[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 91 (Thursday, June 19, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8234-S8245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida:
  S. 1289. A bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, after Paul Wellstone; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to give due recognition to a 
colleague whose tragic passing is still fresh in our thoughts. Senator 
Paul Wellstone served 12 honorable years in the Senate for the State of 
Minnesota before suddenly perishing with his dear wife, Sheila, their 
daughter, Marcia, three of his staffers, and two pilots in a plane 
crash last October.
  The bill I am proposing today seeks to rename the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis, MN, after Paul 
Wellstone. His distinguished record of service for veterans clearly 
demands such distinction. Indeed last October, just weeks before the 
crash that took his life, Senator Wellstone proclaimed on the Senate 
floor, ``It has been a labor of love for me working with veterans.''
  Paul Wellstone served our Nation's veterans with passion and 
commitment as a distinguished member of the Senate Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs. His legacy includes the many veterans today whose 
lives have been turned around due to his unyielding service on their 
behalf, such as veterans who are or have been homeless; veterans who 
are now receiving treatment for their service-related disabilities from 
exposure to radiation from atomic and nuclear weapons testing; and 
veterans who suffer from symptoms associated with Persian Gulf War 
Syndrome.
  Year after year, Senator Wellstone rose in this very chamber to try 
to increase the VA health care budget. In 2000, the Senator was part of 
an effort to secure the largest one year increase ever for veterans' 
health care benefits. In 2001, Paul Wellstone successfully pushed 
through an amendment to the Budget Resolution that provided $17 billion 
over 10 years to boost health care funding for veterans. And just last 
June, Senator Wellstone fought to include $417 million for veterans' 
health care in the Supplemental Appropriations Bill for FY 2002.
  In recognition of his tireless advocacy, he was awarded a number of 
distinctions by various veterans' service organizations, including: the 
1995 Legislator of the Year Award from the Vietnam Veterans of America; 
the 1995 Patriot Award from the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the 
Congressional Leadership Award from the Forgotten 216th; the 1997 
Distinguished Citizen Award from the Minnesota Veterans of Foreign 
Wars; the 2002 Distinguished Science Award from the Disabled American 
Veterans; the 2002 Legislative Leadership Award from the National 
Coalition for Homeless Veterans; and the Vanguard Award for Legislative 
Achievement by the Non-Commissioned Officers Association.
  George Washington once remarked, ``The willingness with which our 
young people are likely to serve in any war,

[[Page S8235]]

no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they 
perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by 
their nation.'' Senator Wellstone knew this all too well and worked to 
make the Department of Veterans Affairs a more responsive organization.
  The Minneapolis VA Medical Center was a source of great pride for 
Paul. He once described the facility as having become ``the pride and 
joy of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and more important, of 
veterans throughout the region.'' The naming of the Paul Wellstone 
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center will forever honor his 
commitment to our veterans by distinguishing the very institution that 
carries on his ``labor of love.'' Mr. President, this is only a small 
mark of the appreciation that we all owe to an individual who served 
veterans with such compassion and conviction.
  Finally, I thank Frederick ``Rock'' Rochelle--a past President of the 
St. Paul Chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America--for working with 
me on this legislation to honor the memory of Paul Wellstone. I have 
compiled a list of statements made by friends and colleagues in 
remembrance of Senator Wellstone.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the above 
mentioned list of statements be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill and list of statements was ordered 
to be printed in the Record, as follows:

         Friends and Colleagues Remember Senator Paul Wellstone

       ``As a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, 
     Senator Wellstone was a tireless crusader for America's 
     veterans, an issue of paramount importance to him. I greatly 
     respected and admired him for his passion, his character and 
     his commitment for the causes in which he believed.''--
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi
       ``His unwavering support year after year of adequate 
     funding for veterans health care, in particular, was 
     something we could always count on. Similarly, he championed 
     the cause of homeless veterans to ensure that they were not 
     forgotten and that their needs were addressed by the nation 
     they served. Though not a veteran himself, he brought energy 
     and commitment to issues important to veterans and their 
     families. He was a fighter and leading voice and, if ever 
     there was a true friend of America's veterans, Senator 
     Wellstone was it.''--W.G. ``Bill'' Kilgore, national 
     commander of AMVETS
       ``Senator Wellstone has been a strong and vocal supporter 
     of veterans' issues. His leadership will be missed, and all 
     veterans are grateful for his passionate support over the 
     years.''--Thomas H. Corey, national president of Vietnam 
     Veterans of America
       ``The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States are 
     stunned and saddened by the untimely death of Senator Paul 
     Wellstone and his family. When it came to advocacy on behalf 
     of America's veterans, he was second to none. He constantly 
     and consistently crusaded and championed for the many issues 
     that were of vital interest to our veteran population. He was 
     tenacious in his efforts to assure passage of legislation 
     that would provide for those veterans suffering from 
     radiation exposure, Gulf War illness and those in need of VA 
     health care. He will be sorely missed. Our veterans have lost 
     a true hero. Our hearts and prayers are with the Wellstone 
     family.''--Ray Sisk, Commander-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign 
     Wars
       ``I always knew on Veterans Day that I would see the 
     senator on that day. We would always go out to the veterans 
     hospital. I would be there, and I never had any doubt that 
     when I got there Senator Wellstone would be there. He was a 
     great advocate for veterans and veteran causes and veterans 
     benefits.''--Former Minneosta Governor Jesse Ventura
       ``The last speech he gave on the Senate floor, I was there. 
     He said, `You can call me soft if you want, but I care about 
     veterans in this country.' That was Paul Wellstone. He is 
     someone that looked out for those who didn't have someone 
     representing them and he wasn't afraid. He traveled a road 
     that was less traveled, but he traveled that road with his 
     shoulders back.''--Sen. Harry Reid
       ``Paul Wellstone was one of the most courageous men I have 
     ever known. He was a distinguished member of the Senate 
     Veterans Affairs Committee, and he fought hard for those who 
     fought for our country.''--Former Sen. Max Cleland
       ``Paul and I shared many of the same passions in the 
     Senate. We fought together side by side in the fight to save 
     our steel industry and together we were committed to 
     providing our nation's veterans with the benefits they 
     deserve. That was his style. He took on the toughest battles, 
     the ones that required years of effort and diligence, and he 
     always made a difference.''--Sen. Jay Rockefeller
       ``Paul was a caring, persistent and passionate advocate for 
     veterans, children, the mentally ill, working families, and 
     all those who too often feel that no one in Washington hears 
     their voice. Paul Wellstone was their voice; he was their 
     champion.''--Sen. Daniel Akaka
       ``Senator Wellstone believed deeply in causes that 
     transcended political lines, partisanship and ideology. I had 
     the privilege of working with him on legislation to end 
     homelessness among our nation's veterans. In our battle to 
     see this legislation enacted, time and time again we were 
     called up on to confront our own parties and colleagues. Each 
     and every time Paul Wellstone proved that his first concern 
     was to help those less fortunate than himself, even if it put 
     his political career at risk.''--Rep. Christopher Smith
       ``Paul Wellstone was my closest friend in the Senate. He 
     was the most principled public servant I've ever known. Paul 
     truly had the courage of his convictions and his convictions 
     were based on the principles of hope, compassion, the Good 
     Samaritan, helping those left on the roadside of life. His 
     courage is an example for all.''--Sen. Tom Harkin
       ``Paul Wellstone was the soul of the Senate. He was one of 
     the most noble and courageous men I have ever known. He was a 
     gallant and passionate fighter, especially for the less 
     fortunate. I am grateful to have known Paul and Sheila as 
     dear and close friends.''--Sen. Tom Daschle
       ``He didn't look ahead to the next election; he looked 
     ahead to the next generation. The women of the Senate called 
     him our Galahad. He supported us and fought with us for child 
     care, access to health care, and better schools.''--Sen. 
     Barbara Mikulski
       ``In his public service and private friendship, Paul 
     Wellstone embodied the Hebrew ideal of `tikkun olam,' which 
     means `to repair the world.' He was one of the most 
     passionate and principled people I've ever known. I feel 
     privileged to have worked with him.''--Sen. Joe Lieberman
       ``Paul Wellstone had a passion for justice that was evident 
     to all of his colleagues. Throughout his life, Paul was a 
     fighter for the good cause. His passion for justice was only 
     matched by his charm, wit and kindness to his political 
     friends and foes alike.''--Sen. John McCain
       ``He was a man of enormous ability but most of all, he was 
     a caring person. He was really a special person, a very 
     unique man.''--Sen. Ted Kennedy
       ``He was a model and an inspiration to all of us who 
     followed in his footsteps. He was my close personal friend 
     and political ally for over 20 years. I will miss him 
     terribly.''--Sen. Mark Dayton
       ``As fellow members of the Senate health and education 
     committee, I saw firsthand how passionate Paul could be on 
     the issues that were important to him. Paul had a remarkable 
     ability to maintain good relations with colleagues with whom 
     he disagreed.''--Sen. Jeff Sessions
       ``Paul Wellstone was a passionate public servant who was 
     committed to helping average Americans. His enormous energy, 
     determination and passion made him one of our most respected 
     senators. America will miss a great senator, and I will miss 
     a good friend.''Sen. Bill Nelson.
       ``He unfailingly represented his views eloquently and 
     emphatically. Paul Wellstone was a courageous defender of his 
     beliefs.''--Former Sen. Jesse Helms
       ``He was the pied piper of modern politics--so many people 
     heard him and wanted to follow him in his fight. His loss is 
     monumental. I loved his passion, his spirit, and his zest for 
     making peoples' lives better. This is sad beyond any 
     words.''--Sen. John Kerry
       ``His only interest in power was to help the powerless. He 
     was a happy warrior in the tradition of another great 
     Minnesota senator, Hubert Humphrey. He loved people and he 
     loved campaigning.''--Sen. Patrick Leahy
       ``Paul Wellstone loved politics and never shied away from a 
     fight for what he believed. I admired that quality greatly. 
     We didn't always agree on issues, but we always walked away 
     from the debate as friends. We enjoyed and respected each 
     other. I'll miss him. This is a great loss.''--Sen. Chuck 
     Grassley
       ``Nothing was trivial to Paul and no person was 
     unimportant. He was a thoughtful, sensitive, and caring with 
     people as he was astute and serious about ideas.''--Sen. Herb 
     Kohl
       ``The people of Minnesota, America and the world have lost 
     a friend and a champion of working families, the poor, the 
     disenfranchised and the disabled. Paul's public life was a 
     profile in courage. He spoke, stood and voted on his 
     principles, even at the risk of his political career.''--
     Former President Bill Clinton
       ``He was a profoundly decent man, a man of principle, a man 
     of conscience. His passing is a loss not only for his family, 
     friends and constituents, but also for friends of the United 
     Nations.''--UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
       ``Paul Wellstone was a stand-up guy. He used the power of 
     his office for good. His memory will forever be a blessing to 
     all of us who knew him. And his work will continue to be a 
     blessing to countless thousands of people across the globe 
     who never met him, but whose lives will be forever bettered 
     by his work.''--Secretary of State Colin Powell
       ``He loved his job because it was the best way he could 
     serve the people of his state and his country. To cite one 
     example among many, Paul was by far the biggest and most 
     energetic champion of quality mental health coverage for all 
     Americans who need it. We worked with him closely on this 
     issue and on behalf of the mental health community has 
     passing leaves us with an irreplaceable loss.''--Former Vice 
     President Al Gore

