I introduced that would bring lower-cost generic drugs to the market faster and lower the cost of prescription drugs by $60 billion.

Until we pass a comprehensive prescription drug benefit, we must ensure that seniors are not targeted by pharmaceutical companies. If these drug companies actively discriminate against American seniors, we should not provide them tax breaks.

That's why my legislation would deny tax breaks to drug companies who discriminate against Canadian pharmacies that provide Americans the same discount that they provide to Canadians.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the military's recent discharge of several linguists who are critically needed in our Nation's fight against terrorism but who, in the military's eyes, are unfit for the job because of their sexual orientation. The military's treatment of these individuals is not only a grave injustice to these talented men and women who have bravely volunteered to defend our Nation, but it poses a serious threat to our Nation's preparedness.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our Nation's security agencies and all branches of the military recognized that they must increase the recruitment and training of linguists who can speak and interpret languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, and Russian. Understanding these languages is critical to ensuring our Nation's security. Those who are able to communicate in these languages can translate communications that may be made by terrorists or others intent on doing us harm. In fact, a large portion of the intelligence information retrieved by the U.S. security agencies currently cannot be translated, hindering the ability of the Federal Government to protect our country.

According to a study released by the U.S. General Accounting Office in January 2002, the Army is facing a serious shortfall of linguists in five of the six languages it categorizes as most critical--Arabic, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Farsi, and Russian. The Army has met only 50 percent of its need for linguists who speak Arabic, 63 percent of its need for Korean speakers, 62 percent of its need for Mandarin Chinese speakers, 32 percent of its need for Farsi speakers, and 63 percent of its need for Russian speakers. This leads to a 44 percent total shortfall in translators and interpreters for 5 of the 6 critical languages. Furthermore, the Army only has 75 percent of the cryptology linguists needed who speak Korean and Mandarin Chinese, and has a 13 percent shortfall of Army Human Intelligence Collectors in five of the languages found to be of critical importance. Spanish is the only language for which the Army has met its linguist needs.

Although the military faces a crisis in the linguistics field, linguists with a high level of proficiency in languages determined critical by the military and security agencies have continued to be discharged from the Armed Forces simply because they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

In 1993, the military instituted a plan known as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass,'' known more commonly as the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. The basic premise of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy is that, while military leaders know that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have always played an important part in America's military, homosexual members of the military are not allowed to be asked about or to tell anyone about their sexual orientation. Furthermore, the Department of Defense generally cannot conduct investigations regarding the sexual orientation of service members, and the Armed Forces has a policy that does not tolerate harassment of anyone based on perceived or actual homosexuality.

The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has been, by most accounts, a failure. Homosexual military personnel continue to be harassed within all the branches of the Armed Forces. In fact, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, SDLN, an advocacy organization dedicated to aiding gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members who face discrimination in the armed services, in 2001 the armed services fired more than 1,250 gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans B more than any other year since 1987. Furthermore, since the initiation of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, more than 7,800 American service members have lost their jobs because of anti-gay sentiment.

Not only does the ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' policy needlessly discriminate against courageous Americans, it also wastes millions in taxpayer dollars. For example, according to SLDN, the government spent $36 million to replace gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who were discharged from the military in 2001. Even more staggering is the fact that the government has spent over $234 million to train replacements for homosexual service members since the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy was enacted in 1993. Thus, instead of using those millions of dollars on fighting terrorism, the military is spending it to replace linguists that they already have in their ranks.

Not only does the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy waste time, money and linguistic skill, it also initiates discrimination against those who simply want to serve their country. One of these Americans is Alastair Gamble. He had been in training in Arabic for only a few months at the Defense Language Institute when the terrorist attacks of September 11 occurred. After the attacks, he decided that his skills were needed more than ever. He continued his studies and soon was able to converse about military operations, economics, and politics in Arabic. He, however, would not be able to serve his country. Why? Because he was caught one night in his partner's room after hours. Though Gamble admits that he broke the military's policy, he states that many heterosexual couples also broke this same rule on that same night. The heterosexual couples, however, were only reprimanded. In stark contrast, Gamble's infraction led to a search of his room where military officials found evidence that led to the discovery of a relationship with another officer who was studying Korean at the time. Soon both Gamble and his partner were dismissed from the Army, and the American people were denied the service of two young men who were learning badly needed language skills.

Gamble and his partner are not alone. From October 2001 through December 2002, seven other linguists specializing in critical languages were also discharged after telling superiors that they were gay.

Gamble and the eight other linguists should not be treated this way. It is past time for the U.S. military to modernize its attitudes toward soldiers' sexual orientation. It is time for the U.S. military to recognize the contributions of gay, lesbian, and bisexual military officers and enlisted personnel by allowing them to serve in the Armed Forces without fear and prejudice. Currently, security organizations within the United States allow for open service--most notably, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. These openly gay men and women serve our country well. In fact, they sometimes serve along-side military men and women who cannot discuss their sexual orientation.

Not only do United States intelligence agencies allow for open service, but many other nations allow open service as well. Some of our closest allies--Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Iceland and Italy--allow open service in their military. In fact, the United States and Turkey are the only two NATO countries that do not allow open military service for gay men.

Nations that allow for open military service have not reported any change in the way the military is run because of their policies. According to a study by Aaron Belkin, the Director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Jason McNichol, senior officials, commanders, and military scholars within the Australian Defense Forces consistently praise the lifting of the gay ban, which occurred in 1992. The report states that there has been no overall pattern of disruption to the military, recruitment and retention have not suffered, and military performance was not affected because of the ban.

In January 2000, Britain too lifted its ban on gays in the military. According to PlanetOut News, a review of the policy by the British military, released in late 2000, found that there was no discernable impact on the military after it lifted the ban.

If some of our closest allies have been successful in allowing open service in the military, why not the United States?

Our military has been fighting terrorism and may soon go to war against Iraq. We desperately need the specialized language skills of our fellow Americans as resources. Our military should cease the discriminatory and counter-productive policy of discharging competent military personnel simply because of their sexual orientation. I hope that this administration will consider the consequences of the decision to discharge the linguists I have spoken about today and will give gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans the chance to serve openly in the United States military.

Mr. President, attention is understandably on Iraq this week as we move ever closer to a decision on use of military force there to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein. But as we contemplate whether such action makes sense in terms of protecting our people from the threat of global terrorism, it is important that we not lose sight of important developments in other parts of the world.

Earlier this week, Secretary of State Powell visited Beijing, reportedly to seek the support of China's leaders in dealing with Iraq and North Korea. This makes sense, since China has the power to veto any U.N. resolution on Iraq and is reputed to have influence

with Kim Jong-Il. Our relations with China have warmed since September 11, as its support was deemed important to the success of the ``war on terrorism,'' both in Afghanistan and beyond. Unfortunately, China's leaders appear to have a very different agenda for this war. As the Chinese would say, we are sleeping in the same bed but having different dreams.

Earlier this month, Wang Bingzhang, a Chinese democracy activist who has lived most of the past 20 years in New York as a U.S. legal permanent resident, was sentenced to life in prison following a secret trial on charges of espionage and ``leading a violent terrorist organization.'' Chinese authorities had had him in custody, unbeknownst to his family, since last July, when he was apparently abducted while visiting Vietnam and brought across the border into China. The Chinese authorities have presented no public evidence linking Wang to any violent activities. Since being exiled to Canada in 1979, however, he has advocated peaceful democratic change in China, founding the magazine China Spring in New York in 1982 and serving as an adviser to the outlawed China Democracy Party. He sneaked across the border into China in 1998, when the China Democracy Party was attempting to organize and register itself within the boundaries of Chinese law, and was detained and deported. The Chinese Communists clearly see him as a nuisance, and the ``war on terrorism'' provided a convenient excuse to silence him.

Last month, Chinese authorities executed a former Tibetan monk, Lobsang Dhondrup, who was accused of carrying out a series of bombings in Sichuan Province. Lobsang was detained near the scene of one of the bombings last April. But the only evidence made public against him was his confession, which was very likely extracted through torture. He was killed immediately after the Intermediate Court for the Ganzi Tibetan Prefecture upheld his death sentence. The same day, the Sichuan Provincial High Court in Chengdu rejected the appeal of Tenzin Delek Ripoche, a senior Tibetan Buddhist monk and social and environmental activist, and reaffirmed his suspended death sentence in connection with the same case. Chinese authorities have provided no public evidence linking Tenzin to the bombings, according to Human Rights Watch.

