Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senators Levin, Stabenow, Reed, and Voinovich to introduce the National Invasive Species Council Act--a bill to permanently establish the National Invasive Species Council. I would like to thank my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation. Recognizing the need for better coordination to combat the economic, ecologic, and health threats posed by invasive species, the federal government established the National Invasive Species Council by Executive Order in 1999. Today, the Council continues to operate and develop invasive species management plans. However, the Council is not as effective as it could be. The GAO reported that implementing these management plans is difficult because the Council does not have a congressional mandate to act. GAO further reported that most of the agencies that have responsibilities under the National Invasive Species Management Plan have not been completing activities by established due dates and that these agencies lack coordination. These are significant problems that must be addressed. Invasive species are a national threat that we cannot afford to ignore. Many states are trying to combat these species that are threatening their local environments. Examples of such plants and animals include the emerald ash borer, which has been particularly troublesome in my home state of Ohio; the Chinese mitten crab; and hydrilla, considered to be one of the most problematic aquatic plants in the United States. If left unchecked, these and other invasive species pose dangerous environmental, health, and economic threats. Estimates of the annual economic damages caused by invasive species in this nation are as high as $137 billion. It is clear that more must be done. To combat the serious threats posed by invasive species, we need federal coordination and planning. Our bill would provide just that and on a permanent basis. Under this legislation, the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Interior, Defense, and Treasury, along with the Administrators of EPA and USAID, would continue to work together through the National Invasive Species Council to develop a National Invasive Species Management Plan. The duties of the Council are generally to coordinate federal activities in an effective, complementary, cost-efficient manner; update the National Invasive Species Management Plan; ensure that federal agencies implement the Management Plan; and develop recommendations for international cooperation. Additionally, if recommendations are not implemented, agencies would have to report to the Council. The Council is directed to develop guidance for federal agencies on prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species so that federal programs and actions do not increase the risk of invasion or spread non-indigenous species. And finally, the bill would establish an Invasive Species Advisory Committee to the Council. The National Invasive Species Council could enhance its effectiveness and better protect our environment from invasive species with a congressional mandate. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this measure so that the Federal Government can better respond to the threat posed by invasive species.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act with my colleague, Senator Levin. I would like to thank him for all of his hard work on this legislation. For those who have seen one of the five Great Lakes, it is not difficult to understand their importance. Covering more than 94,000 square miles and draining more than twice as much land, these freshwater seas hold an estimated six quadrillion gallons of water--or one-fifth of the world's surface freshwater. The Great Lakes ecosystem includes such diverse elements as northern evergreen and deciduous forests, lake plain prairies, and coastal wetlands. Over 30 of the basin's biological communities and over 100 species are globally rare or found only in the Great Lakes basin. The 637 State parks in the region accommodate more than 250 million visitors each year, and the Great Lakes basin is home to more than 33 million people--or one-tenth of the U.S. population. As co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, Senator Levin and I have worked together on legislation and other initiatives to protect this natural resource. We secured funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for water level gauges, a replacement ice-breaking vessel, and funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for sea lamprey control. Additionally, Senator Levin and I met with the U.S. Trade Representative Office in an effort to prevent Great Lakes water from being diverted abroad. We worked to authorize the Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program in the 2002 Farm Bill, and three years ago, we joined our colleagues in the House to pass the Great Lakes Legacy Act. This legislation provides up to $50 million per year to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remove contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern. These steps are positive, but we are not keeping pace with the problems facing the Great Lakes--the Federal Government simply is not providing the funding to protect them. An April 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the Federal Government spent roughly $745 million over the last ten years on Great Lakes restoration programs. Now consider that the GAO reported that the eight Great Lakes States spent $956 million during that same ten-year period. There is ample evidence that this current level of commitment is simply not enough to address the challenges. In 2001, there were approximately 600 beach closings as a result of e-coli bacteria. Further, State and local health authorities issued approximately 1,400 fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes. In 1978, the United States and Canada amended the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to give priority attention to 43 designated Areas of Concern. Since the signing, the Federal Government has not been able to remove any U.S. sites from the Areas of Concern list. Invasive species are one of the largest threats to the ecosystem and the $4.5 billion Great Lakes fishing industry. There are now over 160 aquatic invasive species threatening the Great Lakes. It is imperative that we fix these problems. For several years, I have been calling for a plan to restore the Lakes. I have been urging the governors, mayors, the environmental community, and other regional interests to agree on a vision for the future of the Great Lakes--not just for the short-term, but for the long-term. It is time for us to come together to develop a plan and put it in place. The bill we are introducing today builds upon the efforts by those in the Great Lakes states who are working with the congressional delegation and federal officials on the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration group. It provides the funding needed to implement their recommendations. This legislation would provide the tools needed for the long-term future of the Great Lakes. First, our bill creates a $6 billion Great Lakes Restoration Grant Program to augment existing federal and state efforts to clean, protect, and restore the Great Lakes. An additional $600 million in annual funding will be appropriated through the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office. The Program Office will provide grants to the Great Lakes States, municipalities, and other applicants in coordination with the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board. This funding will provide the extra resources that existing programs do not have. While the Great Lakes are a national resource, leaders in the region, not Washington