[[Page S8236]]

       ``Paul Wellstone was one of the most valiant public 
     servants I have ever known. He had a very good mind, but he 
     also had an honest mind. And he served what be believed in, 
     no matter what the challenge.''--Former President Walter 
     Mondale
       ``Many noted changes in his manner and method after years 
     in Washington, but not much changed at the core of the man. 
     He remained an idealist and an optimist. He laughed easily, 
     often at himself and his 5-foot-5 stature. He always 
     remembered to thank the cooks and servers at a banquet, and 
     to greet the guards at office doors. He remembered names with 
     a facility that reminded old-timers of Hubert Humphrey. 
     Indeed, Wellstone had Humphrey's zeal for politics, policy 
     and--most of all--people.''--Minneapolis Star Tribune.
                                  ____


                                S. 1289

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
                   MEDICAL CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, AS PAUL 
                   WELLSTONE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
                   MEDICAL CENTER.

       The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center located 
     in Minneapolis, Minnesota, shall after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Paul 
     Wellstone Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''. 
     Any reference to such medical center in any law, regulation, 
     map, document, or other paper of the United States shall be 
     considered to be a reference to the Paul Wellstone Department 
     of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 1290. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
an additional advance refunding of tax-exempt bonds issued for the 
purchase or maintenance of electric generation, transmission, or 
distribution assets; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that 
would improve the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by allowing an 
additional advanced refunding of tax exempt bonds issued for the 
purchase or maintenance of electric generation, transmission, or 
distribution assets. This bill will give municipal utilities additional 
flexibility in refinancing their debts, so they can respond to 
favorable market conditions. I ask that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objections, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1290

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL ADVANCE REFUNDING OF ELECTRICITY BONDS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 149 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to advance refunding) 
     is amended by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8) 
     and by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) Special rule for certain electricity bonds.--
       ``(A) General rule.--In the case of a bond described in 
     subparagraph (B), one additional advance refunding after the 
     date of the enactment of this paragraph shall be allowed 
     under paragraph (3)(A)(i) if the requirements of subparagraph 
     (C) are met.
       ``(B) Bond described.--A bond is described in this 
     subparagraph if such bond is issued as part of an issue the 
     net proceeds of which are used to finance the costs of 
     electric generation, transmission, or distribution assets 
     owned by the issuer or by a consortium of State or local 
     governments which includes the issuer and which jointly own 
     such assets.
       ``(C) Requirements.--The requirements of this subparagraph 
     are met with respect to any advance refunding of a bond 
     described in subparagraph (B) if--
       ``(i) no advance refundings of such bond would be allowed 
     under any provision of law after the date of the enactment of 
     this paragraph,
       ``(ii) the advance refunding bond is the only other 
     outstanding bond with respect to the refunded bond, and
       ``(iii) the requirements of section 148 are met with 
     respect to all bonds issued under this subsection.
       ``(D) Inapplicability to certain bonds.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply with respect to a bond described in section 
     1400L(e).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to advance refunding bonds issued after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 1291. A bill to authorize the President to impose emergency import 
restrictions on archaeological or ethnological materials of Iraq until 
normalization of relations between the United States and the Government 
of Iraq has been established; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Emergency 
Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2003, the EPIC 
Antiquities Act of 2003. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me as 
an original cosponsor of this important legislation. The EPIC 
Antiquities Act of 2003 authorizes the President to impose immediate 
emergency import restrictions on the archaeological and ethnological 
materials of Iraq. The purpose of this bill is simple--to close a legal 
loophole which could allow looted Iraqi antiquities to be brought into 
the United States. Allow me to explain how this might happen.
  When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, former President Bush 
issued Executive Orders 12722 and 12744, which declared a national 
emergency with respect to Iraq. Those orders imposed economic sanctions 
against Iraq, including a complete trade embargo which automatically 
prohibited trade in Iraqi antiquities as of that time. The United 
Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 661 on August 6, 1990, 
which also imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions imposed 
under the Executive Orders are spelled out in the Iraqi Sanctions 
Regulations. These regulations are administered by the Treasury 
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC.
  Now until recently, the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations continued to 
restrict trade with Iraq, including trade in Iraqi antiquities. 
However, on May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 
1483, which lifted most sanctions on Iraq. Resolution 1483 also 
provided that Member States should establish a prohibition on trade in 
archaeological, cultural, historical, religious, and rare scientific 
items of Iraq, that may have been illegally removed from the country 
since the adoption of Resolution 661 back in 1990. On May 23, 2003, 
OFAC implemented UN Resolution 1483 and issued a General License which 
lifted most of our trade sanctions with respect to Iraq. Importantly, 
OFAC's general license continues to ban trade in looted Iraqi 
antiquities. However, this legal structure that is currently in place 
is vulnerable to a potential loophole.
  It is important to recognize that the legal authority for OFAC's 
continuing restrictions on trade in Iraqi antiquities derives from the 
Executive Orders issued in 1990, which are themselves premised upon the 
existence of emergency conditions with respect to Iraq. It is possible 
that once an interim government is in place, the President may 
determine that emergency conditions no longer exist with respect to 
Iraq and relations between the United States and Iraq will be 
normalized. At that point, the legal authority for the OFAC 
restrictions will be terminated. This bill is designed to bridge a 
potential gap in the protections afforded Iraqi antiquities by allowing 
the President to impose emergency import restrictions without delay. 
These emergency restrictions would be authorized for an interim period 
to extend beyond any termination of the OFAC restrictions, and would 
remain in place until such time as other, more lengthy, legal 
mechanisms for the protection of cultural antiquities can be completed. 
I will elaborate on these other legal mechanisms in a moment.
  If Congress does not act to provide the means for establishing the 
interim ban on trade contained in this bill, the door may be opened to 
imports of looted Iraqi antiquities into the United States. Already the 
press has reported allegations that European auction houses have traded 
in looted Iraqi antiquities. The last thing that we in Congress want to 
do is to fail to act to prevent trade in looted Iraqi artifacts here in 
the United States.
  The stopgap authority in this bill derives from legislation 
implementing the U.N. Convention on the protection of cultural 
property. This bill amends the Convention on Cultural Property 
Implementation Act, Implementation Act, to allow the President to 
impose immediate emergency import restrictions with respect to Iraqi 
antiquities. The Implementation Act already authorizes the President to 
restrict imports of cultural antiquities, but there is a somewhat 
lengthy process called for under the Implementation Act before the 
President may impose such restrictions. Since we passed the 
Implementation Act in 1983, we have imposed import restrictions on 
archaeological