A third man, Tsereng Dhondrup, was given 5 years for merely circulating petitions in defense of Lobsang and Tenzin. Authorities are thought to be holding 10 other ethnic Tibetans in connection with the bombings but will not release their names or locations.

Mr. President, I do not dispute for a moment that Chinese authorities have the right--indeed the duty--to take firm measures against terrorism within their borders, just as we are doing here. The bombings in Sichuan, which took innocent life, were without question terrorist acts, as were the bombings this week on Beijing university campuses, and they should be condemned. The imperative to combat terrorism does not absolve any nation, however, of its obligation to respect basic human rights, including the right to due process. Whether Lobsang was involved in the bombings in Sichuan we may never know. But Assistant Secretary of State Lorne Craner has expressed ``deep concern'' as to whether Lobsong received a fair trial, according to the Washington Post. Neither Lobsang nor Tenzin was allowed to choose his own defense attorney. Tenzin was held incommunicado for 8 months, up to the day of his trial, and appeal hearings were closed to the public on the grounds that ``state secrets'' were involved.

These cases illustrate a deeply cynical misappropriation of the anti- terrorist struggle by a repressive regime to suppress legitimate dissent, persecute restive minority groups, and literally get away with murder. Administration officials maintain that, while seeking China's cooperation in combatting international terrorism, they have at the same time made clear that China should not interpret that as a license to violate basic human rights. But violate them they have, and apparently with increasing frequency.

In the Northeast Chinese Rustbelt city Liaoyang, two labor leaders-- Yao Fuxin and Xiao Yunliang--are awaiting sentencing following their January 15 trial for ``inciting the subversion of the political authority of the state.'' The prosecution said they conspired to ``overthrow the socialist system.'' In fact, what they did was organize protest marches last spring for workers laid off from a state-owned plant that went bankrupt in 2001, owing them several months of back wages, as well as pension and other benefits and severance allowances. Workers suspected the plant's management had embezzled funds that should have been used to pay those benefits. The authorities declared the protests illegal and arrested Yao, Xiao, and two other organizers.

According to labor activists in Hong Kong who have been monitoring the case, Yao and Xiao were held for several months without formal charges and were denied access to their lawyer on the grounds that the case involved ``state secrets.'' The initial indication was that they had been arrested for illegal assembly. But when the workers of Liaoyang continued to rally behind their leaders and the case attracted international attention, Chinese authorities asserted that the men had carried out ``destructive activities,'' including car-bombings and destroying public property.

This was something not even the Liaoyang police and prosecutors had alleged. Even the local representative of the official Communist Party labor organization called the allegations ``a complete fabrication.'' Nonetheless, when formal charges were finally announced against the men last month, they were charged not just with illegal assembly but with the much more serious offense of subversion. At their four-hour trial January 15, the prosecution made no attempt to tie Yao and Xiao to any violent activities. Instead, they argued, Yao and Xiao had subverted the authority of the Chinese state by attending preparatory meetings of the then not-yet-banned China Democracy Party back in 1998 and communicating with ``hostile foreign elements,'' such as Agence France Presse and the Wall Street Journal.

Here again, China's rulers have appropriated the language of antiterrorism to persecute people who have done nothing more than challenge the authority of the Communist Party through peaceful means.

Meanwhile, throughout China, the brutal suppression of the Falungong spiritual movement, which President Jiang Zemin has branded an ``evil cult,'' continues. Charles Li, a U.S. citizen Falungong practitioner, is about to enter his sixth week of detention in Jiangsu Province, where he returned to spend Chinese New Year with his parents.

Authorities have not charged him, and he has been allowed only one half-hour meeting with U.S. consular officials. Initial reports indicated he was accused of hijacking television broadcasts to spread the banned Falungong message. But his friends and associates maintain he was not even in China when those incidents occurred. His actual sin appears to be having had the temerity to serve a subpoena on the Mayor of Beijing, when he visited San Francisco last year, under the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act, as was his right as a U.S. citizen on U.S. territory under U.S. law.

Why is it that we are seeing so many egregious violations of basic human rights in China in such a short span of time? Could it be that the senior leadership in Beijing knows that the world's attention is currently focused elsewhere? Could it be they think U.S. criticism of their actions will be muted, since the administration needs their support, or at least their acquiescence, on Iraq and North Korea? Or could it be that President Jiang and his cohorts, who will step down next month, want to clear the dockets so that Hu Jintao and the new crew can begin with a clean slate? Remember that Jiang rode to power on the tide of blood from Tiananmen Square, and he has snuffed out anything that even smelled of political reform ever since.

I hope China's incoming leaders, by virtue of their shared generational experience, will adopt a more enlightened view toward political modernization than their predecessors did. They are less likely to do so if they infer that the rest of the world is not paying attention or doesn't care. We must keep the disinfectant of sunlight focused on them, and anyone else who would deny people their basic freedoms and

dignities in the name of ``stability,'' ``security'' or the ``war on terror.''

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, for the past few weeks, we have had a vigorous debate on the floor and in the country on this nomination. I discussed my reasons for opposing Mr. Estrada's nomination before the recess. As I said then, I would probably vote to confirm Mr. Estrada to a lower court. But for this crucial court, at this crucial time, he is not the right person for the job. I have reached that conclusion in part because Mr. Estrada gave us so little to work with in trying to understand what kind of judge he would be. When we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in this country, we cannot be expected to take it on faith that Mr. Estrada will be a fair and impartial judge, with no ideological axe to grind. The Senate's role is too important to just ``hope for the best.'' No, when we are asked to confirm a nominee to such a significant post, we have a right to expect that nominee to be forthcoming in answering our questions, and we have a right to expect the administration to be cooperative in providing any information that is relevant to making our decision. That is what the advice and consent process is about. Not some kind of phony ``consultation'', and certainly not a rubberstamp for the President's nominees.

Today I want to respond to some of the arguments that have been raised by those who support the nomination. Many of the arguments come in the form of twisting and misstating the reasons given by opponents, in order to ridicule them. Many have been creating straw men in order to knock them down.

For example, we have heard numerous times that Senators oppose Mr. Estrada because he has no judicial experience, and the answer to that straw man is that many distinguished judges had no judicial experience. That is certainly true. I agree with that. Some great appellate judges had no prior judicial experience. Some of them sat or sit on the DC Circuit.

But those of us who note Mr. Estrada's lack of judicial experience are not saying that that should disqualify him from serving in this position. What we are saying is that his lack of experience means he lacks a record to evaluate, unlike many of the other individuals that President Bush has nominated to the circuit courts, who have served for many years as US District Court judges. At the same time, Mr. Estrada has not been a law professor and written scholarly articles for publication. His lack of judicial experience is part of his lack of a record that we can review in order to see what kind of judge he will be.

That brings me to the Solicitor General memos. In a way, this is really the crux of the problem with Mr. Estrada. Because Mr. Estrada has no judicial experience, because he has not written articles as a law professor, because he is so young and some of his most significant legal experience was as a lawyer in the Solicitor General's office, and because questions have been raised about his performance in that office, we have asked to see the memos that he wrote to his superiors on questions such as whether the United States Government should appeal an adverse ruling to the Supreme Court or whether it should file an amicus brief in a case that the Supreme Court has decided to hear.

This request was originally made by then Chairman Leahy in May 2002, months before Mr. Estrada had his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. So the claim that the request for these documents is a last minute effort to derail the nomination is patently untrue. We have been seeking these documents for nearly a year now, and the administration has been stonewalling for nearly a year now.

I am afraid I have to say it has also been stonewalling in a really disingenuous way. The administration, echoed by supporters of Mr. Estrada here on the floor, has claimed that our request is unprecedented, that no such memos have ever been turned over to the Senate. One Senator stated unequivocally:

Never in the history of the Justice Department have those

type of materials that are privileged, confidential work

product materials been given to this branch of Government or

any other branch.