bureaucrats, should set priorities and guide restoration efforts. That is why our bill requires close coordination between the EPA and state and regional interests before grants are released. The Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board, led by the Great Lakes governors, will include mayors, federal agencies, Native American tribes, environmentalists, industry representatives, and Canadian observers. This Advisory Board will prioritize restoration projects, such as invasive species control and prevention, wetlands restoration, contaminated sediments cleanup, and water quality improvements. Additionally, this Advisory Board will provide recommendations on which grant applications to fund. The input from the Advisory Board ensures that regional leaders will be critical in determining the long-term future of the Great Lakes. As the April 2003 GAO study reported, environmental restoration activities in the Great Lakes suffer from lack of coordination. The second goal of this legislation is the codification of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force to coordinate Federal activities in the Great Lakes region. The EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office would serve as the council leader, and participants would include key federal agencies involved in Great Lakes restoration efforts. The council would ensure that the efforts of federal agencies are coordinated, effective, and cost-efficient. Lastly, this bill would help address a GAO recommendation that a monitoring system and environmental indicators be developed to measure progress on new and existing restoration programs in the Great Lakes. Our bill is a major step in the right direction. I would again like to thank my colleague, Senator Levin, for his dedication to the Great Lakes and to their restoration. We need to continue to refocus and improve our efforts in order to reverse the trend of additional degradation of the Great Lakes. They are a unique natural resource for Ohio and the entire region--a resource that must be protected for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill and in our efforts to help preserve and protect the long-term viability of our Great Lakes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act with my colleague, Senator Levin. I would like to thank him for all of his hard work on this legislation. For those who have seen one of the five Great Lakes, it is not difficult to understand their importance. Covering more than 94,000 square miles and draining more than twice as much land, these freshwater seas hold an estimated six quadrillion gallons of water--or one-fifth of the world's surface freshwater. The Great Lakes ecosystem includes such diverse elements as northern evergreen and deciduous forests, lake plain prairies, and coastal wetlands. Over 30 of the basin's biological communities and over 100 species are globally rare or found only in the Great Lakes basin. The 637 State parks in the region accommodate more than 250 million visitors each year, and the Great Lakes basin is home to more than 33 million people--or one-tenth of the U.S. population. As co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, Senator Levin and I have worked together on legislation and other initiatives to protect this natural resource. We secured funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for water level gauges, a replacement ice-breaking vessel, and funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for sea lamprey control. Additionally, Senator Levin and I met with the U.S. Trade Representative Office in an effort to prevent Great Lakes water from being diverted abroad. We worked to authorize the Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program in the 2002 Farm Bill, and three years ago, we joined our colleagues in the House to pass the Great Lakes Legacy Act. This legislation provides up to $50 million per year to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remove contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern. These steps are positive, but we are not keeping pace with the problems facing the Great Lakes--the Federal Government simply is not providing the funding to protect them. An April 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the Federal Government spent roughly $745 million over the last ten years on Great Lakes restoration programs. Now consider that the GAO reported that the eight Great Lakes States spent $956 million during that same ten-year period. There is ample evidence that this current level of commitment is simply not enough to address the challenges. In 2001, there were approximately 600 beach closings as a result of e-coli bacteria. Further, State and local health authorities issued approximately 1,400 fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes. In 1978, the United States and Canada amended the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to give priority attention to 43 designated Areas of Concern. Since the signing, the Federal Government has not been able to remove any U.S. sites from the Areas of Concern list. Invasive species are one of the largest threats to the ecosystem and the $4.5 billion Great Lakes fishing industry. There are now over 160 aquatic invasive species threatening the Great Lakes. It is imperative that we fix these problems. For several years, I have been calling for a plan to restore the Lakes. I have been urging the governors, mayors, the environmental community, and other regional interests to agree on a vision for the future of the Great Lakes--not just for the short-term, but for the long-term. It is time for us to come together to develop a plan and put it in place. The bill we are introducing today builds upon the efforts by those in the Great Lakes states who are working with the congressional delegation and federal officials on the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration group. It provides the funding needed to implement their recommendations. This legislation would provide the tools needed for the long-term future of the Great Lakes. First, our bill creates a $6 billion Great Lakes Restoration Grant Program to augment existing federal and state efforts to clean, protect, and restore the Great Lakes. An additional $600 million in annual funding will be appropriated through the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office. The Program Office will provide grants to the Great Lakes States, municipalities, and other applicants in coordination with the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board. This funding will provide the extra resources that existing programs do not have. While the Great Lakes are a national resource, leaders in the region, not Washington bureaucrats, should set priorities and guide restoration efforts. That is why our bill requires close coordination between the EPA and state and regional interests before grants are released. The Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board, led by the Great Lakes governors, will include mayors, federal agencies, Native American tribes, environmentalists, industry representatives, and Canadian observers. This Advisory Board will prioritize restoration projects, such as invasive species control and prevention, wetlands restoration, contaminated sediments cleanup, and water quality improvements. Additionally, this Advisory Board will provide recommendations on which grant applications to fund. The input from the Advisory Board ensures that regional leaders will be critical in determining the long-term future of the Great Lakes. As the April 2003 GAO study reported, environmental restoration activities in the Great Lakes suffer from lack of coordination. The second goal of this legislation is the codification