[[Page S8237]]

or ethnological materials from ten countries to assist in the 
protection of their cultural property.
  Unfortunately, the Implementation Act does not address the unique 
conditions that prevail in Iraq today. Normally, under the 
Implementation Act a country formally requests that the United States 
prohibit stolen or illegally exported cultural antiquities from 
entering into the United States. The State Department will then publish 
a Federal Register notice announcing the request. Following 
publication, a Cultural Property Advisory Committee will investigate 
and review the request and report its recommendation to the President. 
With the benefit of the Committee's report, the President can then 
proceed to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the foreign country. In 
the past, this entire process has taken at least a year before import 
restrictions are put in place.
  There are two major deficiencies with the current process which 
necessitate the bill we are introducing today. First, the 
Implementation Act requires a foreign government to make a formal 
request to the United States. Right now, there is no Government of Iraq 
to request such a bilateral agreement with the United States. The 
second problem is that, even if there were an Iraqi Government in place 
to make such a request, the administrative process called for under the 
Implementation Act just takes too long given the present 
circumstances--although the extent of looting of museums, libraries, 
and archaeological sites in Iraq may not be as great as was first 
feared, the fact remains that such looting has occurred and that 
illicit trade in such antiquities could spread if there is even a 
temporary lifting of import restrictions.
  Now granted, the Implementation Act does authorize the President to 
impose emergency import restrictions even before a bilateral agreement 
is finalized. However, before the President can do so, all of the other 
administrative processes under the Implementation Act must be 
completed; this includes a three month period for the preparation of a 
report to the President by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. 
Again, the problem here is that the normal process for imposing even 
emergency import restrictions could take too long.
  If the Administration were to normalize relations between the United 
States and the next Government of Iraq, thereby terminating the OFAC 
import restrictions, it is possible that looted Iraqi antiquities could 
begin entering the United States while we sit and wait for a possible 
bilateral agreement to be finalized. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 
solves this problem. This legislation provides a uniquely and narrowly 
tailored amendment to the Implementation Act which closes the potential 
legal loophole between the time when relations are normalized and the 
time when we can undertake and complete the normal processes for the 
protection of cultural antiquities contained in the Implementation Act.
  By extending the President's authority under the Implementation Act 
for an interim period, this bill is narrowly designed to meet the 
unique circumstances in Iraq today. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003 
provides that this extension of the President's authority will 
terminate one year after relations are normalized, or by September 30, 
2004, so that the next Iraqi Government can determine for itself 
whether to seek a bilateral agreement with the United States, and if 
so, the President can negotiate such an agreement with the benefit of 
input from the Cultural Property Advisory Committee--as envisioned by 
the Implementation Act. In short, our bill does not seek to supplant 
the established process for protecting cultural antiquities under the 
Implementation Act; instead, it permits an extra guarantee of 
protection for Iraq's cultural antiquities in the short term while Iraq 
completes its transition back into the community of nations.
  I thank Senator Baucus for his support, and I hope our colleagues can 
also support this important and timely bill. I hope we are able to move 
this legislation quickly, perhaps as part of the Miscellaneous Trade 
and Technical Corrections Act of 2003, which is waiting for full Senate 
approval.
  As we work to reestablish the free flow of trade with a liberated 
Iraq, I believe it is very important that we in Congress remain mindful 
of the need to take steps to protect Iraq's cultural heritage. Our bill 
will ensure that going forward we continue to adhere to the full spirit 
of Resolution 1483 and avoid any break in the protections afforded to 
Iraqi antiquities. Our bill also provides an important signal of our 
commitment to preserving Iraq's resources for the benefit of the Iraqi 
people. It is time to close the potential gap in protections, and pass 
the EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1291

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Protection for 
     Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. EMERGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Authority.--The President may exercise the authority of 
     the President under section 304 of the Convention on Cultural 
     Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2603) with respect to 
     any archaeological or ethnological material of Iraq as if 
     Iraq were a State Party under that Act, except that, in 
     exercising such authority, subsection (c) of such section 
     shall not apply.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``archaeological 
     or ethnological material of Iraq'' means cultural property of 
     Iraq and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, 
     rare scientific, or religious importance illegally removed 
     from the Iraq National Museum, the National Library of Iraq, 
     and other locations in Iraq, since the adoption of United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 661 of 1990.

     SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority of the President under section 2 shall 
     terminate upon the earlier of--
       (1) the date that is 12 months after the date on which the 
     President certifies to Congress that normalization of 
     relations between the United States and the Government of 
     Iraq has been established; or
       (2) September 30, 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 1292. A bill to establish a servitude and emancipation archival 
research clearinghouse in the National Archives; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today on the 138th anniversary of 
the day that Major General Gordon Granger and his Union soldiers 
arrived in Galveston, TX. They brought the news that the war had ended 
and that the enslaved were now free. Since its origin in 1865, the 
observance of June 19th as African American Emancipation Day, or 
Juneteenth, is the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery.
  It took two and a half years after the effective date of the 
Emancipation Proclamation set forth by President Lincoln for the news 
of freedom to arrive in Texas. Of course, this kind of delay in finding 
out about new national policy, especially a bold new initiative set 
forth by Executive Order, would be absurd in our present society. We 
are now part of the information age and access to the most up-to-date 
news is commonplace. Unfortunately, African Americans who attempt to 
trace their genealogy face undue delay in obtaining the necessary 
documents to try and piece together their unique heritage. For this 
reason, I am proposing the Servitude and Emancipation Archival Research 
Clearinghouse, SEARCH, Act of 2003. This bill establishes a national 
database within the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, 
housing various documents that would assist those in search of a 
history that because of slavery, can not easily be found in the most 
commonly searched registered and census records.
  Traditionally, someone researching their genealogy would try looking 
up wills and land deeds; however, enslaved African Americans were 
prohibited from owning property. In fact, African Americans were 
considered property, so the name of former slave owners would have to 
be identified with the hopes that the owner kept record of pertinent 
information, such as births and deaths. In most cases, If records 
exist, many African Americans were not associated with last names, thus 
making them more difficult to trace. With slaves not being listed by 
name, this also precludes the use of the most popular and major source 
of genealogical research, the United States

[[Page S8238]]

Census. Even the use of letters, diaries, and other first-person 
recordings of slave simply do not exist because slaves could not 
legally learn to read or write.
  We may think after 1865, African Americans could then begin to use 
traditional genealogical records like voter registrations and school 
records. However, African Americans did not immediately begin to 
participate in may of the privileges of citizenship, including voting 
and attending school. Discrimination meant the prevention of African 
American siting on juries or owning businesses. Segregation meant 
segregated neighborhoods, schools, churches, clubs, and fraternal 
organizations. Therefore, many of the records were also segregated. For 
example, some telephone directories in South Carolina did not include 
African Americans in the regular alphabetical listing, but at the end 
of the book. An African American must maneuver these distinctive 
nuances in order to conduct proper genealogical research. In my own 
State of Louisiana, descendants of the 9th Calvary Regiment and the 
25th Infantry Regiment, known as the Buffalo Soldiers, would have to 
know to look in the index of the United States Colored Troops and not 
the index of the State Military Regiments.
  Abraham Lincoln said, ``a man who cares nothing about his past can 
care little about his future.'' In 1965, Alex Haley stumbled upon the 
names of his maternal great-grandparents while going through post-Civil 
War records at the National Archives here in Washington, D.C. This 
discovery led to an 11-year journey that resulted in the milestone of 
literary history, Roots. By providing $5 million for the National 
Historical Publications and Records Commission to establish and 
maintain a national database, the SEARCH Act proposes to significantly 
reduce the time and painstaking efforts of those African Americans who 
truly care about their American past, and care enough to contribute to 
the American future. This bill also seeks to authorize $5 million for 
States, colleges, and universities to preserve, catalogue, and index 
records locally.
  In a democracy, records matter. The mission of NARA is to ensure that 
anyone can have access to the records that matter to them. The SEARCH 
Act of 2003 helps to fulfill that mission by helping African Americans 
to navigate the genealogical process, given the circumstances unique to 
the African American experience. No longer should any American have to 
wait to find out about information leading to freedom.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Juneteenth this year 
by passing this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1292

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Servitude and Emancipation 
     Archival Research ClearingHouse Act of 2003'' or the ``SEARCH 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF DATABASE.