That is a pretty strong statement. It is also untrue. For example, during the consideration of the nomination of William Bradford Reynolds to be Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice, exactly these kinds of memos--recommendations on appeals and amicus briefs written by line attorneys--were turned over to the Judiciary Committee. Then, during the consideration of the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, a large amount of material was turned over to the Committee, including memos written to or from Judge Bork when he served as Solicitor General. In particular, memos to Judge Bork from Judge Frank Easterbrook, who then served in exactly the same position as Mr. Estrada did when he was in Solicitor General's office, were made available to the Senate.

Still the Justice Department disputed the facts and continued to insist that only limited materials were made available during the Bork nomination and other materials must have been leaked. But Senator Leahy has disclosed a 1988 letter from Acting Assistant Attorney General Thomas Boyd to Senator Biden, requesting the return of materials that had been turned over during the confirmation proceedings. Mr. Boyd states:

[M]any of the documents provided to the Committee,

``reflect or disclose purely internal deliberations within

the Executive Branch, the work product of attorneys in

connection with government litigation or confidential legal

advice received from or provided to client agencies within

the Executive Branch.''

We provided these privileged documents to the Committee in

order to respond fully to the Committee's request and to

expedite the confirmation process.

It is abundantly clear that the Justice Department has provided these kinds of materials in the past, despite their confidentiality. And that is as it should be. I have enormous respect for some of the former Solicitors General who have written to us and given their view that these memos should not be released. But with respect, they are not Senators. They are not accountable to constituents for the votes that they take on whether to confirm judicial nominees. They have never made policy for this body, and unless they run for election in the States where they live, they never will.

The White House and some of our colleagues have also argued that these kinds of memos have not been requested of all nominees who once served in that office or in a similar position in the Department of Justice. True enough. But that only underscores how important our request is. I say again, it is because Mr. Estrada has no judicial experience, because he has not written articles as a law professor, because he is so young and some of his most significant legal experience was as a lawyer in the Solicitor General's office, and because questions have been raised about his performance in that office, that we have asked to see these materials.

The administration's failure to comply with our legitimate request, a request which is strongly supported by precedent in the Judiciary Committee's handling of past nominations, frankly leads to the question of whether there is something to hide in those memos. We will never know until we have a chance to read them. But what we do know is that until they are turned over this logjam will continue.

Now some have made the argument on this floor and in the press that our action in delaying a vote on Mr. Estrada is unprecedented. That is plainly not the case, and again illustrates the amount of distortion that is occurring in this debate. According to CRS, there have been cloture motions filed on 14 judicial nominees since 1980. Just three years ago, cloture votes were required before two of President Clinton's nominees to the Ninth Circuit, Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez, could be confirmed. When these nominations were finally reported from committee after years and years of delay, motions to proceed to their consideration on the floor were defeated by the Republican majority. Over 5 months later, the nominations were finally brought to the floor. The two nominations were considered and debated together, and a cloture motion was required to end the debate on each nominee.

It is true that both the majority leader at the time, Senator Lott, and Senator Hatch, supported cloture on the nominations. But still, there certainly was a filibuster on those nominees. That is what cloture votes do; they end filibusters. Senator Bob Smith was leading the opposition to the nominees. He put out a press release indicating that he was filibustering to stop them. Late last week, we heard from one Senator that this is the first ``true filibuster'' of a Circuit court nominee. I am still waiting to hear an explanation of what a true filibuster is compared to what happened with Judges Berzon and Paez. Is a ``true filibuster'' only one that seems to have the votes to succeed? That is an interesting definition.

Let us not forget that in so many other cases during President Clinton's term in office, there was no filibuster because his nominees were never given a hearing or a vote in the Judiciary Committee. That is what happened to two nominees to the Circuit to which Mr. Estrada has been nominated. Alan Snyder, nominated by President Clinton in June of 1999, finally had a hearing in May of 2000, but never received a vote in Committee. Elena Kagan, nominated in September 1999, never even had a hearing in the Committee. So how exactly is that fairer treatment than a filibuster? The claims that this nominee is subject to unprecedented unfairness because an up or down vote is not being permitted at this time ring hollow.

It is time for the Administration to face up to what happened over the last six years that President Clinton was in office. The DC Circuit is a very good place to start. There are two more vacancies on that circuit. If President Bush were to resubmit Mr. Snyder and Ms. Kagan's names, the court would remain balanced, and the President could really change the tone of the judicial nominations issue. For now, we are faced with an effort to fill a slot held open for years of a Democratic presidency with a nominee whose views are a mystery. That is not acceptable and we must continue to resist it.

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

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

Mr. President, I would also like to address one of the most important issues facing my state of Wisconsin, as well as many others across the country, the need to restore fairness to the Medicare program.

During any debate of Medicare reform, one of Congress' top priorities should be to reduce regional inequalities in Medicare spending and support providers of high-quality, low-cost Medicare services.

The high cost of health care in Wisconsin is skyrocketing: A recent survey found that the cost of health benefits for employees in Wisconsin rose 14.8 percent last year, to an average of $6,940 per employee. That is 20 percent higher than the national average of $5,758 for workers in businesses with 500 or more employees. These costs are hitting our state hard--they are burdening businesses and employees, hurting health care providers, and preventing seniors from getting full access to the care that they deserve.

One of the major contributing factors to the high cost of care in our state is the inherent unfairness of the Medicare Program. With the guidance and support of people across our state who are fighting for Medicare fairness, I have proposed legislation to address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors, employers and health care providers. The Medicare program should encourage the kind of high- quality, cost-effective Medicare services that we have in Wisconsin. But as many in Wisconsin know, that is not the case.

To give an idea of how inequitable the distribution of Medicare dollars is, imagine identical twins over the age of 65. Both twins worked at the same company all their lives, at the same salary, and paid the same amount to the federal government in payroll taxes, the tax that goes into the Medicare Trust Fund. But if one twin retired to Louisiana or Florida and the other retired in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, they would have vastly different health care options under the Medicare system. The twin in Louisiana or Florida would get much more.

For example, in most parts of Louisiana and Florida, the first twin would have more options under Medicare. The high Medicare payments in those areas allow Medicare beneficiaries to choose between an HMO and a traditional fee-for-service plan, and, because area health care providers are reimbursed at such a high rate, those providers can afford to offer seniors a broad range of health care services.

The twin in Eau Claire does not have the same access to care--there are no options to choose from in terms of Medicare HMOs, and sometimes fewer health care agencies that can afford to provide care under the traditional fee-for-service plan.

How can two people with identical backgrounds, who paid the same amount in payroll taxes, have such different options under Medicare?

They can because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 states is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and much of the country. Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds we get in return are lower than those received in many other states. Legislation that I and others have proposed will take us a step in the right direction by reducing the inequities in Medicare payments to Wisconsin's hospitals, physicians, and skilled nursing facilities.

Last year, with the introduction my Medicare fairness legislation and the efforts of many other Senators, including both the chair and ranking member of the Finance Committee, we put Medicare fairness issues front and center in Congress. We saw many successes. The Senate Budget Committee approved my amendment to promote Medicare fairness in any Medicare reform package. A wide range of Senators from both parties endorsed my proposal to create a Medicare fairness coalition. The House passed a number of Medicare fairness provisions that were a result of these successes, and both House and Senate leadership endorsed Medicare fairness issues.

Now that we have finally brought these issues the attention that they deserve, we need to build on that momentum to pass Medicare fairness provisions into law. Some of this increased awareness can be seen in the recently passed omnibus spending bill. While I opposed this legislation, I was especially pleased that it contained provisions that take us a step toward fairness in the distribution of Medicare dollars in Wisconsin and other states across the country. By increasing the Medicare payments to small urban and rural providers, we are closer to reducing the inequities that plague the Medicare system.

I hope that these provisions are only the first steps that Congress takes to restore Medicare fairness for Wisconsin and other affected States. Medicare

shouldn't penalize high-quality providers of Medicare services, and most of all, Medicare should stop penalizing seniors who depend on the program for their health care. They have worked hard and they have paid into the program all their lives, and in return they deserve full access to the wide range of benefits that Medicare has to offer.

