Floor Statements

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.

My understanding is that I am to be allotted 5 minutes in response to Senator Bond's comments on my amendment.

I thank the Chair and I thank the managers for their fairness in light of the fact that we were going to have a minute on each side. I appreciate the understanding that I do want to respond to Senator Bond's remarks.

Senator Bond apparently has not actually read what my amendment does with regard to the Indonesian military and the IMET Program. Obviously, there is a terrorism threat in Indonesia today, as Senator Bond indicated. That is one of the conditions this amendment is all about. It is about making sure that Indonesia cooperates with us in fighting terrorist attacks, such as the ones that were so awfully perpetrated on the people in Bali.

What is even more troubling about Senator Bond's remarks is that he doesn't even mention the fact that apparently the Indonesian military was involved in an incident in Papua which killed American citizens.

Are we only going to be upset when American citizens are killed in Yemen and Kuwait or are we going to respond and expect standards of help and behavior from countries when our citizens are killed in a place such as Indonesia?

All this amendment does is try to make sure, as we continue our relationship with Indonesia--yes, a fledgling democracy--that we actually have accountability of that Indonesian military with which we would be involved. I am very troubled when we see the failure of cooperation with the FBI's reasonable request to deal with this awful murder of our citizens. We need a message to be sent clearly to the Indonesian Government, and in particular to the Indonesian military, that as the FBI returns to try to do this investigation again, we will get cooperation.

The whole point here is not that we are trying to cut off military help and assistance; it is that there have to be two preconditions to make sure it is a legitimate enterprise in which to be involved. One is that the Indonesian Government and military has to help us in dealing with terrorism; secondly, they need to help us get to the bottom of this awful massacre that occurred.

If Senators don't believe me, I refer them to the letter of Patricia Lynn Spier of Colorado, whose husband was brutally murdered in this incident. Ask her and the other families whether they think it is appropriate for the Indonesian military to investigate itself with regard to this incident or whether they should cooperate with the FBI.

Despite the attempt to distort what this amendment is about, my amendment is simple. Until the President determines that Indonesia is committed to fighting terrorism and committed to cooperating and investigating the murder of American citizens, my amendment would deny Indonesia access to IMET, though it would--I emphasize this to the Senator from Missouri--permit access to expanded IMET courses that are relevant to military reforms. So, yes, we want to promote a good relationship with the military in Indonesia, if these preconditions are met. We are going to continue counter-terrorism training, expanded IMET sales of nonlethal defense articles, officer visits, educational exchanges, and port visits. We are not cutting off these items.

I have the floor, Mr. President.

Let's be clear, because the Senator from Missouri did not mention this. Last August, two Americans were killed and eight were wounded in an ambush in West Papua, Indonesia. Indonesia's police investigated, and their report concluded that the Indonesian military was very likely responsible for the deaths of these Americans. When the investigation was turned over to the Indonesian military, it exonerated itself and it failed to fully cooperate not only with the Indonesian authorities but with our own FBI.

Some may say this amendment cuts off ties to the Indonesian military

when we need a strong coalition to fight terrorism. But nothing in my amendment will prohibit important national security programs, including counterterrorism training. Why would we hesitate? Why would we hesitate to condition one element--only one element--of our relationship with the Indonesian military on a demand that we simply get to the bottom of this incident? Real partners in the fight against terrorism do not murder American citizens and do not conspire to cover up such murders.

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

How much time do I have?

I yield to the Senator for a question.

I have had daily contact with a wide variety of individuals we are concerned with, including some the Senator mentioned. I have been involved in this issue of Indonesia and East Timor for 10 years, since I have been a Member of the Senate and a member of the Subcommittee on Asia. I think I have a right to speak on this as much as the Senator from Missouri. When it comes to the deaths of American citizens, they should be cooperating with the FBI.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I support the Wyden-Feinstein Amendment. This amendment would represent a critical first step towards addressing the concerns that so many of our citizens have about one specific data-mining system, the Total Information Awareness program in the Department of Defense. The amendment would require specific congressional authorization before the Total Information Awareness program could be deployed.

Time after time at listening sessions I told throughout my home State of Wisconsin people have expressed serious concerns about the prospect of data mining. People want a government that can protect us, but not at the expense of our most cherished liberties.

The untested and controversial intelligence procedure of data-mining is capable of maintaining and accessing extensive files containing both public and private Government records on each and every American. The Total Information Awareness program represents a dangerous step that threatens some of the very freedoms that we are fighting to preserve in the fight against terrorism. Through comprehensive data mining, as envisioned by the Information Awareness office at the Department of Defense, everything from people's video rentals or drugstore purchases made with a credit card to their most private health concerns could be fed into a computer and monitored by the Federal Government.

It is important to emphasize that this amendment is only a first step. I will continue to fight for further congressional oversight and action on the important issue of data mining. The administration must suspend not only the Total Information Awareness program but all other data-mining initiatives in the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security until Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of aggressive data mining comes at too high a price for our privacy and personal liberties.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to address the importance of maintaining a commitment to affirmative action in college admissions programs.

President Bush, unfortunately, took our nation a step backward when he announced last week that his administration would file an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court opposing the admissions policies of the University of Michigan. The President apparently believes that college admissions decisions should never consider the race of applicants, even though he also says that he supports the pursuit of campus diversity.

In 1978, in University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that campus diversity can be a ``compelling governmental interest'' that justifies reasonable, narrowly tailored affirmative action programs at universities. The Supreme Court said that colleges and universities cannot use quotas to achieve campus diversity, but affirmed that campus diversity can be a worthy goal of college admissions policies. In December 2002, the Supreme Court, for the first time since its Bakke decision, agreed to review two cases that challenge a university's affirmative action programs--Grutter v. Bollinger, which involves the admissions program at the University of Michigan Law School, and Gratz v. Bollinger, which involves the undergraduate admissions program at the University of Michigan.

Some, including President Bush, have criticized affirmative action programs in higher education, like those in place at the University of Michigan, as ``quota'' programs. They are simply wrong. These affirmative action programs do not set quotas or numerical targets for admitting a certain number of students of a particular race or ethnicity. In fact, the Bakke decision long ago prohibited colleges from employing a quota system. So, for President Bush to suggest that this is a question of whether to support a quota system is a mischaracterization of the issue before the Court.