of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force to coordinate Federal activities in the Great Lakes region. The EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office would serve as the council leader, and participants would include key federal agencies involved in Great Lakes restoration efforts. The council would ensure that the efforts of federal agencies are coordinated, effective, and cost-efficient. Lastly, this bill would help address a GAO recommendation that a monitoring system and environmental indicators be developed to measure progress on new and existing restoration programs in the Great Lakes. Our bill is a major step in the right direction. I would again like to thank my colleague, Senator Levin, for his dedication to the Great Lakes and to their restoration. We need to continue to refocus and improve our efforts in order to reverse the trend of additional degradation of the Great Lakes. They are a unique natural resource for Ohio and the entire region--a resource that must be protected for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill and in our efforts to help preserve and protect the long-term viability of our Great Lakes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senators Levin, Stabenow, Reed, and Voinovich to introduce the National Invasive Species Council Act--a bill to permanently establish the National Invasive Species Council. I would like to thank my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation. Recognizing the need for better coordination to combat the economic, ecologic, and health threats posed by invasive species, the federal government established the National Invasive Species Council by Executive Order in 1999. Today, the Council continues to operate and develop invasive species management plans. However, the Council is not as effective as it could be. The GAO reported that implementing these management plans is difficult because the Council does not have a congressional mandate to act. GAO further reported that most of the agencies that have responsibilities under the National Invasive Species Management Plan have not been completing activities by established due dates and that these agencies lack coordination. These are significant problems that must be addressed. Invasive species are a national threat that we cannot afford to ignore. Many states are trying to combat these species that are threatening their local environments. Examples of such plants and animals include the emerald ash borer, which has been particularly troublesome in my home state of Ohio; the Chinese mitten crab; and hydrilla, considered to be one of the most problematic aquatic plants in the United States. If left unchecked, these and other invasive species pose dangerous environmental, health, and economic threats. Estimates of the annual economic damages caused by invasive species in this nation are as high as $137 billion. It is clear that more must be done. To combat the serious threats posed by invasive species, we need federal coordination and planning. Our bill would provide just that and on a permanent basis. Under this legislation, the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Interior, Defense, and Treasury, along with the Administrators of EPA and USAID, would continue to work together through the National Invasive Species Council to develop a National Invasive Species Management Plan. The duties of the Council are generally to coordinate federal activities in an effective, complementary, cost-efficient manner; update the National Invasive Species Management Plan; ensure that federal agencies implement the Management Plan; and develop recommendations for international cooperation. Additionally, if recommendations are not implemented, agencies would have to report to the Council. The Council is directed to develop guidance for federal agencies on prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species so that federal programs and actions do not increase the risk of invasion or spread non-indigenous species. And finally, the bill would establish an Invasive Species Advisory Committee to the Council. The National Invasive Species Council could enhance its effectiveness and better protect our environment from invasive species with a congressional mandate. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this measure so that the Federal Government can better respond to the threat posed by invasive species.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Durbin, to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2005. As we look forward to celebrating President's Day this coming Monday, I can think of no better way to honor our former Chief Executives than by passing this important piece of legislation. The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would create a new and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. It is our duty to preserve these sites so that future generations of Americans can gain a better understanding of those who influenced the development of our great Nation. In an era when innovative technology has been incorporated into the curriculum in schools throughout the country, we often forget that one of the best learning tools is that which a child can touch and see. Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals talked about in the classroom or read about online provides a completely different atmosphere to appreciate history. The opportunity to visit the actual birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs provides a real-life glimpse into the lives of our former Presidents. Currently, family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, historical societies, historic preservation organizations, and other non-profit organizations own the majority of these sites. These entities often have little funding and are unable to meet the demands of maintaining such important sites because operating costs must be met before maintenance needs. As a result, these sites are left to deteriorate slowly. I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my home State of Ohio, a State that has been the home of eight Presidents. I was disturbed during one such visit to the Ulysses S. Grant house. There, I saw the discoloration and falling plaster due to water damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the front porch was pulling away from the house--the very same porch where President Harding delivered his now famous campaign speeches. Fortunately, we were able to obtain funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating further. We need to continue to provide Federal assistance for maintenance projects today in order to prevent larger maintenance problems tomorrow. These sites are far too important to let slowly decay. Our legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on Presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five- member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a State historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would require that half of the funds come from non-Federal sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually. The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would make sure that every American has the chance to appreciate a real piece of history--a chance at understanding the lives of the great men who have led our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I have just introduced be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues Senators Kohl and Leahy, to introduce the Antitrust Investigative Improvements Act of 2005. We do so to strengthen the Department of Justice's ability to investigate criminal antitrust conspiracies. This bill gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a wiretap order from a Federal judge, for a limited time period, to monitor