       (a) In General.--The Archivist of the United States shall 
     establish, as a part of the National Archives, a national 
     database consisting of historic records of servitude and 
     emancipation in the United States to assist African Americans 
     in researching their genealogy.
       (b) Maintenance.--The database established by this Act 
     shall be maintained by the National Historical Publications 
     and Records Commission.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $5,000,000 to establish the national database 
     authorized by this Act; and
       (2) $5,000,000 to provide grants to States and colleges and 
     universities to preserve local records of servitude and 
     emancipation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Edwards):
  S. 1293. A bill to criminalize the sending of predatory and abusive 
e-mail; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with Senators Leahy, 
Schumer, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, and Edwards, the Criminal Spam 
Act of 2003. This legislation, which enjoys bipartisan support, targets 
the most egregious types of spammers--those who hijack computer systems 
and those who use other fraudulent means to send unsolicited commercial 
electronic mail.
  Over the course of the past several years, the amount of unsolicited 
commercial email, or spam, has grown at an exponential rate. During a 
recent Senate hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation, Brightmail Inc., a provider of spam filtering software 
that serves six of the ten largest U.S. Internet service providers, 
estimated that in April 2003, 46 percent of all email traffic was spam. 
This figure represented a nearly five fold increase in spam in merely 
18 months. At the same hearing, America Online testified that on any 
given day, it blocks approximately 2.3 billion spam messages.
  This tremendous growth rate is due in large part to sophisticated 
spammers who use abusive tactics to send millions of email messages 
quickly, at an extremely low cost. By using deceptive methods, these 
spammers conceal their identities, evade Internet service provider 
filters, and exploit the Internet by advertising and promoting 
pornographic web sites, illegally pirated software, questionable health 
products, pyramid schemes and other ``get rich quick'' or ``make money 
fast'' scams. The extraordinary volume of spam generated by their 
schemes imposes significant costs on Internet users, threatens to 
disrupt Internet services, and undermines the public's confidence in 
online commerce.
  A recent study conducted by the Federal Trade Commission demonstrates 
the alarming frequency with which spammers are using the Internet to 
conceal their true identities and the electronic paths of their 
messages. This study found that 40 percent of email messages contain 
indicia of falsity in the body of the message; approximately 33 percent 
contain indicia of falsity in the ``from'' lines of the spam; 22 
percent contain indicia of falsity in the ``subject'' line; and some 66 
percent contain at least one form of deception.
  The Criminal Spam Act of 2003 targets fraudulent and deceptive spam 
by enhancing the ability of federal law enforcement authorities to 
prosecute and punish the most egregious wrongdoers. Specifically, the 
Act makes it a crime to hack into a computer, or to use a computer 
system that the owner has made available for other purposes, as a 
conduit for bulk commercial email. The Act also prohibits sending bulk 
commercial email that conceals the true source, destination, routing or 
authentication information of the email, or is generated from multiple 
email accounts or domain names that falsify the identity of the actual 
registrant.
  The Act subjects violators to stiff criminal penalties of up to 5 
years' imprisonment where the offense is committed in furtherance of 
any felony, or where the defendant has previously been convicted of a 
similar Federal or state offense, and up to 3 years' imprisonment where 
other aggravating factors exist. It also contains criminal forfeiture 
provisions and directs the Sentencing Commission to consider 
enhancements for offenders who obtain email addresses through illegal 
means, such as harvesting.
  The strong deterrent effect of the legislation is further enhanced by 
civil enforcement provisions that authorize the Department of Justice 
and aggrieved Internet service providers to bring suit for violations 
of the Act. In appropriate cases, courts may grant injunctive relief, 
impose civil fines, and award damages of up to $25,000 per day of 
violation, or between $2 and $8 per email initiated in violation of the 
Act.
  Recognizing that spammers can send their fraudulent and deceptive 
messages from any location in the world, the Act directs the Department 
of Justice and the Department of State to work through international 
fora to gain the cooperation of other countries in investigating and 
prosecuting spammers worldwide and to report to Congress about their 
efforts and any recommendations for addressing international predatory 
spam.
  The Criminal Spam Act represents an important legislative step toward 
curbing predatory and abusive commercial email. However, broader 
legislative measures, coupled with technological

[[Page S8239]]

solutions, are also needed. Any effective solution to the spam problem 
requires cooperative efforts between the government and the private 
sector, as well as the assistance of our international partners.
  Recent years have witnessed extraordinary technological advances. 
These innovations, and electronic communications in particular, have 
significantly increased the efficiencies, productivity and conveniences 
of our modern world. The abusive practices of fraudulent spammers 
threaten to choke the lifeblood of the electronic age. This is a 
problem that warrants swift but deliberative legislative action. I am 
committed to working with my colleagues in both Houses to address the 
spam problem on all fronts.
  I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


                          SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE

       This bill may be cited as the ``Criminal Spam Act of 
     2003''.


   SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST PREDATORY AND ABUSIVE COMMERCIAL EMAIL

       This section targets the four principal techniques that 
     spammers use to evade filtering software and hide their 
     trails. It creates a new federal crime that prohibits hacking 
     into a computer, or using a computer system that the owner 
     has made available for other purposes, to send bulk 
     commercial email. It also prohibits sending bulk commercial 
     email that either conceals the true source, destination, 
     routing and authentication information of the email, or is 
     generated from multiple email accounts or domain names that 
     falsify the identity of the actual registrant. Penalties 
     range from up to 5 years' imprisonment where the offense was 
     committed in furtherance of any felony, or where the 
     defendant was previously convicted of a similar federal or 
     state offense, and up to 3 years' imprisonment where other 
     aggravating factors exist. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is 
     directed to consider sentencing enhancements for offenders 
     who obtained email addresses through improper means, such as 
     harvesting.
       In addition, this section provides for civil enforcement by 
     the Department of Justice and aggrieved Internet service 
     providers against spammers who engage in the conduct 
     described above. In appropriate cases, courts may grant 
     injunctive relief, impose civil penalties, and award damages.


   SEC. 3. REPORT AND SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING INTERNATIONAL SPAM.

       Recognizing that an effective solution to the spam problem 
     requires the cooperation and assistance of our international 
     partners, this section asks the Administration to work 
     through international fora to gain the cooperation of other 
     countries in investigating and prosecuting spammers 
     worldwide, and to report to Congress about its efforts.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing, with 
Senators Hatch, Schumer, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, and Edwards, the 
Criminal Spam Act of 2003. This bill is designed to counter the most 
objectionable forms of email marketing. In an effort to clear 
electronic channels for legitimate communications, the bill targets 
those spammers who deceive Internet Service Providers, ``ISPs'', and 
email recipients into thinking that messages come from someone other 
than a spammer--a ploy many spammers use to increase the likelihood 
that their unwanted ads will evade filtering software and be opened.
  Without a doubt, spam is a serious problem today, one that is 
threatening to undermine the vast potential of the Internet to foster 
the free exchange of information and commerce. Businesses and 
individuals currently wade through tremendous amounts of spam in order 
to access email that is of relevance to them--and this is after ISPs, 
businesses, and individuals have spent time and money blocking a large 
percentage of spam from reaching its intended recipients.
  Email users are having the online equivalent of the experience of the 
woman in the Monty Python skit, who seeks to order a spam-free 
breakfast at a restaurant. Try as she might, she cannot get the 
waitress to bring her the meal she desires. Every dish in the 
restaurant comes with Spam; it's just a matter of how much. There's 
``egg, bacon and Spam''; ``egg, bacon, sausage and Spam''; ``Spam, 
bacon, sausage and Spam''; ``Spam, egg, Spam, Spam, bacon and Spam''; 
``Spam, sausage, Spam, Spam, Spam, bacon, Spam, tomato and Spam''; and 
so on. Exasperated, the woman finally cries out: ``I don't like Spam! . 
. . I don't want ANY Spam!''
  Individuals and businesses are reacting similarly to electronic spam. 
A Harris poll taken late last year found that 80 percent of respondents 
view spam as ``very annoying,'' and fully 74 percent of respondents 
favor making mass spamming illegal. They are fed up.
  ISPs are doing their best to shield customers from spam, blocking 
billions of spam each day, but the spammers are winning the battle. 
Millions of unwanted, unsolicited commercial emails are received by 
American businesses and individuals each day, despite their own, 
additional filtering efforts. A recent study by Ferris Research 
estimates that spam costs U.S. businesses $8.9 billion annually as a 
result of lost productivity and the need to purchase more powerful 
servers and additional bandwidth; to configure and run spam filters; 
and to provide help-desk support for spam recipients. The costs of spam 
are significant to individuals as well, including time spent 
identifying and deleting spam, inadvertently opening spam, installing 
and maintaining anti-spam filters, tracking down legitimate messages 
mistakenly deleted by spam filters, and paying for the ISPs' blocking 
efforts.
  And there are other less prominent but equally important costs of 
spam. It may introduce viruses, worms, and Trojan Horses into personal 
and business computer systems, including those that support our 
national infrastructure. It is also fertile ground for deceptive trade 
practices. The FTC recently estimated that 96 percent of the spam 
involving investment and business opportunities, and nearly half of the 
spam advertising health services and products, and travel and leisure, 
contains false or misleading information.
  This rampant deception has the potential to undermine Americans' 
trust of valid information on the Internet. Indeed, it has already 
caused some Americans to refrain from using the Internet to the extent 
that they otherwise would. For example, some have chosen not to 
participate in public discussion forums, and are hesitant to provide 
their addresses in legitimate business transactions, for fear that 
their email addresses will be harvested for junk email lists. And they 
are right to be concerned. The FTC found spam arriving at its computer 
system just nine minutes after posting an email address in an online 
chat room.
  At a recent FTC forum on spam, experts agreed that the issue is ripe 
for Federal action. Some 30 States now have anti-spam laws, but the 
nature of email makes it difficult to discern where any given piece of 
spam originated, and, thus, what State has jurisdiction and what State 
law applies. This may explain why spammers continue to flout State 
laws. For example, several States require that spam begin the subject 
line with ``ADV,'' but the FTC has found that only 2 percent of spam 
contains this label.
  Technology will undoubtedly play a key role in fighting spam. 
However, a technological solution to the problem is not predicted in 
the foreseeable future. In addition, given the adroitness with which 
spammers adapt to anti-spam technologies, the development and 
implementation of technological fixes to spam entail constant vigilance 
and substantial financial investment. This raises the question: Why 
should individuals and businesses be forced to invest large amounts of 
time and money in buying, installing, and maintaining generation after 
generation of anti-spam technologies?
  I have often said that the government should regulate the Internet 
only when absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, spammers have caused 
this to be one of those times. Congress needs to address the spam 
problem quickly and prudently, and the Criminal Spam Act, by targeting 
the most injurious types of spam, is a good start.
  The bill that Senator Hatch and I introduce today would prohibit the 
four principal techniques that spammers use to evade filtering software 
and hide their trails.
  First, our bill would prohibit hacking into another person's computer 
system and sending bulk spam from or through that system. This would 
criminalize the common spammer technique of obtaining access to other 
people's email accounts on an ISP's email network, whether by password 
theft or by inserting a ``Trojan horse'' program--that is, a program 
that unsuspecting users