Some critics have also wrongly stated that affirmative action programs admit students primarily on the basis of race. According to the Washington Post, the President stated that the University of Michigan's admissions system selected students ``primarily on the basis of the color of their skin.'' But again, this is simply not an accurate description of the current law or of how students are admitted to the University of Michigan.

Rather, in most affirmative action programs for college or graduate school admissions, race is simply one of numerous factors that can be considered by admissions officers to create a diverse student body. For example, under the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, the University considers the entire background of the applicant. Students are evaluated on a 150 point scale to determine their fitness for admission. The

vast majority of these points--110 of 150 points--are awarded based on academic achievement. That means grades, test scores, and curriculum. The University also considers other factors like leadership, service, and life experiences. Only 20 points can possibly be awarded on the basis of race. A student who is socioeconomically disadvantaged can also earn 20 points but students cannot earn 20 points for both race and being socioeconomically disadvantaged. Thus, the University does not have a quota or numerical target for minority students, nor does the University admit students primarily on the basis of race.

Like the University of Michigan, most colleges and universities generally give academic records--such as college grades and standardized test scores, the caliber of high school attended, and the rigor of the student's chosen curriculum--the greatest weight in determining whether a student gains admission. But other factors--such as extracurricular activities, race, athletic talent, geographic diversity, or whether students are related to alumni--are also frequently given consideration in the college admissions process. Many colleges give preferences to the children of alumni, and these preferences will often work to the disadvantage of people of color. So, race can be a factor but is not the sole factor in determining admission to college.

I am especially disappointed in the Bush Administration's decision to oppose affirmative action programs because the President has said that he is committed to equal educational opportunities for all America's children. The President has said that education is one of his top priorities. Yet, he has now turned his back on many of the students he promised to help. By submitting an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court favoring the abolition of affirmative action programs, the President sends the message that he opposes creating higher education opportunities for minority students, who do not always have the same educational opportunities at the secondary school levels as white students.

I might add, that I believe Congress also has an important responsibility to ensure equal access to higher education. I strongly believe that Congress can do more to ensure that students meet the costs of today's college education. That is why Senator Collins and I have recently called for a doubling of Pell Grant funding by 2010. Pell grants are an important support for all low income students, regardless of race. In fact, if it were not for the Pell grant program, many low income students would not have the chance to attend college at all.

The Pell grant, however, does not cover what it once did. The price of a college education at both public and private institutions has increased dramatically. Congress needs to increase the funding of the Pell grant program to keep up with the increasing costs of higher education.

One of the greatest strengths of our nation is its pursuit of equal educational opportunities for all students. Our nation's colleges and universities are the envy of the world for their rigorous curricula and high-caliber professors, but also for their enriching experience of learning in an environment with students who represent a range of racial, ethnic, and social and economic backgrounds representing every part of America, if not the world. I am deeply disappointed that the President decided to put the government of the United States of America on the wrong side of the case where the Supreme Court will address this crucial issue. I hope that the Court will affirm the importance of campus diversity and uphold affirmative action admissions policies that allow colleges and universities to achieve this important diversity.

Mr. President, I rise in the support of Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine's amendment to increase U.S. support for the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. 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. In 2002 alone, 3.1 million people died of AIDS. Five million were infected with HIV over the course of the year, and 42 million people were living with the virus by the end of the year. Ten million children have been orphaned by AIDS, and that number is expected to quadruple in the next 10 years. And I have seen the reality of these statistics in individual faces; I have met with orphans, with the sick, with the dying, and with the mourning. And while most of my own experience with this disaster has been in the African context, this is not only an African problem. In India, China, Russia, and the countries of the Caribbean, the terrible statistics have begun their own march steadily upward as the pandemic is taking hold.

The devastation is all the more appalling each year not just because the numbers grow, but because each year we have more tools at our disposal to fight this catastrophe. We know more about what works in terms of prevention and public awareness; we have improved treatment protocols and developed more effective methods for stopping the transmission of HIV from mother to child. But we still have not developed the will to scale up our activities and to use these tools on a grand scale.

The world simply must do more. Whole communities are being gutted-- robbed of their core of productive adults. Whole societies--whole countries, even--are at risk. I urge my colleagues to consider the magnitude of the crisis, consider the human tragedy involved, consider the consequences of massive destabilization in the developing world, and to support this amendment. It is not going to solve the problem before us, but it is a step in the right direction, and we must take these steps at our every opportunity.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask that Senators Leahy, Wyden, Boxer, and Durbin be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a very simple amendment to this bill.

This amendment restricts Indonesian participation in the International Military Education and Training program, or IMET, limiting that participation to Expanded-IMET only, until the President can determine that Indonesia is doing two things--demonstrating a commitment to assist U.S. efforts to combat terrorism and taking effective measures, including cooperating with the FBI, to bring to just those members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and militia groups against whom there is credible evidence of involvement in the August attack on American citizens.

On August 31, 2002, two American schoolteachers and one Indonesian citizen who were working at an international school for the children of Freeport McMoRan's mine employees were killed, and eight more Americans were wounded when they were ambushed on a mountain road in Papua, Indonesia. Press reports indicate that Indonesian garrisons control all access to the remote road where the attack occurred. The attackers sprayed their targets with automatic weapons--weapons that would be rare to find in the hands of separatists in the area. Police reports indicated that the Indonesian military was very likely involved in the attack, but the investigation was then turned over to the military, which, not surprisingly, has proven unwilling to investigate itself, and unwilling to fully cooperate with the FBI. In November, the Washington Post reported that intelligence agencies had obtained information indicating that, prior to the ambush, senior Indonesian military officials discussed an operation targeting Freeport and intended to discredit Papuan separatists.

The survivors of the attack, and the widows of the murdered, want their government to pressure the Indonesians to uncover the truth about the attack and to bring those responsible to justice. This Senate should support them.

I want to be very clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not cut off military contacts with Indonesia. Rather, it explicitly states that nothing in the amendment shall prohibit important national security contacts and programs, including counter- terrorism training, sales on non-lethal defense articles, officer visits, port visits, participation in conferences, or educational exchanges. The amendment explicitly permits Indonesian civilians and military personnel to participate in the expanded-IMET program, which offers a wide range of courses highly relevant to the reform efforts so important to the future of the military in Indonesia's new democratic system.

I believe that the United States should work with Indonesia to support such reforms, and should work within Indonesia and other states around the world in making the coalition against terrorism ever stronger.