communications between antitrust conspirators. Investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies, such as cartels and bid-rigging, is the core mission of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Because of the harm this behavior can do to the economy and to innocent consumers, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Hewitt Pate, has said that prosecuting ``cartels remain[s] our top enforcement priority at the Antitrust Division.'' As a result, in the United States, we punish such illegal behavior harshly. Corporations can be fined up to $100 million and individuals can be fined up to $1 million and be incarcerated for 10 years. But, despite the high priority the Antitrust Division places on these cases and the tough penalties under the law, up to now, we have not given the Department of Justice all the tools it needs to investigate and prosecute criminal antitrust conspiracies. In criminal antitrust investigations, to prosecute a case, it is critical that prosecutors gain access to evidence on the inner workings of the conspiracy. To meet their heavy burden of proof, prosecutors must marshal strong evidence showing, for example, the terms of the illegal agreement, the participants in the illegal agreement, and precisely when the illegal agreement was reached. This type of evidence is extremely difficult to gain without penetrating the inner workings of the conspiracy. The Department has principally two techniques for investigating criminal antitrust enterprises. First, it may enlist the cooperation of a witness. The cooperating witness may be, for example, a customer being harmed by the conspiracy or a co-conspirator to the antitrust crime. Under this approach, a cooperating witness may testify about the details of the conspiracy or may record conversations with the conspirators, either through videotape or audiotape. One important restriction is that the cooperating witness must be present at the conversation when recording. But, if the Department cannot secure a cooperating witness, which is often the case, this technique is not available. Second, the Antitrust Division also has a corporate leniency program, which has been very successful in investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies. In exchange for fully cooperating with an antitrust investigation, an otherwise guilty corporation may receive lenient treatment. But, this method, too, depends on the cooperation of one who was on the inside of the criminal conspiracy. Our bill adds a third technique by amending Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq.) to make a criminal violation of the Sherman Act a ``predicate offense'' for an order authorizing the interception of wire or oral communications, hereinafter ``wiretap order''. Amending this law to make criminal antitrust offenses a predicate offense would give the Department of Justice a much needed tool to investigate the inner workings of criminal antitrust conspiracies. Unlike using a cooperating witness or the corporate leniency program, a wiretap order does not require the cooperation of someone who has inside knowledge of the conspiracy or who is actually participating in the conspiracy. Upon a showing of probable cause to a Federal judge, the Department of Justice could obtain a wiretap order, for a limited time period, to monitor communications between conspirators. There are over 150 predicate offenses from title 18 and dozens of other predicate offenses from other parts of the U.S. Criminal Code. Offenses, such as wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud are predicate offenses, but up to now, criminal antitrust offenses have not been on the list. I think this is a mistake. Criminal antitrust offenses are basically white-collar, fraud offenses, and often do much more harm to innocent consumers than other types of fraud offenses. It is time for antitrust to be added as a predicate offense, given the gravity of the crime. This idea is not new. Past Assistant Attorney Generals of the Antitrust Division have supported the idea for such legislation. And, in 1999, our neighbor to the north, Canada, passed similar legislation. It is an idea whose time has come. I urge my colleagues to support this important reform to strengthen the enforcement of our antitrust laws. I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Durbin, to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2005. As we look forward to celebrating President's Day this coming Monday, I can think of no better way to honor our former Chief Executives than by passing this important piece of legislation. The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would create a new and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. It is our duty to preserve these sites so that future generations of Americans can gain a better understanding of those who influenced the development of our great Nation. In an era when innovative technology has been incorporated into the curriculum in schools throughout the country, we often forget that one of the best learning tools is that which a child can touch and see. Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals talked about in the classroom or read about online provides a completely different atmosphere to appreciate history. The opportunity to visit the actual birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs provides a real-life glimpse into the lives of our former Presidents. Currently, family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, historical societies, historic preservation organizations, and other non-profit organizations own the majority of these sites. These entities often have little funding and are unable to meet the demands of maintaining such important sites because operating costs must be met before maintenance needs. As a result, these sites are left to deteriorate slowly. I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my home State of Ohio, a State that has been the home of eight Presidents. I was disturbed during one such visit to the Ulysses S. Grant house. There, I saw the discoloration and falling plaster due to water damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the front porch was pulling away from the house--the very same porch where President Harding delivered his now famous campaign speeches. Fortunately, we were able to obtain funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating further. We need to continue to provide Federal assistance for maintenance projects today in order to prevent larger maintenance problems tomorrow. These sites are far too important to let slowly decay. Our legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on Presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five- member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a State historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would require that half of the funds come from non-Federal sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually. The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would make sure that every American has the chance to appreciate a real piece of history--a chance at understanding the lives of the great men who have led our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I have just introduced be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues Senators Kohl and Leahy, to introduce the Antitrust Investigative Improvements Act of 2005. We do so to strengthen the Department of Justice's ability to investigate criminal antitrust conspiracies. This bill gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a wiretap order from a Federal judge, for a limited time period, to monitor communications between antitrust conspirators. Investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies, such