So I look forward to working with my colleagues to move legislation forward. I believe that we can rebalance the budget, while at the same time encouraging efficient, quality-enhancing Medicare services.

Mr. President, I have one other topic.

supporting first responders

Mr. President, I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about the need for Congress to help first responders do what they do so well: protect our communities in an emergency.

The Department of Homeland Security is creating a massive shift in the Federal Government. Nobody will feel the impact of this shift more than the brave men and women who work in law enforcement, as firefighters, as rescue workers, as emergency medical service providers, and as first responders. We must make sure that these first responders have the resources that they need.

While I commend the administration for raising the funding dedicated to first responders in the President's budget, I am concerned that these new layers of bureaucracy and reorganization could reduce these funding levels or, just as harmfully, put up barriers to first responders actually receiving these funds.

The Federal agencies in the proposed Department of Homeland Security must listen to the priorities of our communities. After all, the needs of first responders actually vary among regions, as well as between rural communities and urban communities. In Wisconsin, I have heard needs ranging from training, to equipment, to more emergency personnel in the field, just to name a few.

So I have proposed legislation, along with my friend from Maine, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, that would promote effective coordination among Federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and ensure that our first responders--our firefighters, law enforcement, rescue, and EMS providers--can help Federal agencies and the new Department of Homeland Security improve existing programs and future initiatives.

This is what it would do: It would first establish a Federal Liaison on Homeland Security in each State and coordinate between the Department of Homeland Security and State and local first responders. This office would serve not only as an avenue to exchange ideas, but also as a resource to ensure that the funding and programs are effective.

For example, my hope is that the Homeland Security Department will make programs such as the Fire Act a high priority. The Fire Act provides grants directly to fire departments across our Nation for training and equipment needs. Last year, I visited one excellent example of this program in West Allis, WI, where the department received a grant in 2001 to implement a wellness and fitness program for their firefighters. I am told that it is one of the first departments in the State to meet the goals of this program, and I commend the department for its efforts.

Our legislation would also direct the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and prioritize their activities that support first responders, and at the same time, ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars. As part of this coordination, the First Responders Support Act would establish a new advisory committee of those in the first responder community to identify and streamline effective programs.

Last year, both the original Senate and House homeland security bills lacked the provisions needed to ensure that the new Department of Homeland Security communicates and coordinates effectively with first responders.

During the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee markup of the homeland security bill last year, I was pleased to see the committee added our First Responders Support Act to the legislation. It did so knowing that we would have to reconcile the overlap between our legislation and the language in the chairman's mark creating an office for State and local government coordination. Our amendment, which was approved by the full Senate, did exactly that. Unfortunately, our proposal was dropped from the final bill during conference.

I hope congress can make enactment of this legislation one of its priorities this year. We must be aggressive in seeking the advice of our first responders, and helping them to get the resources that they need to provide effective services. They are on the front lines, and they deserve our support.

In almost any disaster, the local first responders and health care providers play an indispensable role. If the Department of Homeland Security is to be effective, we need to ensure that the resources are delivered to the front line personnel in an effective and coordinated manner. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this proposal and others to support our first responders.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to promote health care parity for individuals participating in legal transportation and recreational activities. This legislation addresses concerns that I have been hearing from a wide range of Wisconsinites about a loophole caused by the Department of Health and Human Services' ruling that makes it possible for health care coverage to be denied to those who are injured while participating in these kinds of legal activities.

In January of 2001, the Health Care Finance administration released regulations governing the Health Care Insurance Accountability Act of 1996, also known as HIPAA. As part of this act, Congress intended to ban health insurance discrimination against those participating in legal transportation or recreational activities. Ironically, it appears that the rules written in response to this legislation may have had precisely the opposite effect.

These new regulations at first state that an employer cannot refuse health care coverage to an employee on the basis of participation in recreational activities. But they then go on to say that health care benefits can be denied for injuries sustained in connection with those recreational activities.

Not only does this ruling make little sense, it flies in the face of what Congress intended. In a colloquy between Senators Moseley-Braun and Kassebaum, Senator Mosely-Braun stated, ``As I understand it, this formulation is intended to ensure that, among other things, participants and beneficiaries are not excluded from health care coverage because they participate in activities such as motorcycling, skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling, or other similar activities.''

And Senator Kassebaum simply said ``The Senator from Illinois is correct.''

But the bureaucrats turned around and permitted the denial of benefits for any injury sustained while participating in these legal activities. This ruling makes no sense. Because of this loophole, someone who participates in motorcycling, snowmobiling, running or walking could be denied health care coverage, while someone who is injured while drinking and driving a car would be protected.

Congress voted 98-0 in favor of the HIPAA legislation that included this language. We must close the loophole that the interpretation of this provision has created.

From riding Harley Davidson motorcycles to the visiting the Snowmobile Hall of Fame in St. Germain, these activities are part of Wisconsin's heritage and economy. It makes no sense that they would be singled out for this unfair treatment.

Millions of Americans rely on motorcycles for their transportation to work. Individuals should not singled out just because they choose a different mode of transportation to go to work.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and provide health care parity for individuals participating in legal transportation and recreational activities.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to promote health care parity for individuals participating in legal transportation and recreational activities. This legislation addresses concerns that I have been hearing from a wide range of Wisconsinites about a loophole caused by the Department of Health and Human Services' ruling that makes it possible for health care coverage to be denied to those who are injured while participating in these kinds of legal activities.

In January of 2001, the Health Care Finance administration released regulations governing the Health Care Insurance Accountability Act of 1996, also known as HIPAA. As part of this act, Congress intended to ban health insurance discrimination against those participating in legal transportation or recreational activities. Ironically, it appears that the rules written in response to this legislation may have had precisely the opposite effect.

These new regulations at first state that an employer cannot refuse health care coverage to an employee on the basis of participation in recreational activities. But they then go on to say that health care benefits can be denied for injuries sustained in connection with those recreational activities.

Not only does this ruling make little sense, it flies in the face of what Congress intended. In a colloquy between Senators Moseley-Braun and Kassebaum, Senator Mosely-Braun stated, ``As I understand it, this formulation is intended to ensure that, among other things, participants and beneficiaries are not excluded from health care coverage because they participate in activities such as motorcycling, skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling, or other similar activities.''

And Senator Kassebaum simply said ``The Senator from Illinois is correct.''

But the bureaucrats turned around and permitted the denial of benefits for any injury sustained while participating in these legal activities. This ruling makes no sense. Because of this loophole, someone who participates in motorcycling, snowmobiling, running or walking could be denied health care coverage, while someone who is injured while drinking and driving a car would be protected.

Congress voted 98-0 in favor of the HIPAA legislation that included this language. We must close the loophole that the interpretation of this provision has created.

From riding Harley Davidson motorcycles to the visiting the Snowmobile Hall of Fame in St. Germain, these activities are part of Wisconsin's heritage and economy. It makes no sense that they would be singled out for this unfair treatment.

Millions of Americans rely on motorcycles for their transportation to work. Individuals should not singled out just because they choose a different mode of transportation to go to work.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and provide health care parity for individuals participating in legal transportation and recreational activities.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2003. This bill would abolish the death penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate

halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law.

Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, there have been 830 executions across the country, including two at the Federal level. At the same time, 103 people on death row were later found innocent and released from death row. Exonerated inmates are not only removed from death row, but they are usually released from prison altogether. Apparently, these people never should have been convicted in the first place. While death penalty proponents claim that the death penalty is fair, efficient, and a deterrent, the fact remains that our criminal justice system has failed and has resulted in at least 103 very grave mistakes.

Eight hundred and thirty executions, and 103 exonerations. Those are not good odds. It is an embarrassing statistic, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country.

Since January 25, 2001, when I last introduced this bill, the Federal Government resumed executions for the first time in almost 40 years, and 138 people have been executed nationwide. In this new year, we have begun our use of capital punishment at an alarming pace. We are only in the second week of February, and there have already been 10 executions this year. And yet this one-to-eight error rate looms. Is it possible that those 10 people are representative of the one-to-eight error rate that has plagued the death penalty since it was reinstated in 1976? Is it possible that in the last six weeks, as we have debated a war in Iraq, funding levels for Federal programs, and judicial nominations, our nation has killed an innocent person?