The October 12 terrorist attack in Bali made plain that international terrorism threatens Indonesia just as it threatens the rest of the world, and I am encouraged by the many positive steps that Indonesia has taken in the wake of that horrific event--steps to track down those responsible using solid law enforcement methods, and

broader steps to acknowledge the reality of international terrorism's link to Indonesia. These efforts marked a welcome change from an initial reluctance in Jakarta to acknowledge the fact on the ground. More work remains ahead. The International Crisis Group recently published a powerful report on the Jamaah Islamiyah terrorist network, a group that is linked to dozens of attacks across Southeast Asia and that is believed by intelligence officials to be associated with al Qaeda. It is my hope that cooperation with Indonesia will continue to grow stronger.

But I also believe that our relations with Indonesia and the Indonesian military cannot be characterized by a business-as-usual approach until they have made a commitment to cooperate in investigating the murder of American citizens. In late December, when American citizens were brutally murdered in Yemen, the White House spoke plainly, stating that ``it is our intention to bring to justice any and all people who were responsible for these murders.'' The White House was right to make that perfectly clear, and I take them at their word. And it is all the more important in the Indonesian case--where one of the institutions of the state may well be responsible for the murder of American citizens, where we find a long history abusive and extortionate military practices and an urgent need for military reform--it is all the more important, in this case, the U.S. make its intentions plain. We must be equally clear with the Indonesians, equally resolute in our commitment to get to the bottom of the murders in Papua. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort, and support this amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, it is my understanding we will be allotted a moment to summarize prior to the vote on the amendment tomorrow.

I ask the minority whip, what is the intention?

Mr. President, has the other side yielded back their time?

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, of which I am a cosponsor.

I have long been concerned about the costs and benefits associated with the process by which the Federal Government contracts out work. In particular, I am concerned about the lack of data on whether these contracts actually achieve real savings for taxpayers, and about the effects of outsourcing on the pay and benefits of Federal workers.

I do not oppose contracting out. Such a process is often appropriate. I am concerned, however, that the arbitrary quotas proposed by the Office of Management and Budget will encourage Federal agencies to circumvent the existing public-private competition process for contracting out work without regard for what is the best use of taxpayer dollars. Contracting out affects the jobs of thousands of dedicated Government employees each year. These men and women deserve the chance to compete for this work--and for their jobs--on a level playing field.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland would prohibit OMB from using numerical targets to privatize jobs currently filled by Federal employees. It would not prevent Federal agencies from contracting out. Instead, it would ensure that contracting decisions are based on what is

best for American taxpayers, rather than on arbitrary quotas set by

Mr. President, I want to underscore the importance of the issue that Senator Nelson has raised today. Some 38 million Africans are threatened with starvation in the coming months. In a six- country region encompassing Zambia and Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique, Swaziland and Lesotho, 25 percent of the population is urgently in need of assistance. This food crisis is striking a tremendously vulnerable population that has already been devastated by HIV/AIDS, compounding the difficulty of African families' struggle for survival. In the Horn of Africa, almost half of Eritrea's population is at risk, and Ethiopia stands on the brink of a crisis rivaling that of the mid-1980s.

I have served on the Subcommittee on African Affairs since I came to the Senate, and spent over half of my tenure here as either the ranking minority member or chairman of that subcommittee. I have watched this crisis unfold over the past year with horror. The United States and the international community must act now to address this crisis; delay will mean death for too many innocent families. But we must also work in the months and years ahead to address some of the underlying causes of food insecurity in Africa, so that we can reduce communities' vulnerability to natural factors affecting harvests. Certainly we need to join with the many Africans who want to ensure that misguided policies and decisions are examined, discarded, and not repeated--from the tremendously destructive policies pursued by the Zimbabwean government, to corrupt practices affecting food stocks in Malawi, to the impact of the government's national service program on the agricultural sector in Eritrea. And certainly we need to ensure that assistance is distributed responsibly, fairly, and efficiently. But we also need to help African societies reinvigorate their agricultural sectors, by working to get small farmers the technical assistance, infrastructure, and opportunity that they need to succeed.

In July of last year, I asked the GAO to examine some of the causes contributing to the southern African food crisis, and to evaluate the efficacy of our response, so that we can improve our performance and prevent crises in the future. Unfortunately, the World Food Program has warned that early indicators suggest drought may continue to plague the region in the year ahead. I am looking forward to the GAO's final report, and hope that it can point the way toward proactive steps that we can take to work with our African partners on this issue.

As another step in this broader, long-term effort, this week I am introducing a resolution calling on USAID to give adequate attention to land tenure issues as the agency pursues efforts to bolster agricultural development and fight hunger, and I hope to work with my colleagues on other initiatives aimed at addressing underlying causes of chronic food insecurity in the months ahead. Too often, we think of Africa only as a troubled continent, full of flood and famine, war and deadly disease. But I have traveled widely on the continent, and I have met with energized and committed Africans from government officials to businessmen to community activists. There is no lack of good partners on the continent, and there is no absence of promise or potential. Our commitment to get serious about these issues now can lead to meaningful success, improving the lives of millions of Africans and bolstering food security in the region.

These long-term initiatives deserve Congress's support, but we will be working with profoundly weakened partners in our every effort--be it counterterrorism initiatives or programs aimed at increasing trade and investment--if we do not address this immediate emergency. Senator Nelson is right to sound the alarm about this crisis now, while we have an opportunity to act and to help those people currently at risk. To help now is humane, it is right, and it is in our interest.

Madam President, I am pleased to support the National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003. I urge the House of Representatives to take prompt action to pass this critical legislation and for the President to support it.

We have all heard the stories of parents who have found themselves trying to find a child who has been abducted, while fearing serious injury or even death. While local law enforcement officials work tirelessly to locate these children, the reality is that they are not always able to find a child in time without the help of the public.

What has made the difference around the country in many communities is the Amber program, a system designed to get critical information to the general public that might lead to locating a child and his or her abductor before the worst can happen.

The National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 builds upon successful local programs and encourages other communities to develop Amber programs. The National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 would enhance local programs by giving State and local communities help in apprehending an abductor who takes a child and then crosses State lines. In Wisconsin, there are three Amber programs in effect, in Madison, in La Crosse and in Green Bay. But, if a child is taken from Wisconsin and brought across State lines to another State, the local Amber programs have no uniform way to get critical information from one State to another.