as cartels and bid-rigging, is the core mission of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Because of the harm this behavior can do to the economy and to innocent consumers, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Hewitt Pate, has said that prosecuting ``cartels remain[s] our top enforcement priority at the Antitrust Division.'' As a result, in the United States, we punish such illegal behavior harshly. Corporations can be fined up to $100 million and individuals can be fined up to $1 million and be incarcerated for 10 years. But, despite the high priority the Antitrust Division places on these cases and the tough penalties under the law, up to now, we have not given the Department of Justice all the tools it needs to investigate and prosecute criminal antitrust conspiracies. In criminal antitrust investigations, to prosecute a case, it is critical that prosecutors gain access to evidence on the inner workings of the conspiracy. To meet their heavy burden of proof, prosecutors must marshal strong evidence showing, for example, the terms of the illegal agreement, the participants in the illegal agreement, and precisely when the illegal agreement was reached. This type of evidence is extremely difficult to gain without penetrating the inner workings of the conspiracy. The Department has principally two techniques for investigating criminal antitrust enterprises. First, it may enlist the cooperation of a witness. The cooperating witness may be, for example, a customer being harmed by the conspiracy or a co-conspirator to the antitrust crime. Under this approach, a cooperating witness may testify about the details of the conspiracy or may record conversations with the conspirators, either through videotape or audiotape. One important restriction is that the cooperating witness must be present at the conversation when recording. But, if the Department cannot secure a cooperating witness, which is often the case, this technique is not available. Second, the Antitrust Division also has a corporate leniency program, which has been very successful in investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies. In exchange for fully cooperating with an antitrust investigation, an otherwise guilty corporation may receive lenient treatment. But, this method, too, depends on the cooperation of one who was on the inside of the criminal conspiracy. Our bill adds a third technique by amending Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq.) to make a criminal violation of the Sherman Act a ``predicate offense'' for an order authorizing the interception of wire or oral communications, hereinafter ``wiretap order''. Amending this law to make criminal antitrust offenses a predicate offense would give the Department of Justice a much needed tool to investigate the inner workings of criminal antitrust conspiracies. Unlike using a cooperating witness or the corporate leniency program, a wiretap order does not require the cooperation of someone who has inside knowledge of the conspiracy or who is actually participating in the conspiracy. Upon a showing of probable cause to a Federal judge, the Department of Justice could obtain a wiretap order, for a limited time period, to monitor communications between conspirators. There are over 150 predicate offenses from title 18 and dozens of other predicate offenses from other parts of the U.S. Criminal Code. Offenses, such as wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud are predicate offenses, but up to now, criminal antitrust offenses have not been on the list. I think this is a mistake. Criminal antitrust offenses are basically white-collar, fraud offenses, and often do much more harm to innocent consumers than other types of fraud offenses. It is time for antitrust to be added as a predicate offense, given the gravity of the crime. This idea is not new. Past Assistant Attorney Generals of the Antitrust Division have supported the idea for such legislation. And, in 1999, our neighbor to the north, Canada, passed similar legislation. It is an idea whose time has come. I urge my colleagues to support this important reform to strengthen the enforcement of our antitrust laws. I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following members as original cosponsors of S. 384: Senators Coleman, Collins, and Santorum.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this morning to urge support for S. 384, a bill that would extend a very important law; that is, the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act. This act launched a mission of discovery, and what we have learned from this bill has been extremely disturbing. It has been necessary that we learn what we have learned from this bill. I will take a few moments to talk about the act's specific merits, but before I do that, there are some people I will thank. First, I thank the majority leader and his staff for allowing us time today on the Senate floor to debate this measure. I also thank Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter for agreeing some time ago to schedule a hearing about our bill. It was not necessary to hold the hearing, but it was important that he schedule it. It was his strong support for our efforts that allowed us to move so quickly on this issue. Senator Specter gave a strong push to all involved to resolve their differences and to move forward so we could be in the position that we are today. I thank him for his leadership and for his support. In 1998, Congress first passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, which our friend and colleague the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and I introduced, along with my friend Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who introduced it in the House. The purpose of this law was to make public previously classified information about a terrible part of history, the history of Nazi persecution and also the relationship of the U.S. Government to the Nazi war criminals in the aftermath of World War II and during the Cold War. The bill provided that we would disclose, within the constraints of national security, the information we had about these Nazi war criminals. Undeniably, the Nazi era was one of the darkest chapters in human existence and there is a natural tendency not to even want to think or talk about it. Congress passed the Nazi war crimes law because we understood that we owe it to all those who suffered and died in the death camps. We also owe it to their families to bring the whole truth to light. The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act has been in effect since 1998, and it has resulted in a tremendous amount of information. These results have been produced primarily through the good efforts of a group called the Interagency Working Group, also known as the IWG, which was created by that law. By statute, the IWG includes the director of the Holocaust Museum, the historian of the Department of State, the Archivist of the United States, representatives from the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice, specifically the Office of Special Investigations, the Department of Defense, and three outside appointees, known as public members, who are Elizabeth Holtzman, Richard Ben-Veniste, and Thomas Baer. The IWG also includes a number of professional historians and archivists, who, along with the public members and the other IWG members, took on the task of locating, identifying, and recommending documents for declassification, of course always provided as long as the declassification posed no threat to national security. At this point I think it is important to offer thanks to all the members of the IWG for their years of hard work on this project. The staff, including the archivists and historians, has done remarkable