It is a difficult question to ask, but an even more difficult one to ignore.

While executions continue and the death row population grows, the national debate on the death penalty continues and has become even more vigorous. The number of voices joining in to express doubt about the use of capital punishment in America is growing. As evidence of the flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder. Now they can be heard from college campuses and court rooms and podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the Supreme Court. We must not ignore them.

That our society relies on killing as punishment is disturbing enough. Even more disturbing, however, is that the States' and Federal Government's use of the death penalty is often not consistent with principles of due process, fairness, and justice. These principles are the foundation of our criminal justice system. It is more clear than ever before that we have put innocent people on death row. In addition, statistics show that those States that have the death penalty are more likely to put people to death for killing white victims than for killing black victims.

After the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the Federal Government first resumed death penalty prosecutions after enactment of a 1988 Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in the course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. The Federal death penalty was then expanded significantly in 1994, when the omnibus crime bill allowed its use to apply to a total of some 60 Federal offenses. Since 1994, Federal prosecutions seeking the death penalty have now accelerated.

A survey on the Federal death penalty system from 1988 to early 2000 was released by the U.S. Department of Justice in September 2000. That report showed troubling racial and geographic disparities in the federal government's administration of the death penalty. In other words, who lives and who dies in the Federal system appears to relate to the color of the defendant's skin or the region of the country where the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney General Janet Reno was so disturbed by the results of that report that she ordered a further, in- depth study of the results. Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged to continue that study, but we still await the results of that further study. The Federal Government should do all that it can to ensure that no person is ever subject to harsher penalties, most importantly that of capital punishment, because of the color of the defendant's skin.

I am certain that not one of my colleagues here in the Senate, not a single one, would defend racial discrimination in this ultimate punishment. The most fundamental guarantee of our Constitution is equal justice under law, and equal protection of the laws.

While the Federal death penalty system is clearly plagued by flaws, there are 38 States across our Nation that also authorize the use of capital punishment. And like the Federal system, those systems are not free from error.

Over three years ago, Governor George Ryan took the historic step of placing a moratorium on executions in Illinois and creating an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty system. The Commission conducted an extensive study of the death penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for reform of the death penalty system. The Commission concluded that the death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk of executing the innocent is alarming real. Governor Ryan recently pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the sentences of all remaining Illinois death row inmates, after the State legislature failed to enact even one of the Commission's recommendations.

Illinois is not alone. Two years ago, then Governor Parris Glendening learned of suspected racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. Governor Glendening did not look the other way. He commissioned the University of Maryland to conduct the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in history. Then last year, faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, Governor Glendening acknowledged that it was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions.

That study was released in January and the findings should startle us all. The study found that blacks accused of killing whites are simply more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who kill whites.

Maryland and Illinois are not exceptions to a rule, nor anomalies in an otherwise perfect system. In fact, since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases across the country have involved white victims, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are African Americans or Hispanic Americans.

There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death penalty systems across the country. While the research done in Maryland and Illinois has yielded shocking results, there are 36 other States that authorize the use of the death penalty, most of them far more frequently. Twenty-one of the 38 States that authorize capital punishment have executed more inmates than Maryland, and 13 of those States have carried out more executions than Illinois. So while we are closer to uncovering the unthinkable truth about the flaws in the Maryland and Illinois death penalty systems, there are 36 other states with systems that are most likely plagued with the same flaws. And yet, the killing continues.

At the beginning of 2003, at the beginning of a new century and millennium with hopes for great progress, I cannot help but believe that our progress has been tarnished by our Nation's not only continuing, but increasing use of the death penalty. We are a Nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality and due process. We are a Nation that scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. We are one of the first nations to speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. We should hold our own system of justice to the highest standard.

Over the last two years, some prominent voices in our country have done

just that. And they are not just voices of liberals, or of the faith community. They are the voices of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend Pat Robertson, George Will, former FBI Director William Sessions, Republican Governor George Ryan, and Democratic Governor Parris Glending. The voices of those questioning our application of the death penalty are growing in number, and they are growing louder.

And while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system, we cannot help but note that our use of the death penalty stands in stark contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. There are now 111 countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. The European Union denies membership in the alliance to those nations that use the death penalty. In fact, it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional global abolition of the death penalty, and it specifically called on all states within the United States to abolish the death penalty. This is significant because it reflects the unanimous view of a group of nations with which the United States enjoys the closest of relationships.

On February 5, 2003, the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruled unanimously that the United States must temporarily stay the execution of three Mexican citizens on death row in Texas and Oklahoma. There are currently 112 foreign nationals on death row in this country. Under Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, local authorities are required to notify all detained foreigners ``without delay'' of their right to have their consulate informed of their detention. In most cases, this international law is not being followed. In fact, only seven cases of 152 reported death sentences have been identified as meeting complete compliance with Article 36 requirements. The purpose of this law is to ensure that foreign nationals are allowed time to secure adequate counsel during the critical stages of their cases. The February ruling of the ICJ was based on the need for an investigation into whether the foreign nationals on death row were ever given their right to legal assistance from their home governments.

What is even more troubling in the international context is that the United States is now one of only seven countries that imposes the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles. So, while a May 2002 Gallup poll found that 69 percent of Americans oppose the death penalty for those under the age of 18, we are one of only seven nations on this earth that puts to death people who were under 18 years of age when they committed their crimes. The other are Iran, the Democratic Republican of the Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders than all other nations combined, and in the last three years, only four nations have executed juvenile offenders: Iran, the Congo, Pakistan, and the United States.

Iran, the Congo, and Pakistan are countries that are often criticized for human rights abuses. We should remove any grounds for charges that human rights violations are taking place on our own soil by halting the execution of people who were not even adults when they committed the crimes for which they were sentenced to die. No one can reasonably argue that executing child offenders is a normal or acceptable practice in the world community. And I do not think that we should be proud that the United States is the world leader in the execution of child offenders.

As we begin a new year and another Congress, our society is still far from fully just. The continued use of the death penalty shames us. The penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right,'' applies here. Our nation has long ago done away with other barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off the ears of suspected criminals. Just as our nation did away with these punishments as contrary to our humanity and ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek justice in this new century. And it's not just a matter of morality. The continued viability of our justice system as a truly just system requires that we do so. And our Nation's striving to remain the leader and defender of freedom, liberty and equality demands that we do so.

Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.

I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing the death penalty in our great Nation. I also call on each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us step away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and integrity to our criminal justice system.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2003. This bill would abolish the death penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate

halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law.

Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, there have been 830 executions across the country, including two at the Federal level. At the same time, 103 people on death row were later found innocent and released from death row. Exonerated inmates are not only removed from death row, but they are usually released from prison altogether. Apparently, these people never should have been convicted in the first place. While death penalty proponents claim that the death penalty is fair, efficient, and a deterrent, the fact remains that our criminal justice system has failed and has resulted in at least 103 very grave mistakes.

Eight hundred and thirty executions, and 103 exonerations. Those are not good odds. It is an embarrassing statistic, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country.

Since January 25, 2001, when I last introduced this bill, the Federal Government resumed executions for the first time in almost 40 years, and 138 people have been executed nationwide. In this new year, we have begun our use of capital punishment at an alarming pace. We are only in the second week of February, and there have already been 10 executions this year. And yet this one-to-eight error rate looms. Is it possible that those 10 people are representative of the one-to-eight error rate that has plagued the death penalty since it was reinstated in 1976? Is it possible that in the last six weeks, as we have debated a war in Iraq, funding levels for Federal programs, and judicial nominations, our nation has killed an innocent person?

It is a difficult question to ask, but an even more difficult one to ignore.

While executions continue and the death row population grows, the national debate on the death penalty continues and has become even more vigorous. The number of voices joining in to express doubt about the use of capital punishment in America is growing. As evidence of the flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder. Now they can be heard from college campuses and court rooms and podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the Supreme Court. We must not ignore them.