The National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 would allow communities the flexibility to develop Amber programs that are responsive to the needs of their areas and provide Federal assistance and coordination for local programs. The National Amber Alert Network Act would have the Department of Justice create a national coordinator to work on interstate issues, develop voluntary minimum standards for the issuance and dissemination of Amber alerts, and provide matching grants for the development and enhancement of local Amber alert plans.

The cost of implementing the National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 is small when we consider the price every parent and community must pay when children are not protected. I am hopeful the National Amber Alert Network Act will help local programs continue to reunite families and apprehend their abductors.

(At the request of Mr. Leahy, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003. Like many Americans, I was surprised to learn during the last few months that the Department of Defense has spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing a data- mining system called Total Information Awareness while permitting the progeny of Total Information Awareness to appear in places like the Department of Homeland Security. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as data-mining is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and private records on each and every American. Coupled with the expanded domestic surveillance already underway by this Administration, this unchecked system is a dangerous step forward and threatens one of the values that we're fighting for, freedom. The Administration has a heavy burden of proof that such extreme measures are necessary.

The Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003 would immediately suspend data-mining in the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security until Congress has conducted a thorough review of Total Information Awareness and the practice of data-mining.

Without Congressional review and oversight, data-mining would allow the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and other government agencies to collect and analyze a combination of intelligence data and personal information like individuals' traffic violations, credit card purchases, travel records, medical records, communications records, and virtually any information collected on commercial or public databases. Through comprehensive data-mining, as envisioned

with Total Information Awareness, everything from people's video rentals or drugstore purchases made with a credit card to their most private health concerns could be fed into a computer and monitored by the Federal Government.

Using massive data mining, like Total Information Awareness, the government hopes to be able to detect potential terrorists. There is no evidence that data-mining will, in fact, prevent terrorism. And when one considers the potential for errors in data, for example, credit agencies that have data about John R. Smith on John D. Smith's credit report, the prospect of ensnaring many innocents is real. This approach might also lead to the same kinds of so-called ``preventive'' detentions that are unconstitutional and put more than 1,100 individuals in jail after September 11. Although none of these people were ever charged with orchestrating or aiding the attacks, they were often held for months on end, and went for weeks without access to counsel. There is every reason to be concerned that uncontrolled data- mining systems would lead to the same abuse of power.

The Administration's assurances that a data-mining system will not abuse our privacy rights ring hollow, particularly to those of us who questioned the breathtaking new Federal powers in the USA PATRIOT Act. We heard these same assurances when the Administration pressed for enactment of that sweeping legislation in the months after September 11th, that the government would act with restraint to ensure that its application of the Act would not infringe on our liberties. The opposite has turned out to be true. In fact, some of the most serious infringements on our personal freedoms in the USA PATRIOT Act can now contribute to the data-mining effort.

The USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to compel businesses to produce records about people who had only a remote contact with a person sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism, including sitting on an airplane with the suspect, or having used the same payphone as the suspect. Under the PATRIOT Act, any business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, financial records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the liberary. This information is exactly the kind of data that data-mining programs like Total Infomration Awareness will use when compiling its files on the American people.

The danger of data-mining is compounded not only by provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, but also by the Administration's loosening of domestic surveillance restrictions for FBI agents last year, restrictions that were put in place following FBI abuses under J. Edgar Hoover. These various initiatives of the Administration are building on each other to give away more and more of our personal information, and give away more and more of our personal freedoms.

It is reasonable to ask Americans to sacrifice some personal freedom like submitting to more extensive security screenings at airports. But should we allow the government to track our every move, from what items we purchase online, to our medical records, to our financial records, without limits and without accountability? I believe most Americans would say that that's a police state, not the America we know and love. We would catch more terroists in a police state. I don't doubt that. But that's not a country in which most Americans would want to live.

Each time we have been told that government authorities would use restraint with its new powers, but Congress and the American people should not find comfort in these assurances, especially since they have been made by an Administration that has been operating in greater and greater secrecy. The Administration must suspend this massive data mining project until Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of this practice come at too high a price to our privacy and personal liberties.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003. Like many Americans, I was surprised to learn during the last few months that the Department of Defense has spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing a data- mining system called Total Information Awareness while permitting the progeny of Total Information Awareness to appear in places like the Department of Homeland Security. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as data-mining is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and private records on each and every American. Coupled with the expanded domestic surveillance already underway by this Administration, this unchecked system is a dangerous step forward and threatens one of the values that we're fighting for, freedom. The Administration has a heavy burden of proof that such extreme measures are necessary.

The Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003 would immediately suspend data-mining in the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security until Congress has conducted a thorough review of Total Information Awareness and the practice of data-mining.

Without Congressional review and oversight, data-mining would allow the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and other government agencies to collect and analyze a combination of intelligence data and personal information like individuals' traffic violations, credit card purchases, travel records, medical records, communications records, and virtually any information collected on commercial or public databases. Through comprehensive data-mining, as envisioned

with Total Information Awareness, everything from people's video rentals or drugstore purchases made with a credit card to their most private health concerns could be fed into a computer and monitored by the Federal Government.

Using massive data mining, like Total Information Awareness, the government hopes to be able to detect potential terrorists. There is no evidence that data-mining will, in fact, prevent terrorism. And when one considers the potential for errors in data, for example, credit agencies that have data about John R. Smith on John D. Smith's credit report, the prospect of ensnaring many innocents is real. This approach might also lead to the same kinds of so-called ``preventive'' detentions that are unconstitutional and put more than 1,100 individuals in jail after September 11. Although none of these people were ever charged with orchestrating or aiding the attacks, they were often held for months on end, and went for weeks without access to counsel. There is every reason to be concerned that uncontrolled data- mining systems would lead to the same abuse of power.

The Administration's assurances that a data-mining system will not abuse our privacy rights ring hollow, particularly to those of us who questioned the breathtaking new Federal powers in the USA PATRIOT Act. We heard these same assurances when the Administration pressed for enactment of that sweeping legislation in the months after September 11th, that the government would act with restraint to ensure that its application of the Act would not infringe on our liberties. The opposite has turned out to be true. In fact, some of the most serious infringements on our personal freedoms in the USA PATRIOT Act can now contribute to the data-mining effort.

The USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to compel businesses to produce records about people who had only a remote contact with a person sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism, including sitting on an airplane with the suspect, or having used the same payphone as the suspect. Under the PATRIOT Act, any business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, financial records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the liberary. This information is exactly the kind of data that data-mining programs like Total Infomration Awareness will use when compiling its files on the American people.

The danger of data-mining is compounded not only by provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, but also by the Administration's loosening of domestic surveillance restrictions for FBI agents last year, restrictions that were put in place following FBI abuses under J. Edgar Hoover. These various initiatives of the Administration are building on each other to give away more and more of our personal information, and give away more and more of our personal freedoms.

It is reasonable to ask Americans to sacrifice some personal freedom like submitting to more extensive security screenings at airports. But should we allow the government to track our every move, from what items we purchase online, to our medical records, to our financial records, without limits and without accountability? I believe most Americans would say that that's a police state, not the America we know and love. We would catch more terroists in a police state. I don't doubt that. But that's not a country in which most Americans would want to live.

Each time we have been told that government authorities would use restraint with its new powers, but Congress and the American people should not find comfort in these assurances, especially since they have been made by an Administration that has been operating in greater and greater secrecy. The Administration must suspend this massive data mining project until Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of this practice come at too high a price to our privacy and personal liberties.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to give my perspective on the recent decision by Illinois Governor George Ryan to pardon four death row inmates and to commute the death sentences of 167 other death row inmates. His action effectively clears Illinois' death row, the eighth largest death row in the Nation. It is the broadest clemency of death row inmates ever granted by a Governor.

I understand that there are some, particularly, State prosecutors and victims' families, who are unhappy with Governor Ryan's decision. I understand that victims' families who support capital punishment have, justifiably, very strong feelings.

But these 167 inmates are not walking free. They won't be executed, but almost all of them will spend the rest of their lives behind bars without the possibility of parole. But it also means that if, in fact, it is shown in the near future they did not commit murder, they still have the chance to be set free.

Many murderers do not receive the death penalty, even in Illinois. Indeed, the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment found that decisions to put these particular individuals on death row, while sparing others, were not made by a system that meets basic standards of fairness and justice.

Fairness and justice, those are the principles that should guide our criminal justice system, especially the administration of the death penalty.

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Governor Ryan's clemency decision, most Americans should be able to agree that the current system is broken. Even some State prosecutors in Illinois, who disagreed with Ryan's clemency decision, acknowledged that the people of Illinois must debate whether they want a death penalty at all, before debating what kinds of reforms the State should adopt. I think it is important to take a moment to review how Illinois reached this point because I think Congress and the Nation can learn a valuable lesson from Illinois' remarkable experience.

Three years ago, Governor Ryan, a death penalty supporter, first made national headlines when he was the first Governor in the Nation to place a moratorium on executions. He did so after seeing irrefutable evidence that the system in Illinois risks executing the innocent. Since the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois in 1977, Illinois had executed 12 people. But, during this same time, another 13 death row inmates were found to be innocent and to have been wrongfully sentenced to death.

I believe that Governor Ryan has showed uncommon courage. He acknowledged that the system is broken. But he did not stop there. He took steps to address the flaws in his State's death penalty system. First, he took the reasonable and necessary step of placing a moratorium on executions. He then created a blue ribbon commission, including former U.S. Attorney Thomas Sullivan, one of our former colleagues, Senator Paul Simon, and lawyer and novelist, Scott Turow. The Commission included both death penalty proponents and opponents.

Governor Ryan instructed the Commission to review the State's death penalty system and to advise him on how to reduce the risk of executing the innocent and to ensure fairness in the system. After a 2-year long study, the Commission issued a comprehensive report and set forth 85 recommendations for reform of the Illinois death penalty system. These recommendations address difficult issues like inadequate defense counsel, executions of the mentally retarded, coerced confessions, and the problem of wrongful convictions based solely on the testimony of a jailhouse snitch or a single eyewitness. The Commission's work is the first, and, so far, only, comprehensive review of a death penalty system undertaken by a State or Federal Government in the modern death penalty era.

When the Commission released its report last April, Governor Ryan again acted decisively. He supported its recommendations and urged the Illinois State legislature to implement the necessary reforms of the system. Unfortunately, the legislative session ended without the legislature passing even a single one of the Commission's 85 recommendations.

Faced with the legislature's failure to act to fix the system and the fact that the fate of over 160 death row inmates remained in the balance, Governor Ryan took yet another bold, but reasonable step. He conducted clemency hearings and reviewed the records of each person on death row. He heard from victims' families, from prosecutors, from defense counsel, and from the families of death row inmates. After this careful and painstaking review, he pardoned four men whom he believed had compelling claims of innocence. Unable to conclude that the remaining sentences were not tainted by the problems with the system catalogued by the Commission, he decided to commute them to life in prison without parole.

Governor Ryan's leadership on this issue is a model for the Nation, a legacy that I am convinced will live on long after he leaves office.

He now joins Americans like former Supreme Court Justices Lewis Powell and Harry Blackmun, who supported capital punishment but later in their lives came to re-think their position on the issue.

When the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as a form of cruel and unusual punishment in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, Justice Powell dissented from the majority position. He supported capital punishment. In fact, he later wrote the decision in McCleskey v. Kemp in 1987, which denied a challenge to the death penalty on the grounds that it was applied in a discriminatory manner against African Americans. In 1991, however, Justice Powell told his biographer that he had decided that capital punishment should be abolished.

Late in his career on the Court, Justice Blackmun penned the following eloquent, frequently quoted dissent, in 1994:

From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the

machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have

endeavored--indeed, I have struggled--along with a majority

of this Court, to develop procedural and substantive rules

that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to

the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue to coddle

the Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has

been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel

morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that

the death penalty experiment has failed.

Like Justice Powell, Justice Blackmun, and now Governor Ryan, it is my hope that other judges and public officials will take the time to reexamine the ultimate punishment our society imposes.

Governor Ryan acted only after a lengthy study and a consideration of all the alternatives. In a civilized country committed to equal justice, I hope that other public officials, including my colleagues here in the Congress, can be strong enough to take the steps that Governor Ryan took to reconsider the flawed death penalty system in this country.