work and has helped to produce a tremendous amount of research on this critical project. In particular, we owe a debt of gratitude to the public members of the IWG--Elizabeth Holtzman, Richard Ben-Veniste and Thomas Baer--who have worked without compensation and spent literally hundreds and hundreds of hours of their own time on this effort. We give them our thanks. They have contributed mightily to the knowledge of this terrible era in world history. Once the IWG was created, it worked closely with the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Army, and a number of other agencies to examine and evaluate an enormous number of documents. In fact, since 1998, the Interagency Working Group has coordinated the single largest specifically focused declassification effort in American history. In its first year of operation alone, the IWG screened so many documents for possible declassification and uncovered so much work to do that Congress extended its life in 2001, under the leadership of Senator Feinstein, and then again with my sponsorship in 2004. At this point, over 100 million documents have been screened for possible relevancy, and over 8 million documents have been declassified and used to create a book titled, U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis. This book, which I have right here, now provides us with 15 chapters of insight into the Holocaust and the post-World War II era--insight into what U.S. Government officials knew and when they knew it. It makes for absolutely fascinating reading. We can be assured that, as more documents are uncovered and as historians have the opportunity to study what has already been uncovered, there will be more articles published, more interpretation, more understanding of history. When I came to the floor almost 7 years ago to introduce and help pass the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, I brought with me several aerial U.S. intelligence photographs taken in 1944 of Auschwitz. In the photographs, which were discovered by photo analysts from the CIA in 1978, prisoners were being led into gas chambers. This confirmed that our government knew that these atrocities were occurring. What else did they know? At that time, we could not be sure. Now, however, due in great part to this law, we are much closer to answering that question. The book has contributed to our understanding of history--much more so than we ever hoped. Let me tell just a couple of the many stories this research has uncovered. Let me tell a couple of the many stories that this research has uncovered so far. For example, the historians were able to examine a range of documents produced by Gonzalo Montt, the Chilean consul in Prague during the early 1940s. Montt was a Nazi sympathizer and, as such, appears to have had significant access to Nazi plans regarding ``the Jewish problem'' and how the regime was planning to address it--and that plan involved moving the Jews into ghettos, expropriating their assets, and eventually eradicating the Jewish population. British intelligence got access to many of Montt's dispatches to his home government and provided them to the United States as early as March 1942. Under the law, the IWG recommended that these documents be declassified, and our government agreed. These documents show that certain officials in our government had some evidence of Nazi intentions toward the Jews at least 6 months earlier than had previously been known. Further, as the authors, themselves, say, these documents show again that: for many Americans and Britons inside and outside of government, the central, overriding concern during 1939-1945 was the war, itself--not the barbaric policies that accompanied it. Our job in Congress, at least in passing the law, was not to judge history. That is up to historians. That is up to the people who read it. That will be up to us, later on. As these documents come out, we can begin to judge it. The point is, though, to make this information available, to let the truth come out, whatever that truth is. Let these raw documents come out to let people make judgments based on those documents. Let historians view it. Let historians argue about them. But to get those documents out in front of the historians and, ultimately, in front of the American people and in front of the world. We learn from history. We learn from the truth. What this bill is about is getting out the truth. Other documents showed other details. For example, in a chapter written by Professor Norman J.W. Goda, a professor at Ohio University, the book details how the German government, in coordination with a number of U.S. and European banks, worked together to funnel money illegally expropriated from the accounts of German Jewish nationals back to Germany. Although the details are somewhat complex, in essence, the German government used these expropriated assets to lure a prior generation of German immigrants back to Germany from the United States and, essentially, invest in the German war effort. A large U.S. bank was intimately involved in this scheme, and profited greatly from it. The scheme was discovered in late 1940 by the FBI, and it began a lengthy investigation. Rather than shut down the operation, the Bureau surveilled the many participants and eventually did arrest a large number of them. At some point during the investigation, the bank, itself, did cooperate with the investigation and was never prosecuted in order to protect FBI and Army intelligence sources. Until this project began, this story had never fully been exposed. As this book shows and those stories illustrate, this project has been a great success, and the IWG has been very effective at their task--but the law is due to expire at the end of March and the IWG needs more time. Unfortunately, during the course of the last year, the IWG and the CIA have had several ongoing disagreements about the correct interpretation of the law and what type of disclosure the law requires. After a great deal of effort, the parties have finally come to a common understanding of what the law requires. Specifically, it is now understood that the law was drafted broadly, so that as much information as possible may be released--both about specific Nazi war crimes and also about the relationship the U.S. Government had with Nazi war criminals in the post World War II and Cold War era. With this understanding going forward, the various parties who comprise the IWG agree that there is a need for some more time to conclude their important work, and I agree, as well. Accordingly, yesterday I introduced, along with Senators Feinstein and Cornyn, legislation that will extend the life of the IWG for 2 additional years, until March 2007. Both the IWG and the CIA agree that 2 years is a reasonable amount of time for the extension, and I agree. I hope and expect that well within those 2 years, the IWG, working closely with the CIA, will be able to examine the remaining documents and release the important information that still lays within the files of the CIA--unexamined by the public until now. We have come a long way and told a large part of the story, and it is time to finish the job. Finally, I would like to note for the record the contributions of the many people who have helped us to get to where we are today. Once again, Senator Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was instrumental in putting the power of the Judiciary Committee behind our effort to move this issue quickly. I also would like to thank Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who has been a leader on this issue since the beginning, along with our co-sponsors on the Committee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn. In the House of Representatives, as I mentioned earlier, Representative Carolyn