[[Page S8240]]

download onto their computers and that then takes control of those 
computers--to send bulk spam.
  Second, the bill would prohibit using a computer system that the 
owner makes available for other purposes as a conduit for bulk spam, 
with the intent of deceiving recipients as to the spam's origins. This 
prohibition would criminalize another common spammer technique--the 
abuse of third parties' ``open'' servers, such as email servers that 
have the capability to relay mail, or Web proxy servers that have the 
ability to generate ``form'' mail. Spammers commandeer these servers to 
send bulk commercial email without the server owner's knowledge, either 
by ``relaying'' their email through an ``open'' email server, or by 
abusing an ``open'' Web proxy server's capability to generate form 
emails as a means to originate spam, thereby exceeding the owner's 
authorization for use of that email or Web server. In some instances 
the hijacked servers are even completely shut down as a result of tens 
of thousands of undeliverable messages generated from the spammer's 
email list.
  The bill's third prohibition targets another way that outlaw spammers 
evade ISP filters: falsifying the ``header information'' that 
accompanies every email, and sending bulk spam containing that fake 
header information. More specifically, the bill prohibits forging 
information regarding the origin of the email message, the route 
through which the message attempted to penetrate the ISP filters, and 
information authenticating the user as a ``trusted sender'' who abides 
by appropriate consumer protection rules. The last type of forgery will 
be particularly important in the future, as ISPs and legitimate 
marketers develop ``white list'' rules whereby emailers who abide by 
self-regulatory codes of good practices will be allowed to send email 
to users without being subject to anti-spamming filters. There is 
currently substantial interest among marketers and email service 
providers in ``white list'' technology solutions to spam. However, such 
``white list'' systems would be useless if outlaw spammers are allowed 
to counterfeit the authentication mechanisms used by legitimate 
emailers.
  Fourth and finally, the Criminal Spam Act prohibits registering for 
multiple email accounts or Internet domain names, and sending bulk 
email from those accounts or domains. This provision targets deceptive 
``account churning,'' a common outlaw spammer technique that works as 
follows. The spammer registers, usually by means of an automatic 
computer program, for large numbers of email accounts or domain names, 
using false registration information, then sends bulk spam from one 
account or domain after another. This technique stays ahead of ISP 
filters by hiding the source, size, and scope of the sender's mailings, 
and prevents the email account provider or domain name registrar from 
identifying the registrant as a spammer and denying his registration 
request. Falsifying registration information for domain names also 
violates a basic contractual requirement for domain name registration.
  Penalties for violations of these provisions are tough but measured. 
Recidivists and those who send spam in furtherance of another felony 
may be imprisoned for up to five years. Large-volume spammers, those 
who hack into another person's computer system to send bulk spam, and 
spam ``kingpins'' who use others to operate their spamming operations 
may be imprisoned for up to three years. Other offenders may be fined 
and imprisoned for no more than one year. Convicted offenders are also 
subject to forfeiture of proceeds and instrumentalities of the offense.
  In addition to these criminal penalties, offenders are also subject 
to civil enforcement actions, which may be brought by either the 
Department of Justice or by an ISP. Civil remedies are important as a 
supplement to criminal enforcement for several reasons. First, bringing 
cases against outlaw spammers is very resource intensive because of the 
extensive forensic work involved in building a case; providing for 
civil enforcement will allow ISPs to assemble evidence to make 
prosecutors' jobs easier. Second, although criminal prosecutions are a 
critical deterrent against the most egregious spammers, the Justice 
Department is unlikely to prosecute all outlaw spam cases; civil 
enforcement, backed by strong financial penalties, will serve as a 
second layer of deterrence. Third, criminal penalties may not be 
appropriate in all cases, as for example in the case of teenagers hired 
by professional outlaw spammers to send out email for them; civil 
enforcement gives the Justice Department a more complete and refined 
range of tools to address specific outlaw spam problems.
  That describes the main provisions of our bill. In addition, because 
commercial email can be, and is being, sent from all over the world 
into the virtual mailboxes of Americans, the bill directs the 
Administration to report on its efforts to achieve international 
cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of outlaw spammers.
  Again, the purpose of the Criminal Spam Act is to deter the most 
pernicious and unscrupulous types of spammers--those who use trickery 
and deception to induce others to relay and view their messages. 
Ridding America's inboxes of deceptively delivered spam will 
significantly advance our fight against junk email. But the Criminal 
Spam Act is not a cure-all for the spam pandemic.
  The fundamental problem inherent to spam--its sheer volume--may well 
persist even in the absence of fraudulent routing information and false 
identities. In a recent survey, 82 percent of respondents considered 
unsolicited bulk email, even from legitimate businesses, to be 
unwelcome spam. Given this public opinion, and in light of the fact 
that spam is, in essence, cost-shifted advertising, it may be wise to 
take a broader approach to our fight against spam.
  One approach that has achieved substantial support is to require all 
commercial email to include an ``opt out'' mechanism, that is, a 
mechanism for consumers to opt out of receiving further unwanted spam. 
At the recent FTC forum, several experts expressed concerns about this 
approach, which permits spammers to send at least one piece of spam to 
each email address in their database, while placing the burden on email 
recipients to respond. People who receive dozens, even hundreds, of 
unwanted emails each day would have little time or energy for anything 
other than opting-out from unwanted spam.
  According to one organization's calculations, if just one percent of 
the approximately 24 million small businesses in the U.S. sent every 
American just one spam a year, that would amount to over 600 pieces of 
spam for each person to sift through and opt-out of each day. And this 
figure may be conservative, as it does not include the large businesses 
that also engage in on-line advertising.
  A second possible approach to spam--a national ``Do Not Spam'' 
registry--raises a different but no less difficult set of concerns. The 
two FTC Commissioners who testified last month at the Senate Commerce 
Committee's hearing on spam both questioned the potential of a national 
registry to alleviate the spam problem. Although this approach would 
place a smaller burden on consumers than would an opt-out system, it 
would entail immense costs, complexity, and delay, all of which work in 
the spammers' favor.
  A third way of attacking spam--and one that was favored by many 
panelists and audience members at the FTC forum--is to establish an 
opt-in system, whereby bulk commercial email may only be sent to 
individuals and businesses who have invited or consented to it. This 
approach has strong precedent in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 
of 1991, TCPA, which Congress passed to eliminate similar cost-
shifting, interference, and privacy problems associated with 
unsolicited commercial faxes. The TCPA's ban on faxes containing 
unsolicited advertisements has withstood First Amendment challenges in 
the courts, and was adopted by the European Union in July 2002.
  I have discussed three possible approaches to the spam problem, and 
there are several others, some of which have already been codified in 
state law. I encourage the consideration of all these anti-spam 
approaches in the weeks and months to come.
  Reducing the volume of junk commercial email, and so protecting 
legitimate Internet communications, will

[[Page S8241]]