Last week, the University of Maryland released a study showing significant racial and geographic disparities in the Maryland death penalty system. While this study is not a comprehensive review of the entire Maryland death penalty system, its disturbing findings should be reason enough to continue the moratorium on executions until the concerns raised by the study are addressed.

More importantly, we know that the Illinois and Maryland experiences are not unique. With over 100 innocent people on death row across the Nation later exonerated in the modern death penalty era, some just days before they were scheduled to be executed, we know that the administration of the death penalty nationwide is seriously flawed.

It is past time for Congress to meet its responsibility of ensuring fairness and justice in our criminal justice system, especially concerning the administration of the death penalty. Congress should place a moratorium on Federal executions and urge the States to do the same, while a National Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fairness of the death penalty systems at the Federal and State levels. I urge my colleagues to support my bill, S. 132, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act.

Congress has an important responsibility to ensure that innocent people are not executed and that constitutional protections are respected in the administration of capital punishment across the country. Congress should not shirk this responsibility. It is time to take a timeout on executions and to conduct a thorough, top-to-bottom review of the death penalty, not only in Illinois or Maryland, but nationwide.

Mr. President, I rise to call my colleagues' attention to a situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Last month, the parties to the bloody conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo signed an accord intended to end the country's 4-year civil war. But central Africans may not have much reason to celebrate yet, because unless this step is accompanied by meaningful new initiatives, the agreement promises little change from the insecurity and repression that have killed millions of their countrymen and dominated their lives throughout the conflict.

As the outgoing chairman and incoming ranking Democratic member of the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have monitored events in the Congo in recent years, and I must share some of this skepticism. The international community has been eager to certify a withdrawal of foreign forces so that it could move the Congo file out of the international crisis bin and into the overstuffed stack of civil collapses. Consequently, the world has demanded very little of the signatories to this new accord. Meanwhile, the demands of the Congolese people appear to have not been taken into account at all.

The agreement provides for Joseph Kabila, who was installed as President in Kinshasa after his father's assassination, to remain in the Presidency, and establishes four Vice-Presidential positions to accommodate his own party, the two major armed rebel groups, and the unarmed political opposition. But neither the President nor this bevy of Vice-Presidents can boast of any real political legitimacy, and thus far plans to ensure an eventual democratic transition have a feeble, wishful quality that suggests no one takes them terribly seriously.

Intercommunal tensions in Eastern Congo continue to simmer violently in the context of atrocious governance, but this is treated as an extraneous and inconvenient detail. Violence continues to rage in the Ituri region, displacing tens of thousands, it is clear,

killing many civilians caught in a brutal struggle for power between factions uninterested in any aspect of governance save the accumulation of power and riches.

Evidence that virtually all parties now ensconced in an internationally sanctioned government have participated in rapacious exploitation of Congo's natural resources merited ambitious reports from a U.N. commission, but the United States appears to have largely ignored the commission's recommendations. Mr. President, I want to stress how important the commission's work truly is, in exposing the motives of the actors involved and revealing the extent to which the country's resources and future have been sold out to the highest bidder, leaving little for rebuilding the Congolese state and providing for the needs of the Congolese people. The commission's work should continue, and the U.S. should work with our partners in the international community to make its recommendations reality.

But I want to underscore an important fact. Our failure to hold actors within Congo and within the Governments of Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe accountable for looting the country is a lesser crime than our failure to address the killing, rape, and deprivation that these forces inflicted on the Congolese. Despite the fanfare accompanying recent agreements, no one has meaningfully addressed the need to hold those responsible accountable for the horrific human rights abuses that have characterized this conflict. In fact, the international community has countenanced the slaughter of innocents with impunity throughout the region for years, and appears to have even lost its taste for making the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, established in the wake of the 1994 genocide, an effective and impartial body.

To consider the history of the Congo is to confront an appalling litany of exploitation and manipulation--first orchestrated by Belgium's rapacious King Leopold, then by the American-backed kleptocrat, Mobutu Sese Seko. The Congolese people deserve finally to have a voice in decisions about their political leadership and some degree of control over their own destiny. But I fear that they are about to get more of the same--more harassment of civil society and the free press, more underdevelopment, and more thuggery disguised as authority. The hundreds of millions of dollars that the U.S. is devoting to peacekeeping in the Congo must be accompanied by real political leadership that underscores the need for accountability, improved governance, grassroots participation, and focused reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts. Without that leadership, the American people will have simply made a costly investment in continued injustice.

The current approach is not merely morally reprehensible and fiscally irresponsible, it is also dangerous. In hearings I convened earlier this year, I tried to draw out the links between unstable and lawless swathes of Africa and international criminal networks--including terrorist networks. Experts have warned about the potential for terrorists to acquire uranium from central African sources. A free-for- all of corruption and instability is appealing to money-launderers, arms and mineral traffickers, and others who would prefer to keep their activities in the shadows. The spillover effects of sustained chaos in Congo are simply too serious to be ignored. The U.S. needs a coherent, long-term policy aimed at building stability and strengthening institutions.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended; that I be recognized for up to 20 minutes and that Senator Levin be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

I thank the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, this month our Nation will celebrate what would have been Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 74th birthday. It is right and fitting that on the third Monday of every January since 1986, Americans have paused from their work, school, or other activities to honor Dr. King and his legacy. Dr. King gave hope to millions of Americans and was a catalyst for the greatest advancement in civil rights our Nation has experienced since the end of the Civil War.

Because of great Americans such as Dr. King, separate but equal is no longer the law of the land. Because of the progress we have made in the last 50 years, segregation in public schools has been unlawful. African Americans have the right to vote. Americans cannot be fired or denied a job based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, or age. Our Nation has made great strides to protect freedom and equality for all Americans as a result of Dr. King's leadership.

But almost 40 years after Dr. King delivered his historic ``I Have a Dream'' speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and nearly 35 years after Dr. King was tragically gunned down at a hotel in Memphis, TN, our Nation still has a long way to go to finish his work.

As we begin the 108th Congress, I want to take this moment to urge both my colleagues and the President to make civil rights a priority.

Earlier this week, the Senate welcomed a new majority leader, Senator Bill Frist. But the discussions leading up to that should be the beginning, not the end, of a national discussion about the unfinished work of securing civil rights for every American.

Congress and the President can demonstrate their support for freedom and justice by supporting civil rights initiatives that have been ignored for far too long. And they should begin this month, as the new Congress convenes and as the Nation celebrates Dr. King's birthday.

