Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I congratulate the Army Reserve's 652d Engineer Company from Ellsworth, WI, for winning the 2004 Department of Defense, DOD, Reserve Family Readiness Award. This award is given by DOD to only one unit from each Reserve component in recognition of their exceptional family support program. Our men and women in uniform continue to serve courageously around the world and make great sacrifices to do so. We owe these folks a great debt of gratitude. However, they are not alone in making these sacrifices--their families, too, bear a great burden. The families must not only deal with the emotional toll of having their loved ones serving in a dangerous area, they must also deal with the daily tasks that keep a family functioning. The toll can be especially great on Reserve Component families who have to deal with all sorts of challenges when their loved ones transition to active duty. The members of the 652d Engineer Company and their families personally know about sacrifice. Four of its members were killed in action during Operation Iraqi Freedom, including 2 on Christmas Day 2003, and 20 received Purple Heart Medals. The 652d Engineer Company's Family Readiness Group, FRG, provided crucial support to the families of these soldiers. We must also remember the confusion and uncertainty that was particularly acute with the early deployments. The FRG was key in helping families navigate through the many pre- and post-deployment issues. Their excellent work was an essential factor in allowing the 652d Engineer Company to carry out its mission. So, Mr. President, I want to thank the 652d Engineer Company and the FRG for their service and to congratulate them again on receiving this award and on a job well done.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have come to this floor repeatedly to talk about the ongoing crisis in our domestic manufacturing sector and about ways in which Congress should act to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs and the shuttering of domestic manufacturing companies. My State of Wisconsin has lost nearly 80,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs since 2000. The country has lost more than 2\1/2\ million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, including more than 25,000 jobs last month alone. And this hemorrhaging of jobs shows no signs of stopping. Much of this job loss can be blamed on the dismal trade policies of recent years, which have contributed to many American companies--some of them household names--moving their operations overseas or shutting their doors entirely. These policies have a ripple effect in the communities that have lost manufacturing plants. The closure of the local plant is felt not only by those who worked there and their families, but by the community as a whole. Mr. President, Florence, WI is a town in the far northeastern corner of my home State, just a few miles from the border with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. A few weeks ago, that small community got a sharp introduction to the realities of our country's trade policies. Pride Manufacturing, the world's largest maker of golf tees, announced that it would be closing down its plant in Florence and moving that operation and the hundred or so jobs that go with it to China. That announcement probably was not noticed by many people outside of my home State--one company in one small community in Wisconsin leaving for China does not raise many eyebrows in Washington or on Wall Street. But it is a serious matter for the families whose livelihood is directly affected by the move. And it will certainly have an impact on the community in which they live. Some families may try to stay, but some may be forced to look elsewhere for jobs. The local school district is already trying to cope with declining enrollment and the challenges of being a largely rural district. The prospect of losing additional families will only make matters worse. Local businesses that relied on the patronage of those families will be hit. Car dealers, grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores--everyone in that community will potentially be affected by the loss of Pride Manufacturing. There are too many stories like this taking place around my State and around our country. There are too many boarded-up factories and too many parents struggling to make ends meet and to provide for their children after the plant closes and the jobs go to other countries. Congress can and should do more to support these hard-working Americans and their employers. These are the people who are bearing the brunt of the bad trade agreements and other policies that have encouraged companies to close or to leave the United States. In response to this crisis, this week I am introducing a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. These measures alone will not solve this problem, but I believe that they represent a first step in helping to save a core sector of our economy. My first proposal would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters. It is a break with the so- called NAFTA model and instead advocates the kinds of sound trade policies that will spur economic growth and sustainable development. The major trade agreements into which our country has entered in recent years have resulted in a race to the bottom in labor standards, environmental standards, health and safety standards, in nearly every aspect of our economy. A race to the bottom is a race in which even the winners lose. We should ensure that future trade agreements do not continue down this perilous road. The principles set forth in this resolution are straightforward and achievable. These principles include: calling for enforceable worker protections, preserving the ability of the United States to enact and enforce its own trade laws, ensuring that foreign investors are not provided with greater rights than those provided under U.S. law, providing that food entering into our country meets domestic food safety standards, and preserving the ability of Federal, State, and local governments to maintain essential public services and to regulate private sector services in the public interest. Mr. President, my second bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers. The Buy American Act of 1933 is supposed to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and workers by buying American-made goods. This is an important law, but it contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for Government agencies to buy foreign-made goods. The Buy American Improvement Act would make it harder to waive the Buy American Act. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice. My bill would also, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to Congress. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act. And, in an effort to bring transparency and accountability to the process, it would require agencies to report on their purchases of foreign-made goods. It is bad enough that our trade policies have encouraged companies to shut down or relocate overseas. Many of the same flawed trade agreements that have sent American jobs overseas have also weakened the Buy American Act. Last year, the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Lieberman and I asked the GAO to study the effect of trade agreements on domestic source requirements such as those contained in the Buy American Act. That study, which was released this week, found that the Government is required to give favorable treatment to certain goods from a total of 45 countries as a result of 7 trade agreements and 21 reciprocal defense procurement agreements. In other words, at the same time that Congress has been paying lip service to the Buy American Act, it has been carving out exceptions to that Act in our trade and defense procurement agreements. It is time for Congress to step up and support efforts to strengthen, not undermine, the Buy American Act. In addition, Congress must make every effort to help workers who have lost their jobs as a result of our trade policies. Many of these workers require retraining for new jobs that will enable them to support their families. My third bill, the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act, would authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds, because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the fast-growing health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care in our communities. I hope that my colleagues will support each of my proposals, and I look forward to working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to find additional ways to support our domestic manufacturers and their employees. I know that there are towns like Florence, WI, all over the country, and I hope that we will finally act this Congress to support the jobs that are the bedrock of those communities.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Earlier this week, I introduced S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters, and S. 395, which would strengthen the Buy American Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained for jobs in high-demand health care fields. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin has lost nearly 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Nationally, the country has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors. There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system. In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's 11 workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets. I strongly support the work of these agencies and have urged the administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I regret that the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2006 does not provide adequate funding for WIA, and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my State and across our country receive the resources they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful. I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care. As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health. As our population ages, and the baby boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 1.2 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2010. As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. Currently, health services is the largest industry in the country, providing 12.9 million jobs in 2002. It is estimated that 16 percent of all new jobs created between 2002 and 2012 will be in health services. This accounts for 3.5 million new jobs--more than any other industry. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the surging job growth within health care will translate into a real need for workers) and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an additional 67,430 health care positions by 2012. This represents a 30 percent increase in jobs in health care, over twice the rate of growth for Wisconsin jobs overall. Mr. President, workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities. As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family oriented standard of living.'' I believe we need to support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, it ensures that the cost of these grants would be offset. This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities. I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, inc1uding the National Association of Workforce Boards, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, and the Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin. Mr. President, in order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Earlier this week, I introduced S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters, and S. 395, which would strengthen the Buy American Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained for jobs in high-demand health care fields. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin has lost nearly 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Nationally, the country has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors. There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system. In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's 11 workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets. I strongly support the work of these agencies and have urged the administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I regret that the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2006 does not provide adequate funding for WIA, and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my State and across our country receive the resources they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful. I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care. As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health. As our population ages, and the baby boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 1.2 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2010. As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. Currently, health services is the largest industry in the country, providing 12.9 million jobs in 2002. It is estimated that 16 percent of all new jobs created between 2002 and 2012 will be in health services. This accounts for 3.5 million new jobs--more than any other industry. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the surging job growth within health care will translate into a real need for workers) and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an additional 67,430 health care positions by 2012. This represents a 30 percent increase in jobs in health care, over twice the rate of growth for Wisconsin jobs overall. Mr. President, workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities. As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family oriented standard of living.'' I believe we need to support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, it ensures that the cost of these grants would be offset. This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities. I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, inc1uding the National Association of Workforce Boards, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, and the Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin. Mr. President, in order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the second in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Yesterday, I submitted S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters. The bill that I am introducing today, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing effort to find ways to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad. The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. This is an important law but, regrettably, it contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign- made goods. My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing act by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the Act and buy foreign goods. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice. I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, nearly 80,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my state since 2000. And the country has lost more than two-and-one-half million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, including more than 25,000 jobs last month alone. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows no signs of stopping. Congress should do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods. There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill addresses four of them The first of these waivers allows an agency head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a procurement up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal contract. The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured. I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors. The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United States, such as in a time of war. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining articles that are used on regular basis outside the U.S., or that are not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source--including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the company that will do the work overseas. The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such a waiver, determine whether domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available domestically. My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, and Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act--a requirement that we have imposed on executive agencies. Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content standard qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American- made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a minimum of 75 percent. In addition, my bill would make permanent the expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was extended as part of the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending bill. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign- and domestic-made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and accountability in the waiver process. The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to include the following information: the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet. My bill also seeks to prevent dual-use technologies from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries of concern by prohibiting the awarding of overseas contracts or sub-contracts that would require the transfer of information relating to any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the Export Administration Act process. It only makes sense that we would not award contracts that require the transfer of sensitive technology without following our own export licensing process. It is possible that this technology could later be used by some countries to make their own products to sell to countries that cannot obtain such goods from the United States. This loophole in our export control laws should be closed. Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would require to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all federal agencies. I am pleased that my legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups. The groups are committed to ensuring that we have a strong domestic manufacturing base that provides good-paying, stable jobs for American workers, and they include Save American Manufacturing, the national and Wisconsin AFL-CIO, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, and the United Auto Workers. In addition to strengthening the Buy American Act, Congress should support trade agreements that do not undermine it. As I have repeatedly stated on this floor, Congress and Administrations of both parties have a dismal record of promoting trade agreements that send American jobs overseas. And many of those same flawed trade agreements have repeatedly weakened the Buy American Act and other domestic preference laws. Last year, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Lieberman, and I asked the GAO to study the effect of trade agreements on domestic source requirements such as those contained in the Buy American Act. That study found that the United States government is required to give favorable treatment to certain goods from a total of 45 countries as a result of trade agreements and reciprocal defense procurement agreements. The report notes that the United States is a party to seven trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement, that prevents the U.S. from applying domestic preference laws fully. The report also identifies 21 Department of Defense (DoD) Memoranda of Understanding that allow DoD to procure goods and services from foreign countries. The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws. By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem, I believe that one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the second in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Yesterday, I submitted S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters. The bill that I am introducing today, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing effort to find ways to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad. The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. This is an important law but, regrettably, it contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign- made goods. My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing act by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the Act and buy foreign goods. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice. I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, nearly 80,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my state since 2000. And the country has lost more than two-and-one-half million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, including more than 25,000 jobs last month alone. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows no signs of stopping. Congress should do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods. There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill addresses four of them The first of these waivers allows an agency head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a procurement up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal contract. The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured. I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors. The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United States, such as in a time of war. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining articles that are used on regular basis outside the U.S., or that are not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source--including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the company that will do the work overseas. The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such a waiver, determine whether domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available domestically. My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, and Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act--a requirement that we have imposed on executive agencies. Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content standard qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American- made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a minimum of 75 percent. In addition, my bill would make permanent the expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was extended as part of the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending bill. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign- and domestic-made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and accountability in the waiver process. The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to include the following information: the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet. My bill also seeks to prevent dual-use technologies from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries of concern by prohibiting the awarding of overseas contracts or sub-contracts that would require the transfer of information relating to any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the Export Administration Act process. It only makes sense that we would not award contracts that require the transfer of sensitive technology without following our own export licensing process. It is possible that this technology could later be used by some countries to make their own products to sell to countries that cannot obtain such goods from the United States. This loophole in our export control laws should be closed. Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would require to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all federal agencies. I am pleased that my legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups. The groups are committed to ensuring that we have a strong domestic manufacturing base that provides good-paying, stable jobs for American workers, and they include Save American Manufacturing, the national and Wisconsin AFL-CIO, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, and the United Auto Workers. In addition to strengthening the Buy American Act, Congress should support trade agreements that do not undermine it. As I have repeatedly stated on this floor, Congress and Administrations of both parties have a dismal record of promoting trade agreements that send American jobs overseas. And many of those same flawed trade agreements have repeatedly weakened the Buy American Act and other domestic preference laws. Last year, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Lieberman, and I asked the GAO to study the effect of trade agreements on domestic source requirements such as those contained in the Buy American Act. That study found that the United States government is required to give favorable treatment to certain goods from a total of 45 countries as a result of trade agreements and reciprocal defense procurement agreements. The report notes that the United States is a party to seven trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement, that prevents the U.S. from applying domestic preference laws fully. The report also identifies 21 Department of Defense (DoD) Memoranda of Understanding that allow DoD to procure goods and services from foreign countries. The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws. By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem, I believe that one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am resubmitting a measure to help begin to address one of the central problems our Nation faces, namely the loss of family-supporting jobs because of our flawed trade policies. Florence, WI is a town in the far northeastern corner of my home State. It is just a few miles from the border with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Like most Americans, the residents of Florence are probably too busy with their own lives to pay close attention to the trade policies of our Nation. But a few weeks ago, a hundred families in that small community got a sharp introduction to the realities of those policies. Pride Manufacturing, the world's largest maker of golf tees, announced that it would be closing down its plant in Florence, and moving that operation and the hundred or so jobs that go with it to China. That announcement probably wasn't noticed by many people outside of my home State--one company in one small community in the far northeastern corner of Wisconsin leaving for China doesn't raise many eyebrows in Washington or Wall Street. But it is a serious matter for the families whose livelihood is directly affected by the move. And it will certainly have an impact on the community in which they live. Some families may try to stay, but some may be forced to look elsewhere for jobs. The local school district is already trying to cope with declining enrollment and the challenges of a largely rural district. The prospect of losing additional families will only make matters worse. Local businesses that relied on the custom of those families will be hit. Car dealers, grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores, everyone will be potentially impacted. All because a local business is closing down as a result of the trade policies of this government. We have seen that story repeated across Wisconsin. Our manufacturing sector has been hit particularly hard. And I know Wisconsin is not alone in that experience. The record of the major trade agreements into which our Nation has entered over the past few years has been dismal. Thanks in great part to the flawed fast track rules that govern consideration of legislation implementing trade agreements, the United States has entered into a number of trade agreements that have contributed to the significant job loss we have seen in recent years, and have laid open to assault various laws and regulations established to protect workers, the environment, and our health and safety. Indeed, those agreements undermine the very democratic institutions through which we govern ourselves. The loss of jobs, especially manufacturing jobs, to other countries has been devastating to Wisconsin, and to the entire country. When I opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China, and other flawed trade measures, I did so in great part because I believed they would lead to a significant loss of jobs. But even as an opponent of those agreements, I don't think I could have imagined just how bad things would get in so short a time. The trade policy of this country over the past several years has been appalling. The trade agreements into which we have entered have contributed to the loss of key employers, ravaging entire communities. But despite that clear evidence, we continue to see trade agreements being reached that will only aggravate this problem. This has to stop. We cannot afford to pursue trade policies that gut our manufacturing sector and send good jobs overseas. We cannot afford to undermine the protections we have established for workers, the environment, and our public health and safety. And we cannot afford to squander our democratic heritage by entering into trade agreements that supersede our right to govern ourselves through open, democratic institutions. The legislation I am pleased to reintroduce today addresses this problem, at least in part. It establishes some minimum standards for the trade agreements into which our nation enters. I introduced an identical resolution in the last Congress as a companion to a resolution introduced in the other body by my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown). This measure sets forth principles for future trade agreements. It is a break with the so called NAFTA model, and instead advocates the kinds of sound trade policies that will spur economic