That our society relies on killing as punishment is disturbing enough. Even more disturbing, however, is that the States' and Federal Government's use of the death penalty is often not consistent with principles of due process, fairness, and justice. These principles are the foundation of our criminal justice system. It is more clear than ever before that we have put innocent people on death row. In addition, statistics show that those States that have the death penalty are more likely to put people to death for killing white victims than for killing black victims.

After the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the Federal Government first resumed death penalty prosecutions after enactment of a 1988 Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in the course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. The Federal death penalty was then expanded significantly in 1994, when the omnibus crime bill allowed its use to apply to a total of some 60 Federal offenses. Since 1994, Federal prosecutions seeking the death penalty have now accelerated.

A survey on the Federal death penalty system from 1988 to early 2000 was released by the U.S. Department of Justice in September 2000. That report showed troubling racial and geographic disparities in the federal government's administration of the death penalty. In other words, who lives and who dies in the Federal system appears to relate to the color of the defendant's skin or the region of the country where the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney General Janet Reno was so disturbed by the results of that report that she ordered a further, in- depth study of the results. Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged to continue that study, but we still await the results of that further study. The Federal Government should do all that it can to ensure that no person is ever subject to harsher penalties, most importantly that of capital punishment, because of the color of the defendant's skin.

I am certain that not one of my colleagues here in the Senate, not a single one, would defend racial discrimination in this ultimate punishment. The most fundamental guarantee of our Constitution is equal justice under law, and equal protection of the laws.

While the Federal death penalty system is clearly plagued by flaws, there are 38 States across our Nation that also authorize the use of capital punishment. And like the Federal system, those systems are not free from error.

Over three years ago, Governor George Ryan took the historic step of placing a moratorium on executions in Illinois and creating an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty system. The Commission conducted an extensive study of the death penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for reform of the death penalty system. The Commission concluded that the death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk of executing the innocent is alarming real. Governor Ryan recently pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the sentences of all remaining Illinois death row inmates, after the State legislature failed to enact even one of the Commission's recommendations.

Illinois is not alone. Two years ago, then Governor Parris Glendening learned of suspected racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. Governor Glendening did not look the other way. He commissioned the University of Maryland to conduct the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in history. Then last year, faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, Governor Glendening acknowledged that it was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions.

That study was released in January and the findings should startle us all. The study found that blacks accused of killing whites are simply more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who kill whites.

Maryland and Illinois are not exceptions to a rule, nor anomalies in an otherwise perfect system. In fact, since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases across the country have involved white victims, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are African Americans or Hispanic Americans.

There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death penalty systems across the country. While the research done in Maryland and Illinois has yielded shocking results, there are 36 other States that authorize the use of the death penalty, most of them far more frequently. Twenty-one of the 38 States that authorize capital punishment have executed more inmates than Maryland, and 13 of those States have carried out more executions than Illinois. So while we are closer to uncovering the unthinkable truth about the flaws in the Maryland and Illinois death penalty systems, there are 36 other states with systems that are most likely plagued with the same flaws. And yet, the killing continues.

At the beginning of 2003, at the beginning of a new century and millennium with hopes for great progress, I cannot help but believe that our progress has been tarnished by our Nation's not only continuing, but increasing use of the death penalty. We are a Nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality and due process. We are a Nation that scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. We are one of the first nations to speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. We should hold our own system of justice to the highest standard.

Over the last two years, some prominent voices in our country have done

just that. And they are not just voices of liberals, or of the faith community. They are the voices of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend Pat Robertson, George Will, former FBI Director William Sessions, Republican Governor George Ryan, and Democratic Governor Parris Glending. The voices of those questioning our application of the death penalty are growing in number, and they are growing louder.

And while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system, we cannot help but note that our use of the death penalty stands in stark contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. There are now 111 countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. The European Union denies membership in the alliance to those nations that use the death penalty. In fact, it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional global abolition of the death penalty, and it specifically called on all states within the United States to abolish the death penalty. This is significant because it reflects the unanimous view of a group of nations with which the United States enjoys the closest of relationships.

On February 5, 2003, the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruled unanimously that the United States must temporarily stay the execution of three Mexican citizens on death row in Texas and Oklahoma. There are currently 112 foreign nationals on death row in this country. Under Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, local authorities are required to notify all detained foreigners ``without delay'' of their right to have their consulate informed of their detention. In most cases, this international law is not being followed. In fact, only seven cases of 152 reported death sentences have been identified as meeting complete compliance with Article 36 requirements. The purpose of this law is to ensure that foreign nationals are allowed time to secure adequate counsel during the critical stages of their cases. The February ruling of the ICJ was based on the need for an investigation into whether the foreign nationals on death row were ever given their right to legal assistance from their home governments.

What is even more troubling in the international context is that the United States is now one of only seven countries that imposes the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles. So, while a May 2002 Gallup poll found that 69 percent of Americans oppose the death penalty for those under the age of 18, we are one of only seven nations on this earth that puts to death people who were under 18 years of age when they committed their crimes. The other are Iran, the Democratic Republican of the Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders than all other nations combined, and in the last three years, only four nations have executed juvenile offenders: Iran, the Congo, Pakistan, and the United States.

Iran, the Congo, and Pakistan are countries that are often criticized for human rights abuses. We should remove any grounds for charges that human rights violations are taking place on our own soil by halting the execution of people who were not even adults when they committed the crimes for which they were sentenced to die. No one can reasonably argue that executing child offenders is a normal or acceptable practice in the world community. And I do not think that we should be proud that the United States is the world leader in the execution of child offenders.

As we begin a new year and another Congress, our society is still far from fully just. The continued use of the death penalty shames us. The penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right,'' applies here. Our nation has long ago done away with other barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off the ears of suspected criminals. Just as our nation did away with these punishments as contrary to our humanity and ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek justice in this new century. And it's not just a matter of morality. The continued viability of our justice system as a truly just system requires that we do so. And our Nation's striving to remain the leader and defender of freedom, liberty and equality demands that we do so.

Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.

I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing the death penalty in our great Nation. I also call on each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us step away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and integrity to our criminal justice system.

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

Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Let me take a few minutes to explain why.

First, I want to discuss the background of this nomination, which I think is an important factor for the Senator to consider. The DC Circuit, to which Mr. Estrada has been nominated, as many people have said, is widely regarded as the most important Federal circuit. It has jurisdiction over the actions of most Federal agencies. Many of the highest profile cases that have been decided in recent years by the Supreme Court concerning regulation of economic activity by Federal agencies in areas such as the environment, health and safety regulation, and labor law, went first to the DC Circuit. In the area of administrative law and the interpretation of the major regulatory statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and even the Federal Election Campaign Act, the DC Circuit is the last word, as the Supreme Court accepts relatively few cases on appeal from the circuit courts.

The DC Circuit is now evenly split, and has been for some time, between nominees of Democratic and Republican Presidents. There are four judges who were appointed by Republicans and four by Democrats, and there are four vacancies. In the last Congress of President Clinton's term, he made two nominations that were never acted upon by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In one case, the committee held a hearing but never scheduled a vote, and in another, the Clinton nominee was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.

Now we hear that President Bush is not only going to fill those two seats, but also two others that Republicans have argued for years did not need to be filled at all because of the court's supposedly smaller workload in comparison to other circuits. I have heard this time and again in the Judiciary committee, we do not need these positions filled. Now that there is a Republican Senate, suddenly they are going to be filled. So this nomination becomes a pivotal nomination, and this circuit could very quickly become divided 8 to 4 between Republican appointees and Democratic appointees. Again, this is the context where President Clinton's nominees were not given a chance to have a vote.

I am disappointed that the Bush administration has not been willing to extend an olive branch on this circuit in particular. There are enough vacancies to accommodate both of the pending nominees and the two nominations by President Clinton who were treated so badly in the 107th Congress. But that does not seem likely to happen.

It is worth mentioning as well that seats on the DC Circuit have also in recent years served as springboards for the Supreme Court. Three of the current nine justices on the Supreme Court, Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, and Thomas, first sat on the DC Circuit.