Perhaps no issue on this agenda is more urgent than the issue of racial profiling. Racial profiling is the insidious practice by which some law enforcement agents routinely stop African Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Arab Americans, and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin. Reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups are sometimes being stopped by some police far in excess--far in excess--of their share of the population and the rate at which they engage in criminal conduct.

Just this week, the Boston Globe ran a series of news articles about its analysis of traffic stop data in Massachusetts and came to the same troubling conclusion we have seen in places such as New Jersey and Maryland. Racial profiling still exists and is a very real problem. It hasn't gone away or ended. In fact, the Massachusetts experience only underscores the need for a national law on this issue of racial profiling. And the time to act is now.

I might add that the urgency for banning racial profiling is compounded by concerns post-September 11 that racial profiling--not good police work and following up on legitimate leads--is being used more frequently against Arabs, Muslims, or Americans who are perceived to be Arabs or Muslims.

President Bush pledged to end racial profiling nearly 2 years ago during this first address to a joint session of Congress. Attorney General John Ashcroft also has acknowledged the damage caused by racial profiling and, he too, called for an end to the practice. So it is time for this administration to move this effort forward.

In the last Congress, a bipartisan group of Members of Congress sponsored the End Racial Profiling Act. Representative John Conyers, the distinguished ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and I, intend to reintroduce our bill early in this Congress. Our bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies to take steps to prevent the practice. This bill should be one of the top agenda items in this Congress, and the administration should follow through on its promise to address this issue.

September 11 cannot be an excuse for continued delay in dealing with the problem of racial profiling. This is a problem and a challenge that our country can and must meet. We need improved intelligence and we need improved law enforcement, not racial stereotypes, to protect our Nation from future terrorist attacks.

Indeed, I believe that the End Racial Profiling Act is a pro-law enforcement bill. It will help to restore the trust and confidence of the communities our police and law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to success in stopping crime, and, yes, in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act is good for law enforcement and good for America.

As Dr. King often implored his fellow activists, it is not time to wait. It is not time to ``slow up'' or ``cool off.'' He said, ``[W]e can't afford to stop now because our Nation has a date with destiny. We must keep moving.'' Mr. President, it is time to act.

Yes, we have many pressing priorities this Congress. And I certainly think that first and foremost is combating terrorism and addressing our Nation's weak economy. But we cannot ignore a fundamental responsibility of this Congress: to fight for freedom, justice, and equality for all Americans. In addition to passing the End Racial Profiling Act, Congress and the President should also address a range of civil rights-related issues this Congress--from education, to welfare, to health care, to improving our criminal justice system.

We should ensure that every child has access to a quality public education. I voted against the education bill in the last Congress, because I do not believe that it will bring us closer to that goal. I am particularly concerned about the annual testing mandate included in this law. Study after study shows that disadvantaged students lag behind their peers on standardized tests. If we are to truly leave no child behind, we should give local school districts the resources they need to provide the basic educational services and programs to which each child is entitled. If we fail to provide these resources, we run the risk of setting disadvantaged children up for failure on these tests--failure which could damage the self-esteem of some of our most vulnerable students.

Congress should also do more to ensure that federally funded programs comply with civil rights and other laws. In particular, we must improve the Federal welfare law to require that each State's program treats all applicants and clients fairly. While Congress rightly encouraged State- level innovation with the 1996 welfare law, we should use the pending reauthorization of that law as an opportunity to ensure that all State plans conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections for all applicants and clients.

Congress should ensure that all Americans get a fair wage for an honest day's work. Too often, parents work double shifts or more than one job for low wages in order to make ends meet and to provide the basic necessities for their families. We must at last increase the Federal minimum wage. And we must work to close the wage gap between women and men.

Congress should also take action to ensure fairness and justice in the administration of the death penalty. We know that the administration of the

death penalty at the Federal and State levels is flawed. With over 100 innocent people on death row later exonerated in the modern death penalty era, any reasonable person can see that the current system risks executing the innocent.

Just this week, the University of Maryland released a study finding enormous racial and geographic disparities in the Maryland death penalty system. African-American defendants accused of killing white victims are significantly more likely to face the death penalty than cases with nonwhite victims. Prosecutors in Baltimore County are significantly more likely to file initially for a death sentence than other Maryland jurisdictions.

I think Governor Glendening did the right thing when he placed a moratorium on executions last year, and I urge Governor Ehrlich to continue that moratorium while he and other Maryland officials analyze this study's disturbing findings. It would be contrary to our Nation's fundamental principles of justice and fairness to execute anyone in Maryland until the disparities identified by this study have been addressed.

Of course, Maryland is not the only State with troubling racial and geographic disparities in its death penalty system. Similar concerns have been raised about the Federal system, as well as the administration of the death penalty in other States. That is why Congress should pass the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. Congress and the President should support a moratorium on executions while a national, blue ribbon commission reviews the fairness of the administration of the death penalty.

This is a civil rights issue. We simply cannot say we live in a country that offers equal justice to all Americans when racial disparities plague the system by which society imposes the ultimate punishment.

Congress must also do more to protect hardworking Americans from discrimination in the workplace. We should pass the Employment Non- Discrimination Act. I have been pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in sponsoring this important bill that will ensure that Americans are not discriminated against by employers based on their sexual orientation. The world has changed. It is time that we take this step on behalf of equal opportunity and equal rights.

Congress should also take another step to realize Dr. King's dream of a nation where all Americans have the right to vote and to be represented in their Congress. We meet today in a jurisdiction where over half-a-million people are denied the right to fully participate in their government. The majority of the people in this jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, are African American. Shutting them out of our Government is a continuing moral stain on our Nation that must be addressed. We should take action on legislation sponsored by Senator Lieberman and myself, under D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's leadership, to grant full congressional representation for the District of Columbia.

Finally, the President should demonstrate his commitment to justice for all Americans by nominating judges to the Federal bench whose records demonstrate that they will uphold our Nation's civil rights laws and give fair and impartial treatment to all who come before them. The President's renomination this week of Charles Pickering, Sr. to a position on the Fifth Circuit is a step backward. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I reviewed his record closely last year and came to the conclusion that Mr. Pickering would not be fit for a position on the Fifth Circuit. I am not convinced that he will give all who come before him a fair hearing, especially on issues of racial justice.