not be easy. There are important First Amendment interests to consider, 
as well as the need to preserve the ability of legitimate marketers to 
use email responsibly. If Congress does act, it must get it right, so 
as not to exacerbate an already terribly vexing problem.
  The Criminal Spam Act is a first step in countering spam. If we can 
shut down the spammers who use deception to evade filters and confuse 
consumers, we will give the next generation of anti-spam technologies a 
chance to do their work. Our bill targets the most egregious offenders, 
it provides a much-needed federal cause of action, and it allows the 
states to continue to serve as a ``laboratory'' for tough anti-spamming 
regulation. I urge its speedy enactment into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Pryor):
  S. 1294. A bill to authorize grants for community telecommunications 
infrastructure planning and market development, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
help rural and underserved communities across the country get connected 
to the information economy.
  Today I am introducing the Community Telecommunication Planning Act 
of 2003. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Kennedy, Leahy, 
and Pryor as original cosponsors. This bill will give small and rural 
communities a new tool to attract high speed services and economic 
development.
  Representative Inslee from my home State, along with several other 
members, will soon introduce a companion bill in the House. I 
appreciate him working with me to meet this challenge.
  I am especially proud of how this legislation came about. For the 
last four years, I've been working with a group of community leaders in 
Washington State to find ways to help communities get connected to 
advanced telecommunications services.
  I want to take a moment to thank the members of my Rural 
Telecommunication Working Group for their hard work on this bill. The 
members include: Brent Bahrenburg, Gregg Caudell, Dee Christensen, Dave 
Danner, Louis Fox, Tami Garrow, Larry Hall, Rod Fleck, Ray King, Dale 
King, Terry Lawhead, Dick Llarman, Jim Lowery, Jim Miller, Joe Poire, 
Skye Richendrfer, Ted Sprague, Jim Schmit, and Ron Yenney.
  We met as a working group, and we held forums around the State that 
attracted hundreds of people. We've tapped the ideas of experts, 
service providers and people from across the State who are working to 
get their communities connected. The result is this legislation, which 
I am proud to say is part of Washington State's contribution to our 
national effort to connect all parts of our country to the Internet.
  The bill was originally introduced in the 107th Congress. I was able 
to attach a version of it to the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the 
provision was removed during Conference.
  This bill addresses a real need in many communities. While urban and 
suburban areas have strong competition between telecommunications 
providers, many small and rural communities are far removed from the 
services they need.
  We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced 
telecommunications like high speed internet access and the wireless 
Internet. Just as yesterday's infrastructure was built of roads and 
bridges, today our infrastructure includes advanced telecom services.
  Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities 
like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts 
like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is 
already turning some small companies in rural communities into 
international marketers of goods and services.
  Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble 
getting the access they need. Before communities can take advantage of 
some of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work 
together and got through a community planning process. Community plans 
identify the needs and level of demand, create a vision for the future, 
and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom needs of 
their community for today and tomorrow. These plans take resources to 
develop, and my bill would provide those funds.
  Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a 
plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure 
investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they 
need help developing it. Unfortunately, many communities get struck on 
that first step. They don't have the resources to do the studies and 
planning required to attract service. So the members of my Working 
Group came up with a solution: have the Federal Government provide 
competitive grants that local communities can use to develop their 
plans. I took that idea and put it into this bill.
  After determining what services they need, communities must then go 
out and make a market case to providers. That is why I've added 
``market development'' to the list of allowable uses of grant funding.
  While this bill deals with new technology, it's really just an 
extension of the infrastructure support the federal government 
traditionally provides to communities.
  The Federal Government already provides money to help communities 
plan other infrastructure improvements--everything from roads and 
bridges to wastewater facilities. Because today's economic 
infrastructure includes advanced telecom services, I believe the 
Federal Government should provide similar support for local technology 
infrastructure.
  In summary, this bill would provide rural and underserved communities 
with grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments 
and other analytical work, and it would allow these communities to use 
the funding to market these plans to providers.
  With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for 
access into real access that can improve their communities and 
strengthen their economies. This bill can open the door for thousands 
of small and rural areas across our country to tap the potential of the 
information economy.
  I urge the Senate to support this bill, and I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to see it passed.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1294

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Telecommunications 
     Planning Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. COMMUNITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLANNING GRANTS.

       (a) Authority To Make Grants.--Each Secretary concerned 
     may, using amounts authorized to be appropriated by the 
     applicable paragraph of subsection (g), make grants to 
     eligible entities described in subsection (b) for the 
     community telecommunications infrastructure planning and 
     market development purposes described in subsection (c).
       (b) Eligible Entities.--An entity eligible for a grant 
     under this section is any local or tribal government, local 
     non-profit entity, cooperative, public utility, or other 
     public entity that proposes to use the amount of the grant 
     for the community telecommunications infrastructure planning 
     and market development purposes described in subsection (c).
       (c) Community Telecommunications Infrastructure Planning 
     and Market Development.--Amounts from a grant made under this 
     section shall be used for purposes of facilitating the 
     development of a telecommunications infrastructure and market 
     development plan for a locality by various means, including--
       (1) by encouraging the involvement in the development of 
     the plan of interested elements of the community concerned, 
     including the business community, governments, 
     telecommunications providers, and secondary and, where 
     applicable, post-secondary educational institutions and their 
     students;
       (2) by enhancing the focus of the development of the plan 
     on a wide range of telecommunications needs in the community 
     concerned, including needs relating to local business, 
     education, health care, and government;
       (3) by enhancing the identification of a wide range of 
     potential solutions for such needs through advanced 
     telecommunications infrastructure; and
       (4) by any other means that the Secretary concerned 
     considers appropriate.

[[Page S8242]]

       (d) Grant Priority for Planning for Rural and Underserved 
     Areas.--In making grants under this section, each Secretary 
     concerned shall give priority to eligible entities that 
     propose to use the grants for community telecommunications 
     infrastructure planning and market development for rural 
     areas or underserved areas.
       (e) Administration.--Each Secretary concerned shall 
     establish such administrative requirements for grants under 
     this section, including requirements for applications for 
     such grants, as such Secretary considers appropriate.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means any county 
     having a population density of less than 300 people per 
     square mile as determined in the 2000 decennial census.
       (2) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means each of the following:
       (A) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (B) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (C) The Secretary of Education.
       (3) Underserved area.--The term ``underserved area'' means 
     any census tract as determined in the 2000 decennial census 
     which is located in--
       (A) an empowerment zone or enterprise community designated 
     under section 1391 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (B) the District of Columbia Enterprise Zone established 
     under section 1400 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (C) a renewal community designated under section 1400E of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       (D) a low-income community designated under section 45D of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (g) Authorizations of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for purposes of making grants under this 
     section--
       (1) for the Department of Commerce--
       (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year;
       (2) for the Department of Agriculture--
       (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year; and
       (3) for the Department of Education--
       (A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Talent):
  S. 1297. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect 
to the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court 
over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance 
to the Flag; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today the ``Protect the 
Pledge Act of 2003.'' The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag has been an 
integral part of this Nation's identity since its early days. It was 
first written by a Baptist minister in 1892 as part of the 
commemoration of the 400th Anniversary of the discovery of America. For 
over a century, children and adults have recited this Pledge in 
schools, in government and military ceremonies, and on other formal 
occasions. It represents a promise of loyalty to the Flag itself, to 
the country it represents, and to the government that unites all fifty 
states. Perhaps more importantly, for many people, its recitation 
represents as essential element of what it means to be an American.
  In United States v. Newdow, the Ninth Circuit jeopardized the 
integrity of the Pledge of Allegiance. It held that a school district's 
policy of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge violates the First 
Amendment Establishment Cause because it includes the phrase ``under 
God.'' This decision is simply wrong. It claims that the American flag 
symbolizes monotheism. It does no such thing. The Pledge represents our 
country, our independence, our government--simply, it represents 
liberty and justice for all. While the phrase ``under God'' undeniably 
has some religious connotation, it is a term of art with de minimus 
theological significance. It is not intended to establish a national 
religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religious beliefs. The 
thirty-one words of the Pledge of Allegiance, however, are worthy of 
reverence and respect. To eliminate the phrase ``under God'' would be 
equivalent to depicting the flag with forty-nine stars or twelve 
stripes. It changes the constitution of our American identity.
  The ``Protect the Pledge Act of 2003'' prevents further judicial 
encroachment by eliminating federal jurisdiction of claims that the 
recitation of the Pledge violates the First Amendment. By passing this 
legislation, Congress is exercising its Constitutional duty to preserve 
the separation of powers. When the judiciary has oversteps its 
boundaries, as it has done in Newdow, Congress must act to protect the 
sanctity of the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill represents a reasoned 
response to Newdow. By limiting its scope to federal jurisdiction, it 
leaves open a potential remedy in state court, thereby obviating any 
due process concerns.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues in both Houses will work 
expeditiously, on a bi-partisan basis, to enact this important 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1297

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protect the Pledge Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 2. JURISDICTION LIMITATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 99 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1632. Jurisdiction limitation

       ``No court established by Act of Congress shall have 
     jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the 
     recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (`I pledge 
     allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and 
     to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, 
     indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.') violates the 
     first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1632. Jurisdiction limitation.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1298. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002 to ensure the humane slaughter of non-ambulatory livestock, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Downed Animal 
Protection Act, a bill to provide for the humane treatment, handling, 
and euthanasia of non-ambulatory, downed, livestock unable to stand or 
walk unassisted.
  Farm animals such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and 
other equines that are too severely distressed and sick to move without 
assistance are often not handled humanely. Due to the extra effort and 
cost to individually feed and water non-ambulatory livestock, these 
animals routinely endure very poor conditions. In most cases, the level 
of suffering of downed animals is so severe that the most humane 
solution is to euthanize them as soon as possible. It is important to 
note that non-ambulatory livestock comprise a tiny fraction, less than 
one percent, of all animals at stockyards.
  The humane euthanasia of non-ambulatory livestock would also protect 
human health. Many of the downed animals that survive in the stockyard 
are slaughtered for human consumption. A large majority of these non-
ambulatory animals are contaminated with fecal matter, the main cause 
of Salmonella. U.S. citizen groups, such as the Parents of Sickened 
Children, have called for improved regulations to stop sickness and 
death from preventable diseases like Salmonella.
  I commend responsible and conscientious livestock organizations and 
producers such as the United Stockyards Corporation, the Minnesota 
Livestock Marketing Association, the National Pork Producers Council, 
the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, and the Independent Cattlemen's 
Association of Texas for their efforts to address the issue of downed 
animals. However, the need for stronger legislation to ensure that non-
ambulatory animals do not enter our food chain is evident, particularly 
with the recent discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE, in 
Canada.
  The Downed Animal Protection Act will remove the incentive for 
sending non-ambulatory livestock to stockyards, thereby reducing the 
risk that these animals will be processed for human consumption and 
discouraging their inhumane treatment at farms and ranches. My bill 
will complement the industry's current efforts to address this problem 
and make the issue of downed animals a priority.
  My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby 
removing

[[Page S8243]]

any unfair advantage that might result from different standards 
throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional bureaucracy will be 
needed as a consequence of my bill because inspectors regularly visit 
stockyards and slaughter facilities to enforce existing regulations. 
Thus, the additional burden on the agency and stockyard operators will 
be insignificant.
  As I stated before, this bill will stop the inhumane and improper 
treatment of downed animals while also helping to ensure that our food 
supply remains safe. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1298

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Downed Animal Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL SLAUGHTER PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY 
                   LIVESTOCK.