Maloney has been my counterpart and the leader on this issue since the beginning. I look forward to working with Representative Maloney and with Chairman Davis, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Hoekstra to help move this legislation in the House. Of course, I also must recognize the commitment, dedication, and vision of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He spent countless hours involved in this issue. He knew how important this was to deepening our understanding of history. He appreciated the value of uncovering this information and what it would mean to those who suffered through the Holocaust and their families. I also must mention that the CIA, of course, has played a critical role in resolving this dispute and moving forward toward the completion of this project. I'd like to thank former DCI George Tenet for his efforts in that regard and, in particular, mention current DCI Porter Goss, who, as a Congressman from Florida, was a cosponsor of the original legislation in the House. Again, as I noted earlier, the members and staff of the IWG, including the public members, deserve our special thanks. I should mention again the efforts of leadership and Floor staff, particularly Sharon Soderstrom and Laura Dove, for helping to move this legislation so quickly and make sure we had the opportunity to consider it prior to the expiration of the IWG next month. Finally, on a personal note, I thank the staffs of all of the Members who have played such a large role on this issue. In particular, I would like to recognize the contributions of my former Judiciary Committee Staff Director Louis Dupart. Louis was a critical part of the team that helped us turn this idea into law back in 1998. Even though he is no longer working in the Senate, he has never stopped working to help promote this legislation and the effective implementation of the law. His ongoing efforts have been crucial to the success of our efforts here today. Again I urge my colleagues to vote for this important and timely legislation to extend our efforts to finally and fully open our files regarding this horrific period in history and give the victims of the Nazi era and their families as complete an accounting as possible. We owe them no less.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Leahy, Graham, and Allen be added as cosponsors to the bill.

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

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield all time.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend and colleague Senator Dodd, to reintroduce the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act--also known as the STOP Underage Drinking Act. I thank Senator Dodd for his commitment to this issue, as well as our colleagues on the House side--Representatives Roybal- Allard, Wolf, Osborne, DeLauro, and Wamp for working so diligently with us to draft this bill. It is a good bill--a carefully crafted, bi- partisan, bi-cameral piece of legislation. I also want to thank the additional Senate co-sponsors of this legislation--Senators Hagel, Warner, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Landrieu, Corzine, Jeffords, and Salazar. I thank them for their support. They know that underage drinking is a serious, and often deadly, problem for our Nation's children and youth and that we have to do something about it. In September 2003, I chaired a HELP Subcommittee hearing about underage drinking. As we discussed at that hearing, it is well known that underage drinking is a significant problem for youth in this country. We've known that for a very long time. We know that underage drinking often contributes to the four leading causes of deaths among 15 to 20 year olds--that 69 percent of youths who died in alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the year 2000 involved young drinking drivers and that in 1999, nearly 40 percent of people under the age of 21 who were victims of drownings, burns, and falls tested positive for alcohol. We also know that alcohol has been reported to be involved in 36 percent of homicides, 12 percent of male suicides, and 8 percent of female suicides involving people under 21. How did we get here. These statistics are frightening. Too many American kids are drinking regularly, and they are drinking in quantities that can be of great, long-term harm. As a nation, we clearly haven't done enough to address this problem. We haven't done enough to acknowledge how prevalent and widespread teenage drinking is in this country. We haven't done enough to let parents know that they, too, are a part of this problem and can be a part of the solution. We talk about drugs and the dangers of drug use, as we should, but the reality is that we, as a society, have become complacent about the problem of underage drinking. This has to change. The culture has to change. One way to begin changing this culture is with the STOP Underage Drinking Act. Our legislation has four major areas of policy development: First, there is a federal coordination and reporting provision. This title would create an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate the efforts and expertise of various federal agencies to combat underage drinking. It would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and would include other agencies and departments, such as the Department of Education, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Federal Trade Commission. This title also would mandate an annual report to Congress from the Interagency Committee on their efforts to combat underage drinking, as well as an annual report card on State efforts to combat the problem. Two million dollars annually would be appropriated under this section. Second, the bill contains an authorization for an adult-oriented national media campaign against underage drinking. This title would provide $1 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to authorize a national media campaign for which the Ad Council has received start up funding. The campaign is expected to launch in August of this year. Third, the bill would support new intervention programs to prevent underage drinking. This section of the bill would provide $5 million for enhancement grants to the Drug Free Communities program to be directed at the problem of underage drinking. This title also would create a program which would provide competitive grants to states, non- profit entities, and institutions of higher education to create state- wide coalitions to prevent underage drinking. These grants will work to change the culture of underage drinking at our Nation's institutions of higher education and their surrounding communities. This program would be funded at $5 million annually, as well. Finally, our bill contains a section devoted to research. This title would provide $6 million for increased federal research and data collection on underage drinking, including reporting on the types and brands of alcohol that kids use and the short-term and long-term impacts of underage drinking upon adolescent brain development. Again, I thank Senator Dodd for working with me on this issue here in the Senate, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to pass this very important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend and colleague Senator Dodd, to reintroduce the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act--also known as the STOP Underage Drinking Act. I thank Senator Dodd for his commitment to this issue, as well as our colleagues on the House side--Representatives Roybal- Allard, Wolf, Osborne, DeLauro, and Wamp for working so diligently with us to draft this bill. It is a good bill--a carefully crafted, bi- partisan, bi-cameral piece of legislation. I also want to thank the additional Senate