Soothing words or a change of leadership alone cannot heal the divisions that remain in our Nation. Congress and the Administration must take concrete steps to protect Americans' civil rights, not just give them lip service.

As Dr. King said, ``This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.''

There is much more work to do to fulfill Dr. King's dream that all of America's children would someday live in a country ``where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'' Let's begin that work in this Congress, in this body, during this month when the nation celebrates Dr. King's birthday. There is no time to waste.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane Conservation Act of 2003. I am very pleased that the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th Congress, which was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee but unfortunately did not receive floor action before the Congress adjourned. I have incorporated many of the changes made to my bill by the Environment Committee last year, and I hope that, by doing so, this bill can be swiftly reported and passed.

In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes.

Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008.

In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds from funds carried over by the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my bill to make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or its effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should expend resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion.

I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the Wisconsin to Florida flyway.

This flock of birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite the conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation is still very much in danger of extinction.

While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.

The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive.

Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop-in population of the sarus crane.

Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.

The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions.

If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2003.

Mr. President, this week, the University of Maryland released the findings of its landmark 2-year study on Maryland's death penalty system. The report reveals disturbing racial and geographic disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. It confirms the alarming conclusion that the administration of our criminal justice system's ultimate punishment is flawed and far from fair or just.

That is why I rise today to reintroduce the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. This bill seeks to apply the wisdom of out-going Maryland Governor Parris Glendening and out-going

Illinois Governor George Ryan to the Federal Government and all States that authorize the use of capital punishment. The bill would place a moratorium on Federal executions and urge States to do the same. The bill would also create a National Commission on the Death Penalty to review the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the State and Federal levels. This Commission would be an independent, blue ribbon panel of distinguished prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurists and others. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Levin, Corzine, and Durbin, have joined me in cosponsoring this bill.

The University of Maryland study was conducted by Professor Raymond Paternoster of the University's Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology, and is the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in history. Professor Paternoster and other researchers examined records of every homicide prosecution in which the death penalty could have been sought, dating back to 1978.

The study released this week 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.

The study also confirms geographic disparity in Maryland's death penalty system. Those convicted of murder in Baltimore County, a jurisdiction with a high number of white murder victims, are 26 times as likely to be sentenced to death as those convicted in Baltimore City, and 14 times as likely as those convicted in Montgomery County.

Two years ago, when Governor Glendening learned of these suspected disparities, he did not look the other way. Then last year, faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, he 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 was the right thing to do.

I urge Governor-elect Ehrlich to do the right thing by extending the moratorium. It would be contrary to our Nation's founding principles of fairness and justice to execute anyone in Maryland before the questions raised by the study are addressed.

The year 2002 was a landmark year for the examination of the death penalty. Last year the 102nd person was exonerated from death row in the modern death penalty era; 102 innocent people have been exonerated, in some cases just days from execution, after being found innocent of crimes for which they served sometimes years on death row. That is not a small number. In the modern death penalty era, our Nation has executed 820 people. That means that according to our best estimates, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, for every 8 people executed, one who had been convicted and sentenced to death has been found innocent.

That is an unacceptable high error rate in the administration of a punishment for which errors caught too late cannot be fixed. That's a rate of error with which none of us should be comfortable.

We should learn from the example set by Governor Glendening and by Governor Ryan. Their voices are two of the many that have chimed in over recent years to express doubt about the fairness of our Nation's system of capital punishment. 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.

In 2002, Governor Ryan's Commission on Capital Punishment issued its report, which concluded with 85 recommendations for reforming the death penalty system. In June 2002, I held a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on the report of the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment. We were fortunate to have Governor Ryan and other members of the Commission testify about the many flaws in the Illinois death penalty system and their recommendations for reform.

The Illinois study and report are invaluable to the study of fairness in our justice system. Governor Ryan's Commission provides a model for the nation for how we can respond to the indisputable proof of errors in our justice system. I am confident that as Governor Ryan leaves office next week, his greatest legacy to our nation will be the courage he showed three years ago when he suspended executions and acknowledged that the death penalty system in Illinois was broken.

If we are prepared to admit, as Illinois and Maryland have, that there are flaws in the death penalty system, then it is unconscionable to allow executions to continue without a thorough, nationwide review. The problems in the Illinois and Maryland systems are not unique to their states. Since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases 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.

In 2002, we saw progress here in Congress in addressing problems plaguing the death penalty. The Innocence Protection Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague and ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, was favorably reported from the Judiciary Committee in July. This legislation takes an important step by recognizing the need for access to modern DNA testing and certain minimum standards of competency for defense counsel in capital cases.

I commend Senator Leahy and the bipartisan effort of my colleagues who helped move this important bill and I hope we will finish the job and enact it into law this year. But I also urge them and the rest of the Senate to recognize that if we are prepared to admit that we need these reforms, a time-out is also needed to ensure that we do not execute a single innocent person. The stakes are too high and the consequences are far too devastating to allow executions to proceed.

Also in 2002, in a significant turning point for our Nation, the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled unconstitutional the execution of the mentally retarded in Atkins versus Virginia. The Court's decision further confirms that our Nation's standards of decency concerning the ultimate punishment are indeed evolving and maturing.

While last year's events are steps toward fairness and indications of progress, they also serve as shocking reminders that our system is seriously flawed. The statistics reflecting unfairness and stories of innocent people wrongly convicted are clear and disturbing to all Americans who believe in the founding principles of our Nation, liberty and justice for all.

When examined collectively, these facts paint a devastating picture that needs to be examined in much greater detail.

That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act.

The courts in this country have already made, by our best, conservative estimates, 102 very grave mistakes. One hundred and two mistakes in the death penalty system qualifies as a crisis. And a crisis calls for immediate action. The time for a moratorium is now.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane Conservation Act of 2003. I am very pleased that the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th Congress, which was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee but unfortunately did not receive floor action before the Congress adjourned. I have incorporated many of the changes made to my bill by the Environment Committee last year, and I hope that, by doing so, this bill can be swiftly reported and passed.

In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes.

Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008.

In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds from funds carried over by the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my bill to make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or its effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should expend resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion.

I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the Wisconsin to Florida flyway.

This flock of birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite the conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation is still very much in danger of extinction.

While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.

The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive.

Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop-in population of the sarus crane.

Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.

The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions.

If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2003.