Many commentators and activists, on the right and the left, believe that Mr. Estrada is being groomed for a Supreme Court appointment.

For all of these reasons, I believe it is our duty to give this nomination very close scrutiny. Unfortunately, Mr. Estrada has not made this task easy. In fact, by failing to answer questions at his hearing candidly and completely, he has made it even more difficult. Unlike many of the circuit court nominees that the Judiciary Committee has reviewed so far, Mr. Estrada is not a judge on a lower court, with a record of judicial opinions that we can review to get an idea of his views and his judicial philosophy for this lifetime appointment. Unlike some of the other nominees we have seen, he is not a law professor, with extensive written work that we can review and about which we can ask questions. He is a private attorney, with no published writings since law school. The Justice Department has refused to let the committee see his memos from when he worked in the Solicitor General's office, which may or may not be revealing of his views.

This is where we are: we were left with the hearing to explore with Mr. Estrada directly the question of what kind of judge he would be on the D.C. circuit. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I attended much of that hearing. Mr. Estrada steadfastly refused to help us get a sense of his views. And his way of resisting the committee's legitimate inquiry was, in my mind, extraordinary. I have been on that committee for over 8 years and have never quite seen this. He took the position that he could not express an opinion about a case that had already been decided by the Supreme Court unless he took the time to review not only the opinion of the court, which for many would be sufficient, but all the briefs and the arguments of the parties, and also, and I'm quoting here from one of his answers: ``[doing] all the legwork of investigating every last clue that the briefs and the arguments offer up.''

Mr. Estrada says he has to do all that just to give his reaction to a decision of the Supreme Court. That is not the type of approach I have seen most people take when being up for a nomination in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The result? Mr. Estrada gave us no evidence of the kind of judge he would be. For me, given the importance of his circuit and the history of appointments to this circuit, that is a big problem. The Senate has a right to complete and responsive answers to its questions before confirming someone to a life term on such an important court.

In a few areas, we have something to go on because Mr. Estrada undertook pro bono representation of a group called the Center for Community Interest on whose board he served. Unfortunately, even though this is one of the few pieces of information we have, I was not reassured by what I learned. Mr. Estrada not only defended an anti- loitering statute ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, but on a radio program he took a very aggressive stance in dismissing the arguments made against the statute. He even went so far as to suggest there was something improper about the fact that this legal challenge had been brought, and that attitude carried over in his arguments in a challenge to another anti-loitering ordinance, which Mr. Estrada argued that the NAACP did not have standing to challenge the law.

I was also not satisfied with Mr. Estrada's answers to questions concerning his role in helping to screen law clerk applicants for Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court. Allegations have been made that Mr. Estrada saw himself as an ideological gatekeeper of sorts, with the task of

making sure no one was too liberal for his tastes to be a clerk for the Justice. After first asserting the comments ascribed to him were meant as a joke, Mr. Estrada then gave very careful lawyerly answers to follow-up questions.

I cannot say for certain that he was untruthful. I am not saying that. But he certainly was not forthcoming. And this is the pattern throughout the process of trying to examine this nomination of Mr. Estrada.

Both to this area and in answers to questions concerning specific decisions of the courts or legal principles, I think the Senate has the right and duty to demand more openness and responsiveness from someone whose public record is so thin and who has been nominated for such an important judicial position.

Let me be clear, I very much want to be fair about something such as this. I probably would vote to confirm Miguel Estrada to a Federal district court judgeship. He has a distinguished academic and employment record. But for this crucial seat on this crucial court, we need to be confident that a nominee, if confirmed, will be fair, impartial, and not devoted to advancing an ideological agenda.

Based on the record before us, I do not have that confidence in Mr. Estrada. I must, therefore, reluctantly oppose his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Byrd for introducing a very sensible resolution, S. Res. 28, expressing the sense of the Senate that the United Nations weapons inspectors should be given sufficient time for a thorough assessment of the level of compliance by the Government of Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 of 2002 and that the United States should seek a United Nations Security Council resolution specifically authorizing the use of force before initiating any offensive military operations against Iraq. I am pleased to join several colleagues in cosponsoring it.

I want to be clear about one point on which I may disagree with Senator Byrd. S. Res. 28 states that U.N. weapons inspectors have failed to obtain evidence that would prove that Iraq is in breach of the terms of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. While there is little public information suggesting that weapons inspectors have turned up much in the way of evidence of any kind, they have made some important disclosures in their recent report, and it is clear that Iraq has failed to meet Resolution 1441's requirement that Iraq make a complete declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as information about its ballistic missiles and other delivery systems. The report that was submitted by the Government of Iraq omitted a great deal of information, and the ``unknowns'' left for the international community to consider are very serious matters. Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 1441.

But this issue does not dissuade me from supporting Senator Byrd's admirable resolution. Fundamentally, this resolution recognizes that the threshold for starting a war through unilateral military action should be very high. It should require the presence of an imminent threat, or a solid connection to al-Qaida, in which case unambiguous U.S. action is already, and rightly, authorized. Based on the information available to me, I have determined that we have not reached that point.

I wholeheartedly agree with the resolution's assertion that the U.S. and others should work to exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic means of disarming Iraq. I also agree that the U.S. should seek authorization from the Security Council before pursuing the last resort of military action in Iraq. Should we reach a point at which the use of force appears to be the only option, we should try to increase the legitimacy of any action and decrease the potential costs pursuing this multilateral approach.

While calling for exhaustive diplomatic efforts, ongoing inspections work, and a multilateral approach, S. Res 28 also asserts that the United States should continue to actively seek to bring peace to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, and notes that the

United States should redouble its efforts to reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attack. These are important issues to keep at the forefront of U.S. policy in the weeks and months ahead.

Overall, the resolution presents a reasonable approach to a difficult issue, and I believe that it reflects many of the concerns that I am hearing from my constituents in Wisconsin. Their voices and their questions belong at the center of our discussion about Iraq. I believe that this resolution helps to move my constituents' very serious concerns closer to that central role.

Mr. President, I commend our President for the historic commitment to fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic that he articulated in the State of the Union address.

As a 10-year member of the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs-- and over half of those years have been as either the ranking minority member or the chairman--I have seen the terrible unfolding of the pandemic. I have read and repeated the numbing statistics that grow more horrifying every year. I have met with orphans, the sick, the dying, the mourning. I have met with doctors and nurses overwhelmed by the task before them, public health officials impassioned in their pleas for more assistance, volunteers aching for the plight of the children they care for each day.

I believe that I understand the magnitude of this crisis as well as anyone can comprehend something so big and so devastating.

And I also understand that what the President promised to do is a vast leap forward, a truly visionary step toward doing what is right. It is in our interest, and in the interest of global stability. But it is also simply the right thing to do, to refuse to turn away from human suffering on a grand scale, to take action, to set meaningful goals and provide the resources and the will to achieve them. This is a noble undertaking. It is a constructive and humane act at a time when, too often, we feel surrounded by the forces of destruction. The President deserves our praise. I hope that his words will be transformed into action soon.

Congress certainly will be interested in understanding how the Administration plans to phase in additional spending, because the need is urgent and we cannot keep pushing our responsibility off into the future. It is critically important that pressing humanitarian and development priorities will not be robbed to finance this important initiative. And I hope that we take greater advantage of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria than we have in the past so that we can leverage our dollars for maximum impact.

But the bottom line is that this is a truly historic step, which is the only appropriate response to a historic crisis. We should celebrate this initiative. And then we should roll up our sleeves get to work on making it as effective as possible.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.

Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 36 cents per mile.

At the time when government is asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship on charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit.

At a listening session I held last summer, one organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that in 2001, 54 volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. The Department noted that their volunteer drivers provided 4,676 rides, and drove nearly 126,000 miles. They also delivered 9,385 home-delivered meals, and nearly two-thirds of the drivers logged more than 100 miles per month in providing these needed services. Together, volunteers donated over 5,200 hours last year, and as the Department notes, at the rate of minimum wage, that amounts to over $27,000, not including other benefits.

As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services.

By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 36 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.

This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 107th Congress. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill passed in 1999 that was vetoed by President Clinton. At the time of the 1999 measure, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis.

Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. The offset provision would impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 on failure to report interest in foreign financial transactions. During the 107th Congress, that provision was included in the CARE Act legislation by the Senate Finance Committee.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and

it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.

Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 36 cents per mile.

At the time when government is asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship on charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit.

At a listening session I held last summer, one organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that in 2001, 54 volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. The Department noted that their volunteer drivers provided 4,676 rides, and drove nearly 126,000 miles. They also delivered 9,385 home-delivered meals, and nearly two-thirds of the drivers logged more than 100 miles per month in providing these needed services. Together, volunteers donated over 5,200 hours last year, and as the Department notes, at the rate of minimum wage, that amounts to over $27,000, not including other benefits.

As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services.

By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 36 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.

This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 107th Congress. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill passed in 1999 that was vetoed by President Clinton. At the time of the 1999 measure, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis.

Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. The offset provision would impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 on failure to report interest in foreign financial transactions. During the 107th Congress, that provision was included in the CARE Act legislation by the Senate Finance Committee.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and

it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to mourn the loss of a fellow Wisconsinite, a wife, mother, daughter, sister, and friend. This extraordinary woman, Laurel Clark of Racine, WI, was a physician, a Navy Commander, and an astronaut who was flying her first space mission aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. When that craft broke apart over the blue Texas sky on Saturday morning, we lost this incredible woman and her six crew mates. I extend my deepest sympathy to Dr. Clark's husband and son and to her family and friends.

Dr. Clark, the oldest of four children, was born in Iowa and grew up in Racine, WI. She graduated from William Horlick High School in 1979 and went on to attend the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she studied zoology and was an active member of Gamma Phi Beta Sorority. She earned her undergraduate degree in 1983, and her medical degree, also from the University of Wisconsin, in 1987.

Dr. Clark joined the U.S. Navy after medical school and became a diving doctor, participating a number of submarine missions. She was selected to train as an astronaut in 1996, and she and her husband relocated to Houston, TX, home of the Johnson Space Center.

Dr. Clark's first shuttle mission was postponed several times, and after years of training and anticipation, she and her crewmates lifted off from Cape Canaveral on January 16 for a 16-day microgravity research mission. Aboard the Columbia, Dr. Clark was a mission specialist who conducted numerous medical experiments, often using herself as a test subject.

An e-mail message that Dr. Clark sent to her brother from space noted that she enjoyed looking down on her home planet and seeing familiar sights such as Wind Point on Lake Michigan.

Dr. Clark's professional journey took her from the depths of the Earth's oceans to the vast reaches of outer space. She truly reached for the stars and made incredible contributions to our country. Dr. Laurel Clark and her crewmates were tragically taken from us too soon, and we will always treasure her legacy of scientific exploration and discovery and her commitment to her family, friends, and country.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries.

This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.

Last year, I introduced this same legislation, and with the help of a wide range of organizations and other Senators, we put this issue on the front and center in Congress. I am pleased that a number of Committees are looking at this issue and considering holding hearings in the coming weeks.

With these hearings coming up, I want once again to bring this proposal to my colleagues attention. And as the Committee process works itself forward, I expect that we will discover additional issues to address that will strengthen the provisions in my legislation.

But this legislation is where Congress should begin its efforts to promote competition, diversity, and localism in radio.

I love radio. But, over the last year, I have learned that concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry has made it difficult for individuals, artists, and organizations to find outlets to express their creativity and promote diversity.

Music and local news carried over the radio can help society to consider some of the most serious issues affecting our Nation: issues like war and peace, issues like social justice.

If the already diminishing number of gatekeepers of radio content chooses not to air controversial music because it may turn off advertisers, one of the most universal mediums to engage in dialogue will be lost. Regardless of our point of view, we must retain the ability of radio to show the diverse range of voices that form our culture.

I have heard many stories about the effects of this concentration. But perhaps the most compelling was at the annual Congressional Black Caucus event last year, when two people who have been involved in radio for decades told me about the real life importance of diversity in radio.

They spoke about the importance of the locally-owned media that helped raise public awareness of the campaign of the late Harold Washington to become the first black mayor of Chicago. They said that the main avenue for many in the central city to hear about the campaign was through locally-owned radio stations.

If an out-of-State corporation controlled the programming of these radio stations, would this political pioneer have received the same coverage?

I have also heard a great deal from religious organizations about how consolidation harms their ability to reach out in their communities. They have said that we must get to the root of the problem by curbing anti-competitive practices that make it difficult for locally-owned, independent radio stations to prosper.

I also learned about the story of Everett Parker, who during the civil rights movement of the 1960s was a pioneering defender of public interest in broadcasting.

In Dr. Parker's most famous crusade, he and the United Church of Christ went to Jackson, MS, to challenge the license renewals of stations that were blocking coverage of the civil rights movement, even though African-Americans constituted almost half of the audience.

By failing to cover the civil rights movement, the station failed all of the citizens of Jackson by limiting access to information on issues of public importance.

So, joining with the local NAACP, the group went to the Federal Communications Commission and challenged the licenses of the Jackson stations. The case went all the way to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which took away the station's license.

What makes this case so significant is that it established the right of any American to petition the Commission, instead of limiting such petitions to commercial interests.

The radio airwaves continued to be owned by the public. Radio is a public medium. It must serve the public good.

We must promote localism and diversity on our airwaves and crack down on anti-competitive practices that are a result of concentration in the radio and concert industry.

We must address negative consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which opened the floodgates for consolidation and led to anti- consumer and anti-competitive practices.

Just consider how the rise in ticket prices coincided with the passage of the Telecommunications Act. Following the passage of the Act, and the resulting consolidation of the radio and concert industry, ticket prices went through the roof!

Before the passage of the 1996 Act, ticket prices were increasing at a rate slightly higher than the Consumer Price Index. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, ticket prices have increased at a rate almost 50 percentage points higher than the Consumer Price Index. From 1996 to 2001, concert ticket prices rose by more than 61 percent, while the Consumer Price Index increased by just 13 percent.

During the debate of the 1996 Act, I joined a number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership rules because of concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, independent radio stations, and local communities.

Passage of this Act was an unfortunate example of the influence of soft money in the political process. I have consistently said that this Act was bought and paid for by soft money, by unlimited contributions by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to the political parties. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers.

That's why I am pleased to re-introduce this legislation, the Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act, which would reduce the levels of concentration and curb some of these anti-competitive practices.

My legislation prohibits those who own radio stations and concert promotion services or venues from leveraging their cross-ownership to hinder competition in the industry. For example, if an owner of a radio station and a promotion service hinders access to the airwaves of a rival promoter or artist, then the owner would be subject to penalties.

My legislation will also help to curb the concentration that leads to these anti-competitive practices.

It would strengthen the FCC merger review process by requiring the FCC to

scrutinize the mergers of any radio station ownership group that reaches more than 60% of the nation.

My legislation would also curb consolidation on the local level by preventing any upward revision of the limitation on multiple ownership of radio stations in local markets.

The bill would also prohibit the current shakedown system, where the big radio corporations are said to leverage their market power to require payments from artists in exchange for playing their songs. And it would also close a loophole that allows large radio ownership companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations'' through a third party. In these cases, they control the station through a third party, but the stations are not counted against their local ownership cap.

Songs and ideas should not be broadcast on the radio based on how much money has changed hands. Airplay should be based on good songs and good ideas what the local audience wants to hear.

My legislation would slow the levels of concentration and address a number of concerns that I have heard from artists and others, although it does not address all the issues facing our communities.

Over the coming months, I hope that my colleagues will give this issue their attention, both on the floor and in committee.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation so that we can work together to restore competition to the radio and concert industry by putting independent radio stations, local concert promoters, and artists on a level playing field.

People should have choices, listeners should have a diversity of options, and Americans should be able to hear new and different voices. Radio allows us to connect to our communities, to our culture, and to our democracy. It is one of the most vibrant mediums we have for the exchange of ideas, and for artistic expression. We must fight to preserve it, and together I believe we can do just that.

Radio is a public medium, and we must ensure that it serves the public good. That's a democratic vision of American radio well worth fighting for.