       (a) In General.--Section 10815 of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1967) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (f);
       (2) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Covered entity.--The term `covered entity' means--
       ``(A) a stockyard;
       ``(B) a market agency;
       ``(C) a dealer;
       ``(D) a slaughter facility; and
       ``(E) an establishment.
       ``(2) Establishment.--The term `establishment' means an 
     establishment that is covered by the Federal Meat Inspection 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       ``(3) Humanely euthanize.--The term `humanely euthanize' 
     means to kill an animal by mechanical, chemical, or other 
     means that immediately renders the animal unconscious, with 
     this state remaining until the death of the animal.
       ``(4) Nonambulatory livestock.--The term `nonambulatory 
     livestock' means any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses, 
     mules, or other equines, that are unable to stand and walk 
     unassisted.
       ``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       ``(b) Humane Treatment, Handling, and Disposition.--The 
     Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide for the 
     humane treatment, handling, and disposition of nonambulatory 
     livestock by covered entities, including a requirement that 
     nonambulatory livestock be humanely euthanized.
       ``(c) Humane Euthanasia.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), when an animal 
     becomes nonambulatory, a covered entity shall immediately 
     humanely euthanize the nonambulatory livestock.
       ``(2) Disease testing.--Paragraph (1) shall not limit the 
     ability of the Secretary to test nonambulatory livestock for 
     a disease, such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.
       ``(d) Movement.--
       ``(1) In general.--A covered entity shall not move 
     nonambulatory livestock while the nonambulatory livestock are 
     conscious.
       ``(2) Unconsciousness.--In the case of any nonambulatory 
     livestock that are moved, the covered entity shall ensure 
     that the nonambulatory livestock remain unconscious until 
     death.
       ``(e) Inspections.--It shall be unlawful for an 
     establishment to pass through inspection any nonambulatory 
     livestock.'';
       (3) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
       (A) in the first sentence--
       (i) by inserting ``this section and'' after ``enforcing''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and inserting ``this 
     section''; and
       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by inserting ``this section or'' after ``violates''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and inserting ``this 
     section''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) take effect on the date 
     that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     promulgate final regulations to implement the amendments made 
     by subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 1299. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide trade 
readjustment and development enhancement for America's communities, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``TRADE for 
America's Communities Act'' in recognition of the critical need to 
provide economic development assistance to communities, across this 
Nation, that have been negatively impacted by trade. I am pleased to be 
joined by Senator Murkowski in offering this critical legislation.
  We are faced with a challenge to a U.S. trade program from the 
international community and with communities that are being left behind 
in an era of global commerce. Congress must make the difficult 
decisions to turn these two challenges into opportunities for this 
Nation. In 1999, I supported the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act, authored by Senator DeWine, that used the revenue from 
countervailing and antidumping tariff duties to provide assistance to 
the firms that were affected by unfair trade. I supported that bill 
because it introduced an important policy principle: that the revenue 
from unfair trade should be used to help those hurt by trade.
  Unfortunately, that act ran afoul of our international commitments. 
In January, the World Trade Organization ruled that this program was in 
violation of our Antidumping Agreement, and the President requested 
Congress repeal that program in order to bring the United States into 
compliance. While I cannot support a full repeal of this program, I 
believe the bill we are introducing today will bring the United States 
into compliance with our international obligations, while maintaining 
the principle that this money be used to help those hurt by trade.
  In fact, the TRADE for America's Communities Act builds upon the 
strong foundation and principles of Senator DeWine's program and it is 
my hope that other proponents of the CDSOA will support our efforts to 
address the needs of these communities. While it is necessary to live 
up to our international agreements, it is just as imperative that we 
live up to our responsibilities to the fishing towns, mining towns and 
mill towns of America where jobs have been lost.
  With the momentum provided by the passage of Trade Promotion 
Authority, the President has put forth an agenda on a bilateral, 
regional and global basis that promotes the liberalization of trade. As 
the President has argued, this policy agenda creates new opportunities 
for prosperity and growth.
  At the same time, we must never forget that opportunities of market 
access, improved consumer choice, and availability of manufacturing 
inputs, come with the price of transitions, dislocations, and shifts in 
the U.S. economy. These dynamic changes that are outgrowths from trade 
are similar to technological advances in productivity that leave 
workers out of jobs, or plants out of operation. However, while 
technological advances are the initiative of private enterprise, trade 
liberalization is the chosen policy of government. Free trade creates 
opportunities, but it also creates responsibilities that this 
government must embrace just as firmly as it embraces free trade.
  The bill we are introducing today address these issues by giving the 
Department of Commerce the revenue from these tariffs, which currently 
goes to corporations, to provide technical assistance to communities 
that have been negatively impacted by trade, to develop strategic plans 
that would focus on creating and retaining jobs in a community and 
promote economic diversification. Once the strategic plans have been 
approved by the Department of Commerce, grants would be available, 
based on the needs of the community, to implement economic development 
projects, improve the local infrastructure, support the establishment 
of small businesses, and attract new businesses.
  In small towns, where the livelihood of the local economy depends on 
one industry, one plant, or one company, that is suffering under trade 
liberalization, it can cause devastation when that steel mill, paper 
mill, or textile mill shuts down. In towns like East Millinocket, ME, 
where Great Northern Paper went bankrupt, or in Waterville, Maine, 
where Hathaway shut down their plant and moved shirt production 
overseas, local economies were sent into disarray. That is just part of 
the reason I was so adamant in my support last year for improvements in 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
  Congress did the right thing when we expanded TAA training and 
benefits in the Trade Act of 2002, but one of the complaints leveled 
against TAA was the concern over what these workers would be able to do 
with their new

[[Page S8244]]