growth and sustainable development. The principles set forth in this resolution are not complex. They are straightforward and achievable. The resolution calls for enforceable worker protections, including the core International Labor Organization standards. It preserves the ability of the United States to enact and enforce its own trade laws. It protects foreign investors, but states that foreign investors should not be provided with greater rights than those provided under U.S. law, and it protects public interest laws from challenge by foreign investors in secret tribunals. It ensures that food entering into our country meets domestic food safety standards. It preserves the ability of Federal, State, and local governments to maintain essential public services and to relate private sector services in the public interest. It requires that trade agreements contain environmental provisions subject to the same enforcement as commercial provisions. It preserves the right of Federal, State, and local governments to use procurement as a policy tool, including through Buy American laws, environmental laws such as recycled content, and purchasing preferences for small, minority, or women-owned businesses. It requires that trade negotiations and the implementation of trade agreements be conducted openly. These are sensible policies. They are entirely consistent with the goal of increased international commerce, and in fact they advance that goal. The outgrowth of the major trade agreements I referenced earlier has been a race to the bottom in labor standards, environmental health and safety standards, in nearly every aspect of our economy. A race to the bottom is a race in which even the winners lose. For any who doubt this, I invite you to ask the families in Florence, WI who will watch their jobs move to China. We can't let this continue to happen. We need to turn our trade policies around. We need to pursue trade agreements that will promote sustainable economic growth for our Nation and for our trading partners. The resolution I submit today will begin to put us on that path, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have restored the full 5 minutes I was originally given.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to have the 5 minutes restored. I would appreciate that, because the chairman who is handling this bill on the floor asked me to stay in committee and finish the bankruptcy hearing. I feel justified in asking for my time to be restored.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, everyone understands that this bill will allow many more class actions to be removed from State to Federal court, but as the supporters have been proclaiming all week long, there are still class actions that belong in State court, even under this bill. Unfortunately, that may not stop defendants from removing cases that should still be in State court. When a notice of removal is filed, the case is removed to Federal court. There is no proceeding in the State court to make sure the removal is proper. It is up to the Federal court to decide that question, but only if the plaintiffs file a motion to remand to return the case back to the State court. The amendment I have offered is designed simply to make sure that this process of removal and remand does not become a tool for delaying cases that actually belong in State court. It requires a district court to take a look at a motion to remand within 60 days of filing and then do one of two things: Decide it, which I hope will be possible in almost all cases, or issue an order stating why a decision is not yet possible. If the court issues that order, it must then reach a decision within 180 days of filing. The parties can agree on an extension of any length. I want to make this clear because I heard Senator Grassley responding to my original argument when I came on the floor. The amendment before us actually gives the court a great deal of flexibility. It will also assure that a motion to remand does not languish for months, or even years, before a court reviews it and says, oops, this case really should be back in State court. As I noted last night, we have many examples of remand motions sitting unresolved for a year and then the case goes back to State court. As the Senator from Iowa pointed out, the Judicial Conference did oppose my amendment in committee that had a strict limit of 60 days, but what I have done to try to accommodate this concern, which I believe moves in their direction, is tripled that limit in the pending amendment. I think that is eminently reasonable, as the Senator from Delaware, a strong supporter of this bill, acknowledged last night on this floor. The bill itself provides that appeals of remand motions must be decided within 60 days. So why would there be any substantive argument against having a similar limitation at the district court level? I heard the Senator from Utah suggesting that somehow my amendment denies due process, but I suggest that 180 days is enough time to handle any remand motion. That is time for discovery and for an evidentiary hearing. The problem is that without a deadline, the motion can sit there for a year or longer without any action. What I am hearing from some of my colleagues who support the bill and recognize that what I am trying to do is reasonable is that they cannot upset the delicate agreement that has been reached with the House. On this one, I cannot accept that. It makes no sense to me that Senators would give up their independent judgment because of a fear of the leadership of the other body. Does anyone think, after everything this bill has been through, that the House leadership is going to refuse to pass this bill if my very reasonable amendment, simply making sure that motions to remand are decided on time, is included? Are they going to further delay this bill for this? I do not think so. This amendment does not blow the bill up. It is not a poison pill. Everyone I have talked to says this amendment basically makes sense. So I implore my colleagues to exercise their own good judgment, accept this amendment, and persuade their colleagues on the House side and the business community, which several of my colleagues have told me privately, that this amendment makes sense. It does not harm the bill. In fact, it makes the bill better because it means all the cases we agree on should remain in State court will actually proceed in State court without delay. I thank the Chair for according me this additional time. I yield the floor, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if we are going to pass this bill, I think we should do all we can to ensure citizens get their day in court promptly, whether it is in a Federal court or a State court. We are all familiar with the adage that justice delayed is justice denied. So we cannot let this bill become a vehicle for delay. The bill includes complicated requirements for determining which cases can be removed to Federal court. We need to make sure the cases that belong in State court under this bill do not get caught up in some kind of procedural wrangling that would effectively deny justice to the plaintiffs through delay. Current Federal court practice allows a case filed in a State court to be automatically removed to Federal court by the filing of a notice of removal. If a party believes the case does not belong in Federal court, it can then remove in Federal court to remand or return the case to the State court. Under current law, when a Federal district court decides to grant a motion to remand the case back to State court, right now that order is not appealable. S. 5, the bill before us, makes such orders appealable for the first time in over a century. Due to the efforts of Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd, and Senator Landrieu, the bill requires the court of appeals to decide appeals of remand orders within 60 days unless the parties agree otherwise. This 60-day time limit recognizes that there is a potential for delay that these newly permitted appeals could cause and that there is a need for courts to resolve quickly at the appellate level the issue of where a case will be heard. I strongly support this idea of a time limit for decisions on appeals. But it also highlights another great potential for delay that is caused by this bill. Before that 60-day clock begins to run on an appeal, the district court must first rule on the motion to remand the case to State court. Unfortunately, some courts take a great deal of time to decide motions to remand. The result is simply putting a case in limbo. Take, for example, the case of Lizana v. DuPont. In this case, cancer victims in Mississippi allege they became sick because they lived next door to a DuPont manufacturing plant. DuPont then removed the case to Federal court on January 21, 2003, and the victims then moved to remand the case to State court. The Federal district court finally granted the victims' motion, a year after the motion to remand was filed. In an Oklahoma case called Gibbons v. Sprint, a group of consumers filed a case against Sprint for installing cable lines across their land without giving proper notice or paying compensation to the landowners. Sprint then removed the case to Federal court. A remand motion was filed on October 4, 1999, and was granted, but only after a delay of nearly a year. These are real-life examples of how an improper removal can end up delaying a case for a significant period of time. By rewriting diversity jurisdiction rules in this bill, we are handing defendants a tool for delay, even if they do not actually qualify to have their cases removed. So we need to make sure that in cases that are removed from State courts as a result of this bill, remand motions are decided promptly. At the very least, we should require that the courts review these motions and decide them quickly, if they can. The amendment that I offered in the Judiciary Committee would have placed a 60-day time limit on