co-sponsors of this legislation--Senators Hagel, Warner, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Landrieu, Corzine, Jeffords, and Salazar. I thank them for their support. They know that underage drinking is a serious, and often deadly, problem for our Nation's children and youth and that we have to do something about it. In September 2003, I chaired a HELP Subcommittee hearing about underage drinking. As we discussed at that hearing, it is well known that underage drinking is a significant problem for youth in this country. We've known that for a very long time. We know that underage drinking often contributes to the four leading causes of deaths among 15 to 20 year olds--that 69 percent of youths who died in alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the year 2000 involved young drinking drivers and that in 1999, nearly 40 percent of people under the age of 21 who were victims of drownings, burns, and falls tested positive for alcohol. We also know that alcohol has been reported to be involved in 36 percent of homicides, 12 percent of male suicides, and 8 percent of female suicides involving people under 21. How did we get here. These statistics are frightening. Too many American kids are drinking regularly, and they are drinking in quantities that can be of great, long-term harm. As a nation, we clearly haven't done enough to address this problem. We haven't done enough to acknowledge how prevalent and widespread teenage drinking is in this country. We haven't done enough to let parents know that they, too, are a part of this problem and can be a part of the solution. We talk about drugs and the dangers of drug use, as we should, but the reality is that we, as a society, have become complacent about the problem of underage drinking. This has to change. The culture has to change. One way to begin changing this culture is with the STOP Underage Drinking Act. Our legislation has four major areas of policy development: First, there is a federal coordination and reporting provision. This title would create an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate the efforts and expertise of various federal agencies to combat underage drinking. It would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and would include other agencies and departments, such as the Department of Education, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Federal Trade Commission. This title also would mandate an annual report to Congress from the Interagency Committee on their efforts to combat underage drinking, as well as an annual report card on State efforts to combat the problem. Two million dollars annually would be appropriated under this section. Second, the bill contains an authorization for an adult-oriented national media campaign against underage drinking. This title would provide $1 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to authorize a national media campaign for which the Ad Council has received start up funding. The campaign is expected to launch in August of this year. Third, the bill would support new intervention programs to prevent underage drinking. This section of the bill would provide $5 million for enhancement grants to the Drug Free Communities program to be directed at the problem of underage drinking. This title also would create a program which would provide competitive grants to states, non- profit entities, and institutions of higher education to create state- wide coalitions to prevent underage drinking. These grants will work to change the culture of underage drinking at our Nation's institutions of higher education and their surrounding communities. This program would be funded at $5 million annually, as well. Finally, our bill contains a section devoted to research. This title would provide $6 million for increased federal research and data collection on underage drinking, including reporting on the types and brands of alcohol that kids use and the short-term and long-term impacts of underage drinking upon adolescent brain development. Again, I thank Senator Dodd for working with me on this issue here in the Senate, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to pass this very important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on the semi-annual monetary policy report of the Federal Reserve.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, February 16 at 11:30 a.m., to consider pending calendar business. Agenda Agenda Item 1: S. 48--A bill to reauthorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 2: S. 52--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a parcel of real property to Beaver County, Utah. Agenda Item 3: S. 54--A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 4: S. 55--A bill to adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado. Agenda Item 5: S. 56--A bill to establish the Rio Grande Natural Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 6: S. 57--A bill to further the purposes of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000. Agenda Item 7: S. 97--A bill to provide for the sale of bentonite in Big Horn County, Wyoming. Agenda Item 8: S. 99--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract with the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the storage of the city's water in the Kendrick Project, Wyoming. Agenda Item 9: S. 101--A bill to convey to the town of Frannie, Wyoming, certain land withdrawn by the Commission of Reclamation. Agenda Item 10: S. 128--A bill to designate certain public land in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Lake, and Napa Counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICIER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Agenda Item 11: S. 136--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding and other services that are necessary to assist certain local school districts in the State of California in providing education services for students attending schools located within Yosemite National Park, and to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Agenda Item 12: S. 152--A bill to enhance ecosystem protection and the range of outdoor opportunities protected by statute in the Skykomish River valley of the State of Washington by designating certain lower-elevation Federal lands as wilderness, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 13: S. 161--A bill to provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership. Agenda Item 14: S. 164--A bill to provide for the acquisition of certain property in Washington County, Utah. Agenda Item 15: S. 182--A bill to provide for the establishment of the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center for Dinosaur National Monument in the States of Colorado and Utah, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 16: S. 272--A bill to designate certain National Forest System land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Agenda Item 17: S. 276--A bill to revise the boundary of the Wind Cave National Park in the State of South Dakota. Agenda Item 18: S. 301--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in implementing cultural heritage, conservation, and recreational activities in the Connecticut River watershed of the States of New Hampshire and Vermont. In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing regarding S. 131, Clear Skies Act 2005 and S. 125 to designate the United States courthouse at 501 I Street in Sacramento, CA as the ``Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse''. The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on the President's budget proposals.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 16, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hold a meeting on the foreign affairs budget.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.