training in small towns that had few jobs to offer. The ``TRADE for 
America's Communities Act'' seeks to answer those concerns by ensuring 
that in towns where there may be few opportunities left, this 
government takes the first step towards providing hope through economic 
adjustment assistance.
  The ``TRADE for America's Communities Act'' would lay the groundwork 
for an America where no community is left behind in the march towards a 
free and open global economy. As the Finance Committee continues its 
work on trade legislation and the numerous trade agreements being 
proposed by this Administration, I look forward to the opportunity to 
address the economic development needs of these communities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 1300. A bill to prohibit a health plan from contracting with a 
pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) unless the PBM satisfies certain 
requirements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Prescription 
Drug Consumer Information Act. I believe this legislation will 
dramatically improve the way in which prescription drug benefits are 
provided to our Nation's 40 million senior citizens through the 
Medicare program.
  The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act is intended to provide 
some assurances that the billions of dollars being spent on this new 
prescription drug benefit for Medicare is going as far as possible. The 
Act is focused primarily on the practices of pharmacy benefit managers, 
the private companies that would most likely administer the new 
prescription drug benefit called for under the Prescription Drug 
Benefits Bill.
  PBMs have come to dominate the prescription drug benefit market and 
subsequently, have been the target of criticism by the employers and 
health plans that contract with them. The source of the controversy has 
been the cost cutting practices of PBMs, which have allowed them to 
make prescription drug coverage more affordable. However, the fact that 
drug prices continue to rise in the face of these cost-cutting efforts, 
has led some to question PBM practices in the private sector. As we 
move forward in providing prescription drug coverage within a 
government-operated program as large as Medicare it is critical that 
there be adequate safeguards in place. My bill would provide greater 
scrutiny and auditing of PBMs contracting with the government and also 
provide some consumer protections for all Americans who purchase 
prescription drugs.
  The market share of prescription drug benefits managed by PBMs has 
grown enormously in recent years. Currently, 90 percent of Americans 
with prescription drug coverage have their benefits administered by a 
PMB. Of that 90 percent, nearly 70 percent of those people are served 
by one of the four major PBM companies. PBMs provide benefits to nearly 
200 million Americans, including 65 percent of the Nation's senior 
population. PBMs have become as powerful in the delivery of 
prescription drug services as the manufacturers which produce 
medications.
  As PBMs have come to dominate the market, they are increasingly 
drawing the attention of State lawmakers struggling with skyrocketing 
prescription drug costs for state workers and large programs like 
Medicaid. As States focus on reducing pharmaceutical costs, suspicions 
are growing among state lawmakers and health department officials that 
the ``behind-closed-doors'' practices of PBMs are responsible for some 
of the escalating costs of prescription drugs. In 2002, Georgia become 
the first State to regulate PBMs by requiring they be licensed as 
pharmacies. This year, 19 States have introduced legislation to 
regulate or license PBMs.
  At issue are the rebates, discounts and other savings that PBMs 
negotiate with drug manufacturers in exchange for giving their 
medications ``preferred'' status on the PBMs list of available drugs. 
Those contracts are a primary source of revenue for the PBMs and for 
the drug manufacturers who see use of their products increase as the 
PBM steers its massive consumer base toward the preferred drug. 
However, because PBMs are so secretive about their arrangements with 
manufacturers, it is difficult for PBM clients to know if a significant 
portion of the rebates are being passed back to them as the PBM 
promises.
  PBMs also negotiate lower prices with pharmacies but fail to share 
those savings with consumers, particularly on generic drugs. A recent 
Wall Street Journal investigation found that for one drug fluoxetine, a 
generic of Prozac, PBMs were buying the drug from the pharmacy for 
about 30 cents a pill. However, most of the PBMs clients were paying 
$1.06 a pill based on the average markup formula. The PBM was pocketing 
the difference, which was 76 cents per pill. Multiply that by the 
number of fluoxetine pills dispensed by the PBMs and it is clear that 
these private companies are getting rich while consumers continue to 
pay unnecessarily high drug prices. This may be in the best interests 
of the PBMs shareholders, but it is a disservice to its customers, 
which turn to PBMs in an attempt to save money and lower drug costs.
  Efforts to better understand the PBM industry have reinforced this 
attitude of secrecy and backroom deals. Last year, Senator Dorgan 
requested a General Accounting Office study of whether PBMs were 
sharing the savings achieved through rebates and discounts with the 
members of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Unfortunately, 
the study provided us with little understanding of how the PBM industry 
operates because GAO was denied access to the financial documents of 
the PBM companies. GAO had no way of fulfilling its obligation of 
reporting to Congress because the PBMs refused to disclose any 
information about rebates, discounts and other savings generated by 
FEHBP.
  Yet, these same companies want the federal government to hand them 
billions of dollars for a new Medicare drug benefit without providing 
any accounting of how that money was spent. Allowing the PBMs to 
operate a government program in such secrecy is outrageous and would 
set a terrible policy precedent.
  The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act would improve this 
system with a five-part approach. First, the Act would eliminate 
potential conflicts of interest by prohibiting cross ownership of 
pharmaceutical manufacturing companies and PBMs. Second, it would 
contain costs by requiring that any PBM contracting with Medicare 
provide any cost savings negotiated with a pharmacy back to the PBM 
client, be that client an employer, a health plan or the government.
  Third, it would require all pharmacies to disclose the retail cost of 
a prescription drug upon request by a consumer. Several States, 
including Washington State, Montana, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island, 
along with the Virgin Islands, currently require pharmacies to make 
retail prices available to consumers. This provision is desperately 
needed across the country. A 2002 survey conducted by the Washington 
State Attorney General's Office found that retail prices on 
prescriptions could vary as much as $25 within a city and within a 
pharmacy chain. All consumers should be able to comparison shop for the 
best price amongst pharmacies in their area but they cannot do that if 
they do not know the retail price of various drugs.
  Fourth, the amendment would require PBMs on an annual basis to make 
public the percent of rebate received from the manufacturer that is 
passed back to the client, such as an employer, health plan or the 
government. The amendment does not require full public disclosure of 
the PBMs' negotiations with manufacturers because I realize that such a 
requirement could damage their ability to get good deals from the 
manufacturer. This disclosure does not have to take an all or nothing 
approach. The Act allows the PBM to keep private the specifics of their 
contracts, but at the same time provides senior citizens some assurance 
that they are benefiting from the savings achieved in those contracts.
  Finally, my bill would strengthen the audit requirements for PBMs 
administering the Medicare drug benefit to ensure that PBMs are passing 
those rebates and other savings along to consumers. One of the problems 
for employers and health plans using PBMs now is that it is difficult 
for them to

[[Page S8245]]

confirm that the PBM is meeting its contractual obligations to pass on 
a portion of its savings. Auditing provisions in my bill include 
complete disclosure of the amounts and types of rebates. The results of 
the audit would not become public, to ensure the PBMs ability to 
continue to negotiate discounted prices. This approach strikes a fair 
balance between the PBMs rights as private companies and the duty the 
PBMs have to share any savings generated by the new benefit with 
Medicare recipients.
  Together, these provisions will ensure that senior citizens and the 
government are getting the most out of every dollar spent on a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit and that other consumers who purchase 
prescription drugs are armed with information before spending their 
hard-earned money. Consumers should have some assurance that the 
private companies providing prescription drug insurance are not running 
up costs and cutting down coverage in an attempt to boost their own 
bottom lines. The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act provides 
those assurances and protections.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1301. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
video voyeurism in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 
the United States, and of other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with the Senator from 
New York, Mr. Schumer, to introduce the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act 
of 2003. Our legislation would criminalize the appalling practice of 
filming or photographing victims without their knowledge or consent 
under circumstances violating their privacy.
  Video voyeurism encompasses what is referred to as ``upskirting'' or 
``downshirting.'' As the terms imply, this subset of video voyeurism 
involves the use of a tiny, undetectable camera to film up the skirt or 
down the shirt of an unsuspecting target, most often a woman. One of my 
constituents from Ohio became the victim of this shocking invasion of 
privacy while she was innocently enjoying a church festival with her 
16-month old daughter. I would like to read you what she told the 
Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper in an article published on October 10, 
2000:

       As I crouched down to put the baby in my stroller, I saw a 
     video camera sticking out of his bag, taping up my dress. . . 
     . It rocked my whole sense of security.

  According to an ABCNEWS.com article that also published this story, 
this particular perpetrator had surreptitiously filmed a total of 13 
women that day. Sadly, this is not an isolated event. The widespread 
availability of low-cost, high-resolution cameras has lead to an 
increase in the number of high-profile cases of ``video-voyeurism'' all 
over our country. Reports of women being secretly videotaped through 
their clothing at shopping malls, amusement parks, and other public 
places are far too common.
  The impact of video voyeurism on its victims is greatly exacerbated 
by the Internet. As a result of Internet technology, the pictures that 
a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a 
matter of seconds. A State representative from Ohio, Representative Ed 
Jerse, stated it best when he told ABC News that when a woman's picture 
is posted on the Web, her privacy ``could be violated millions of 
times.''
  Fortunately, my home State of Ohio has enacted a law that 
specifically targets video voyeurism. But Ohio is one of only a few 
States that have such a law. That means that in most areas around the 
country, victims of this practice are not only deprived of their 
security and their privacy but are left without any recourse against 
their perpetrator. As the defense attorney for one video voyeur aptly 
observed, ``the criminal law necessarily lags behind technology and 
human ingenuity.''
  Our Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003 seeks to close the gap in 
the law and ensure that video voyeurs will be punished for their acts. 
Our bill would make it a crime to videotape, photograph, film, or 
otherwise electronically record the naked or undergarment-clad 
genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual 
without that individual's consent. This bill would help ensure that 
when a person has a reasonable expectation that he or she will not be 
videoed, filmed, or photographed as I have just described, that 
expectation of privacy will be recognized in and protected by the law. 
Additionally, our bill would make certain that perpetrators of video 
voyeurism are punished, by imposing a sentence of a fine or 
imprisonment for up to 1 year.
  Importantly, however, the mens rea requirements included in this bill 
guarantee that only those who are truly guilty of this crime will be 
punished. To be charged with video voyeurism, an actor must intend to 
capture the prohibited image and must knowingly do so.
  In closing, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Video 
Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003. This legislation would help safeguard 
the privacy we all take for granted and would help ensure that our 
criminal law reflects the realities of our rapidly changing technology.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed at the 
conclusion of my remarks.

                                 S. 1301

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Video Voyeurism Prevention 
     Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 87 the following new chapter:

                         ``CHAPTER 88--PRIVACY

``Sec.
``1801. Video voyeurism.

     ``Sec. 1801. Video voyeurism

       ``(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial 
     jurisdiction of the United States, having the intent to 
     capture an improper image of an individual, knowingly does so 
     under circumstances violating the privacy of that individual, 
     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 
     one year, or both.
       ``(b) In this section--
       ``(1) the term `captures', with respect to an image, means 
     videotapes, photographs, films, or records by any electronic 
     means;
       ``(2) the term `improper image', with respect to an 
     individual, means an image, captured without the consent of 
     that individual, of the naked or undergarment clad genitals, 
     pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; 
     and
       ``(3) the term `under circumstances violating the privacy 
     of that individual' means under circumstances in which the 
     individual exhibits an expectation that the improper image 
     would not be made, in a situation in which a reasonable 
     person would be justified in that expectation.''.
       (b) Amendment to Part Analysis.--The table of chapters at 
     the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 87 
     the following new item:

1801''.vacy..........................................................

                          ____________________