district court consideration of motions to remand. This is the same limit that the new bill places on courts of appeals when decisions on motions to remand are appealed. My committee also adopted the other components of the bill's provision on appeals. It allowed all parties to agree to an extension of any length and allows the court to take an additional 10 days for good cause shown. If courts of appeals are going to be required to rule on appeals of decisions on motions to remand in short order, I thought we should require district courts to make those decisions just as quickly. That way, we could be sure that removals will not be used as a tool for delay. On Monday, the Judicial Conference sent a letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee concerning my amendment. Not surprisingly, it opposes the amendment. The Judicial Conference historically has opposed, as it says in its letter, ``statutory imposition of litigation priority, expediting requirements, or time limitation rules in specified types of civil cases.'' In other words, judges do not like being told by Congress how to prioritize their cases or how quickly they should do their work. And I do not blame them. But we do it when we think it is important. And here we are sending a potentially large new number of cases to Federal court. We are increasing the workload of the Federal courts, making it more likely cases will be delayed because of crowded dockets. What the committee amendment did was to require the courts to quickly assess whether a case belongs in Federal court, whether this bill applies to it. I do not think that amendment of mine was unreasonable at all. On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the concern expressed by the Judicial Conference that in some cases 60 days may not be enough time to decide the motion. Its letter points out that, in some cases, an evidentiary hearing might be required and the time to fully brief the motion may exhaust a portion of this 60-day period. My committee amendment allowed for an automatic 10-day extension and an extension of any amount if both sides agree. I have read the letter from the Judicial Conference and I am trying to come to a reasonable solution. I accept the possibility that the changes I have made to date perhaps are not enough. So I am not wedded to the 60-day period itself. What I am wedded to is the idea that these motions should not be permitted to languish unexamined for months and months. I have made further modifications to the amendment that I offered in committee in the hope that the sponsors of the bill would be willing to work with me to reach an accommodation on this issue. The amendment I have proposed on the floor requires the district court to do one of two things within 60 days of a motion to remand being filed. First, the court can decide the motion. I hope many, if not most, motions to remand could be decided that quickly. But under my amendment before the body, the court has another option under this amendment. It can issue an order within a 60-day time period indicating why a decision within that time cannot be made. Perhaps the reason is that the factual record cannot be completed within that time, or that other pressing matters must receive priority in light of the court's full docket. The amendment does not presume to specify what reasons are good or adequate reasons. The justification is entirely within the court's discretion, but it must give some explanation, some reason in an order that would be issued within this 60-day period. If such an order is issued, the court is then allowed, under the amendment before the body, to issue a decision up to 180 days after the filing of the motion. That gives the court a full 6 months to make a decision. I argue that should be enough time for even the most complex of remand motions. Once again, an extension of any length is permitted if all the parties to the case agree. I believe these changes more than address the concerns raised by the Judicial Conference, but they also make sure that a remand motion will not languish for more than 6 months because the court simply has not gotten around to it. My hope is that the requirement that an order be issued within the 60 days will make it more likely that the court will devote enough time to the motion to realize that it is possible for a final decision to be reached within that time. If more time is needed, 180 days should be more than sufficient. A 6-month time limit will not cause undue hardship to our Federal courts. For those who doubt that removal will become a tool for delay, let me call their attention to testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by legal scholar Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell Law School. Professor Eisenberg testified that his research has found that even though the number of class action lawsuits is declining, efforts to remove cases are not. More importantly, he found that remand rates are increasing over time. In recent years, more than 20 percent of diversity tort cases removed to Federal court have been remanded to State court. Now, that means that one out of five removals are improper. We have no way of knowing what will happen under this bill. Perhaps some of the 20 percent will now be properly removed to Federal court. But given the complexity of the bill's new requirements, I think it is safe to assume that a significant number of removals will still turn out to be improper. Once a district court decides to remand a case, that remand order will almost certainly be appealed. Plaintiffs with legitimate class actions in State court therefore need the additional protection provided by my amendment in order to avoid being unfairly harmed by this bill. Some time limit on district court consideration of remand motions in class action cases is critical to minimize the denial of justice to citizens who legitimately turn to the State courts, even under this bill, to have their grievances heard. I know there is tremendous opposition to any attempt to perfect this bill on the floor because of concerns about the other body, but I implore my colleagues who support the bill to not let their no- amendment strategy prevent them from taking a hard look at this problem. Do we want to leave unaddressed the possibility that a case could sit in Federal court with a motion to remand pending for a year or more, only to have the case properly returned to State court once the court finally takes a look at the motion? Is that a just result? I am convinced that we can work at something if my colleagues will simply take a quick look at this issue with an open mind. This amendment does not even come close to blowing this bill up. It is certainly not a poison pill. It is just an effort to make the bill work better, and surely the supporters of this bill should have the flexibility to do that. This bill is called the Class Action Fairness Act. To be fair to people seeking justice from courts, we should ask the courts to act quickly on remand motions at both the court of appeals and district court levels. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me say I appreciate the comments of my friend from Connecticut, as I always do. I just want to point out that the amendment I have offered, as opposed to the one I offered in committee, has increased the time for deciding these motions from 60 days to 180 days. Surely 6 months is plenty of time, even in a complicated motion. So I believe the concerns of the Judicial Conference have been addressed, unless we in the Congress are going to go along with the idea there should be no time limit at all. At this point I simply leave it at that, hoping that prior to the time of actually voting on the amendment tomorrow I would have a few minutes to repeat and reiterate my position on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his kind remarks and for his genuine efforts to try to reach an accord. It is a shame when we have the chairman of the committee admitting that this ought to be dealt with, and one of the great advocates of this legislation admitting that this is just a question of fixing something, we can't get it done. There is something wrong with the way we are proceeding when we can't fix something that basically nobody is really against if we do it right. I recognize what is likely to happen in the vote. But I take the Senator at his word that he is hoping we can resolve it. Perhaps this is something that can still happen on this bill. If not, we have to resolve it another way. But I thank him for his sincere efforts to solve this problem. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I honor the accomplishments of Vel Phillips, a pioneer in Wisconsin history, who turns 81 on February 18. The celebration of Black History Month in the State of Wisconsin cannot be complete without including Vel. In 1951, Vel was the first African-American woman to graduate from the University of Wisconsin Law School. She and her husband Dale moved to Milwaukee, where they became the first husband-wife attorney team admitted to the Federal bar. Vel's is a household name in Milwaukee, where she was first inspired to run for office doing door-to-door voter registration. She was the first woman and first African American elected to the Milwaukee Common Council. Vel literally came under fire as she fought for open housing in Milwaukee, when gunshots left a bullet lodged in her oven. But no threats, no matter how real or how terrifying, could change Vel's unshakeable commitment to making Milwaukee a more just city and to making the world a better place. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``We must be the drum majors for peace,'' and Vel heeded his marching orders. She was arrested at a rally at the burned-out NAACP Freedom House, the site of a previous night's retaliatory firebombing. Two weeks before Dr. King's assassination, the Milwaukee Common Council passed the open housing bill. In 1971, Vel Phillips was appointed Wisconsin's first African- American judge. In 1978, she again reached another milestone with her election as secretary of state, first statewide office held by an African American. Now, at 81, Vel continues to make a difference in Milwaukee, and it is a privilege to call her a friend. Vel Phillips is a distinguished figure in the progress of the civil rights movement in Wisconsin. Her life of firsts and steadfast determination to make a difference is an inspiration to me and a reminder of the need to advance and protect the civil rights of all Americans as we celebrate Black History Month.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah. Mr. President, I oppose the Class Action Fairness Act, S. 5. Notwithstanding its title, I do not think this bill is fair. I do not think it is fair to citizens who are injured by corporate wrongdoers and are entitled to prompt and fair resolution of their claims in a court of law. I do not think it is fair to our State courts, which are treated by this bill as if they cannot be trusted to issue fair judgments in cases brought before them. And I do not think it is fair to State legislatures, which are entitled to have the laws that they pass to protect their citizens interpreted and applied by their own courts. This bill is not only misnamed, it is bad policy, and I do think it should be defeated. Make no mistake, by loosening the requirements for Federal diversity jurisdiction over class actions, S. 5 will result in nearly all class actions being removed to Federal court. This is a radical change in our Federal system of justice. We have 50 States in this country, each with its own laws and courts. State courts are an integral part of our system of justice. They have worked well for our entire history. It is hard to imagine why this Senate, which includes many professed defenders of federalism and the prerogatives of State courts and State lawmakers, would support such a wholesale stripping of jurisdiction from the States over class actions. By removing these actions from State court, Congress would shift adjudication away from State lawmakers and State judges towards Federal judges, who are often not as familiar with the nuances of State law. In my opinion, the need for such a radical step has not been demonstrated. Actually, the leaders of the Federal and State judiciary agree. I don't know if it has taken a position on this particular bill, but the Judicial Conference of the United States has opposed legislation like S. 5 that would remove most class actions from State to Federal court. Federal judges don't particularly like diversity jurisdiction cases. They certainly are not in favor of legislation that would bring many more large, complicated civil cases brought under State law to their courts. And the Board of Directors of the Conference of State Chief Court Justices expresses quite well the concerns of State judges about this bill. Its letter states: Absent hard evidence of the inability of the state judicial systems to hear and fairly decide class actions brought in state courts, we do not believe such a procedure [transfer of class actions to federal court] is warranted. . . . Our position is not new and it is consistent with the position of our counterparts in the federal judicial system. Class actions are an extremely important tool in our system of justice. They allow plaintiffs with very small claims to band together to seek redress. Lawsuits are expensive. Without the opportunity to pursue a class action, an individual plaintiff often simply cannot afford his or her day in court. But through a class action, justice can be done and compensation for real injuries can be obtained. Yes, I do agree, there are abuses in some class action suits. Some of the most disturbing have to do with class action settlements that offer only discount coupons to the members of the class and a big payoff to the plaintiffs' lawyers. I am pleased that the issue of discount coupons is addressed in the bill, because the bill we considered in October 2003 did nothing about that problem. The bill now requires that contingency fees in coupon settlements will be based on coupons redeemed, not coupons issued. Attorney's fees will also be determined by reasonable time spent on a case and will be subject to court approval. The bill also allows a court to require that a portion of unclaimed coupons be given to one or more charitable organizations agreed to by the parties. I do agree, these are all good changes, but they do not change my view that the bill, as a whole, unfairly interferes with the States' administration of justice. I appreciate that the supporters of S. 5 modified the new diversity jurisdiction rules for class actions in an effort to allow plaintiffs in State class actions more opportunities to remain in State court. Under the new bill, a district court must decline jurisdiction if two- thirds of the plaintiffs and the primary defendants are from the State where the action was filed, and there is at least one defendant who is a citizen of that State from whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed class. In addition, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct of each defendant must have occurred in the State in which the action was originally filed. These criteria are an improvement on the underlying bill. But the jurisdictional requirements for class actions to remain in State courts are still too burdensome. Under the new language, for example, a class action brought by Wisconsin citizens against a Delaware-based company for selling a bad insurance policy would probably be removed to Federal court even if Wisconsin-based agents were involved in selling the policies. In addition, the new bill provides that district courts can only decline jurisdiction if during the 3-year period preceding the filing of the action no other similar class action has been filed against any of the defendants even if the case is filed on behalf of other plaintiffs. Thus, the filing of a class action in one State court may lead to the successful removal of a similar case filed in another State on behalf of plaintiffs in that State. If a defendant is engaging in conduct in number of different States that violates the separate laws of those States, why shouldn't that defendant be held accountable in different State courts under different state laws? Do we really need the Federal courts to get involved in these State law cases? The bottom line is that this bill still sends the majority of class actions to Federal court. The proponents of this bill have chosen a remedy that goes far beyond the alleged problem. Furthermore, under S. 5, many cases that are not class actions at all are included in the definition of ``mass action,'' a new term coined by this bill. S. 5 simply requires that the plaintiffs be seeking damages of more than $75,000 for the case to be considered a mass action and, therefore, removable to Federal court. This provision unfairly limits State court authority to manage its docket and to consolidate claims in order to more efficiently dispense justice. A particularly troubling result of this bill will be an increase in the workload of the Federal courts. We all know these courts are already overloaded. In the 2004 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, for example, Chief Justice Rehnquist reported that the current budget crisis in the Federal judiciary has forced courts to impose hiring freezes, furloughs, and reductions in force. He noted that there is a dire need for additional federal judgeships to deal with the Federal courts' ever-increasing caseload. The Congress has led the way in bringing more and more litigation to the Federal courts, particularly criminal cases. Criminal cases, of course, take precedence in the Federal courts because of the Speedy Trial Act. So if you look at this bill in the context, the net result of removing virtually all class actions, civil cases, of course, to Federal court will be to delay those cases. There is an old saying with which everyone is familiar: ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' I hope my colleagues will think about that aphorism before voting for this bill. Let's think about the real world of Federal court litigation and the very real possibility that long procedural delays in overloaded Federal courts will mean that legitimate claims may never be heard. My colleagues who support this bill tend to dismiss these arguments. They say that the Federal courts will offer adequate redress for legitimate claims, that they will faithfully apply State laws. I certainly hope they are right because this bill seems to be headed for enactment. But if they are wrong, citizens and consumers will be the ones who suffer. One little-noticed aspect of this bill illustrates the possibilities for delay that the bill provides, even to defendants who are not entitled to have a case removed to Federal court under the bill's relaxed diversity jurisdiction standards. Under current law, if a Federal court decides that a removed case should be remanded, or returned, to State court, that decision is generally not appealable. It would be different under this bill, if it becomes law. This bill allows defendants to immediately appeal a decision by a Federal district court that a case does not qualify for removal to Federal court and should be remanded to State court. Fortunately, the revised bill now requires such appeals to be decided promptly. It does not, however, do anything about the fact that the lower court may take months or even years to make a decision on the motion to remand. That means that a plaintiff class that is entitled, even under this bill, to have a case heard by a State court may still have to endure years of delay while its remand motion is pending in the Federal district court. Where is the ``fairness'' in that? I plan to offer an amendment to address that problem, and I certainly hope the bill's sponsors and supporters will give it serious consideration. When I offered this amendment in the Judiciary Committee, I learned that a number of the supporters of the bill recognize the importance of the issue that my amendment raises. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee indicated that he would take a serious look at it and see if there is an accommodation that can be reached. So I did not seek a vote in committee on the amendment. I stand ready to negotiate on this issue and I hope there will be a serious effort here to reach agreement. We have heard a lot of talk on this floor about the need to pass this bill without amendment--without any amendment at all--to protect some kind of ``delicate balance'' with the House and with the corporate supporters of the bill like the Chamber of Commerce. I ask my colleagues who support this bill, why would you not support a reasonable amendment that will make this bill fairer to plaintiffs who bring cases that under the bill's own terms should remain in State court? Please don't let this so-called delicate balance override your duty as legislators to do what is right. It is important to remember that this debate is not about resolving questions of Federal law in the Federal courts. Federal question of jurisdiction already exists for that. Any case involving a Federal statute can be removed to Federal court under current law. This bill takes cases that are brought in State court solely under State laws passed by State legislatures and throws them into Federal court. This bill is about making it more time-consuming and more costly for citizens of a State to get the redress that their elected representatives have decided they are entitled to if the laws of their State are violated. Diversity jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different States has been with us for our entire history as a nation. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution provides: ``The judicial Power shall extend . . . to Controversies between Citizens of different States.'' This is the constitutional basis for giving the Federal courts diversity jurisdiction over cases that involved only questions of State law. The very first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, gave the Federal courts jurisdiction over civil suits between citizens of different States where over $500 was at issue. In 1806, in the case of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, the Supreme Court held that this act required complete diversity between the parties. In all other instances, the Court said, a case based on State law should be heard by the State courts. So this bill before us changes a nearly 200-year-old practice in this country of preserving the Federal courts for cases involving Federal law or where no defendant is from the State of any plaintiff in a case involving only State law. Why is such a drastic step necessary? Why do we need to prevent State courts from interpreting and applying their own State laws in cases of any size or significance? One frequent argument is that businesses cannot get a fair day in court because of renegade State court judges. Yet, there really is no evidence to back up these claims. Of the 3,141 counties, parishes, and boroughs in the State court systems of the United States, the so-called American Tort Reform Association could only identify nine jurisdictions that they consider ``unfair'' to defendants. Four other jurisdictions were declared as ``dishonorable mentions.'' But, the association only provided data on two of these jurisdictions--Madison County, IL, which the Senator from Utah was talking about, and St. Clair County, IL. The Senator from Utah cited statistics of increases in class action filings up through 2003. Yet in Madison County, the villain in the story told by the Senator from Utah, the number of class action filings has decreased by 30 percent between 2003 and 2004. So defendants have decided that State judges are unfair in two jurisdictions out of 3,000, but how does this constitute a crisis? The answer is simple there isn't one. Another argument we hear is that the trial lawyers are extracting huge and unjustified settlements in State courts, which has become a drag on the economy. We also hear that plaintiffs' lawyers are taking the lion's share of judgments or settlements to the detriment of consumers. But a recent empirical study contradicts these arguments. Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell Law School and Geoffrey Miller of NYU Law School recently published the first empirical study of class action settlements. Their conclusions, which are based on data from 1993-2002, may surprise some of the supporters of this bill. First, the study found that attorneys' fees in class action settlements are significantly below the standard 33 percent contingency fee charged in personal injury cases. The average class action attorney's fee is actually 21.9 percent. In addition, the attorneys' fees awarded in class action settlements in Federal court are actually higher than in State court settlements. Attorney fees as a percent of class recovery were found to be between 1 and 6 percentage points higher in Federal court class actions than in State court class actions. A final finding of the study is that there has been no appreciable increase in either the amount of settlements or the amount of attorneys' fees awarded in class actions over the past 10 years. The study, therefore, indicates that there is no crisis here, no explosion of huge judgments, no huge fleecing of consumers by their lawyers. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. It is a great piece of legislation for wrongdoers who would like to put off their day of reckoning by moving cases to courts that are less convenient, slower, and more expensive for those who have been wronged. It is a bad bill for consumers, for State legislatures, and for State courts. This bill seems not to be about class action abuses, but about getting cases into Federal court where it takes longer and is more expensive for plaintiffs to get a judgment. The cumulative effect of this bill is to severely limit State court authority and ultimately limit victims' access to prompt justice. Despite improvements made since the last time the Senate considered this bill, the bill will still place significant barriers for consumers who want to have their cases heard in State court. Remand orders are still appealable, and the mass tort definition does not protect State courts' authority to consolidate cases and manage their dockets more efficiently. All the elements outlined in the bill before us will result in the erosion of State court authority and the delay of justice for our citizens. Therefore, I cannot support this unfair ``Class Action Fairness Act'' bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers. Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 40.5 cents per mile. We are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services. But the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. A representative of one organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that dozens of volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging Federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. And the same is true for thousands of other non-profit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation. By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 40.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence. This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress in nearly every respect. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill in 1999, and it is essentially the same provision that passed the Senate as part of the CARE Act. At the time of the 1999 tax bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce in the Senate the Reasonable Notice and Search Act. This bill is nearly identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1701. It addresses Section 213 of the USA-PATRIOT Act, the provision of that important statute passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that has caused perhaps the most concern among Members of Congress and the public. Section 213, sometimes referred to as the ``delayed notice search provision'' or the ``sneak and peek provision,'' authorizes the government in limited circumstances to conduct a search without immediately serving a search warrant on the owner or occupant of the premises that have been searched. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, secret searches for physical evidence were performed in some jurisdictions under the authority of Court of Appeals decisions, but the Supreme Court never definitively ruled whether they were constitutional. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act authorized delayed notice warrants in any case in which an ``adverse result'' would occur if the warrant were served before the search was executed. Adverse result was defined as including: 1. endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; 2. flight from prosecution; 3. destruction of or tampering with evidence; 4. intimidation of potential witnesses; or 5. otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. This last catch-all category could apply in virtually any criminal case. In addition, while some courts had required the service of the warrant within a specified period of time, the PATRIOT Act simply required that the warrant specify that it would be served within a ``reasonable'' period of time after the search. It is interesting to note that this provision of the PATRIOT Act was not limited to terrorism cases. In fact, before the PATRIOT Act passed, the FBI already had the authority to conduct secret searches of foreign terrorists and spies with no notice at all under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Furthermore, the PATRIOT Act ``sneak and peek'' authority was not made subject to the sunset provision that will cause many of the new surveillance provisions of the act to expire at the end of this year unless Congress reenacts them. So Section 213 was pretty clearly a provision that the Department of Justice wanted regardless of the terrorism threat after 9/11. Perhaps that is why this provision has caused such controversy since it was passed. In 2003, by a wide bipartisan margin, the House passed an amendment to the Commerce-Justice- State appropriations bill offered by Representative Otter from Idaho, a Republican, to stop funding for delayed notice searches authorized under section 213. The size of the vote took the Department by surprise, and it immediately set out to defend the provision aggressively. Clearly, this is a power that the Department does not want to lose. I raised concerns about the sneak and peek provision when it was included in the PATRIOT Act. I did not, and still do not, believe there had been adequate study and analysis of the justifications for these searches and the potential safeguards that might be included. I did not argue then, however, and I am not arguing now that there should be no delayed notice searches at all and that the provision should be repealed. I simply believe that this provision should be modified to protect against abuse. My bill will do four things to accomplish this. First, my bill would narrow the circumstances in which a delayed notice warrant can be granted to the following: potential loss of life, flight from prosecution, destruction or tampering with evidence, or intimidation of potential witnesses. The ``catch-all provision'' in section 213, allowing a secret search when serving the warrant would ``seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial'' can too easily be turned into permission to do these searches whenever the government wants. Second, I believe that any delayed notice warrant should provide for a specific and limited time period within which notice must be given--7 days. This is consistent with some of the pre-PATRIOT Act court decisions and will help to bring this provision in closer accord with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under my bill, prosecutors will be permitted to seek 7-day extensions if circumstances continue to warrant that the subject not be made aware of the search. But the default should be a week, unless a court is convinced that more time should be permitted. Third, Section 213 should include a sunset provision so that it expires along with the other expanded surveillance provisions in Title II of the PATRIOT Act, at the end of 2005. This will allow Congress to determine if the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement has been correctly struck. Finally, the bill requires a public report on the number of times that section 213 is used, the number of times that extensions are sought beyond the 7-day notice period, and the type of crimes being investigated with this power. This information will help the public and Congress evaluate the need for this authority and determine whether it should be retained or modified after the sunset. These are reasonable and moderate changes to the law. They do not gut the provision. Rather, they recognize the growing and legitimate concern from across the political spectrum that this provision was passed in haste and presents the potential for abuse. They also send a message that Fourth Amendment rights have meaning and potential violations of those rights should be minimized if at all possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act. The bill is identical to the bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1507. This bill would amend Sections 215 and 505 of the USA-PATRIOT Act to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. It would set reasonable limits on the Federal Government's access to library, bookseller, medical, and other sensitive, personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA'') and related foreign intelligence authority. I am pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation. Millions of Patriotic Americans love our country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad, but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home. Much of our Nation's strength comes from our constitutional liberties and respect for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for our two and a quarter century history. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values, are what make our country worth fighting for as we strive to win the war on terror. Here at home, there is no question that the FBI needs ample resources and legal authority to prevent future acts of terrorism. But the PATRIOT Act went too far when it comes to the government's access to personal information about law abiding Americans. Even though in the end I opposed the PATRIOT Act, there were many provisions that I did support. And even in those provisions I sought to amend when the bill was debated, there was often some change that I supported. For example, Congress was right to expand the category of business records that the FBI could obtain pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek a court order to obtain only travel records--such as airline, hotel, and car rental records--and records maintained by storage facilities. The PATRIOT Act allows any business records to be subpoenaed. I don't quibble with that change. But what my colleagues and I do find problematic--and an increasing number of Americans who value their privacy and First Amendment rights agree with us--is that the current law allows the FBI broad, almost unfettered access to personal information about law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism or spying. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act requires the FBI to show in an application to the court that the documents are ``sought for'' an international terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. There is no requirement that the FBI make a showing of individualized suspicion that the documents relate to a suspected terrorist or spy. In other words, under current law, the FBI could serve a subpoena on a library for all the borrowing records of its patrons or on a bookseller for the purchasing records of its customers simply by asserting that they want the records for a terrorism investigation. Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, librarians and booksellers have become increasingly concerned by the potential for abuse of this law. I was pleased to stand with the American Booksellers Association and the Free Expression Network over 2 years ago when we first started to raise these concerns. Librarians and booksellers are concerned that under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seize records from libraries and booksellers in order to monitor what books Americans have purchased or borrowed, or who has used a library's or bookstore's internet computer stations, even if there is no evidence that the person is a terrorist or spy, or has any connection to a terrorist or spy. These concerns are so strong that some librarians across the country have taken the unusual step of destroying records of patrons' book and computer use, as well as posting signs on computer stations warning patrons that whatever they read or access on the internet could be monitored by the federal government. As a librarian in California said, ``We felt strongly that this had to be done. . . . The government has never had this kind of power before. It feels like Big Brother.'' And as the executive director of the American Library Association said, ``This law is dangerous. . . . I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy? There's no clear link between a person's intellectual pursuits and their actions.'' The American people do not know how many or what kind of requests Federal agents have made for library records under the PATRIOT Act. The Justice Department refuses to release that information to the public. But in a survey released by the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, about 550 libraries around the Nation reported having received requests from Federal or local law enforcement during the past year. About half of the libraries said they complied with the law enforcement request, and another half indicated that they had not. Americans don't know much about these incidents, because the law also contains a provision that prohibits anyone who receives a subpoena from disclosing that fact to anyone. In testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft stated that as of September 18, 2003, the Department of Justice had never used Section 215. The Department has not made that claim in public testimony since then, leading many to speculate that the provision has now been used. Whether it has been used once, or dozens of times, the problem with the section remains--it is too broad and does not permit adequate judicial supervision. There is a potential for overreaching that Congress must address. David Schwartz, president of Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops, the oldest and largest independent bookseller in Milwaukee, summed up well the American values at stake when he said: ``The FBI already has significant subpoena powers to obtain records. There is no need for the government to invade a person's privacy in this way. This is a uniquely un-American tool, and it should be rejected. The books we read are a very private part of our lives. People could stop buying books, and they could be terrified into silence.'' I would not claim that we have reached the point where people in this country are afraid to buy books, but section 215 is a tool that is unnecessarily broad. And it raises the specter of indiscriminate government snooping into the private lives of innocent citizens, which is an unnecessary distraction from the serious law enforcement work that is needed to fight terrorism. It is time to reconsider those provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are un-American and, frankly, unpatriotic. But my concerns with the PATRIOT Act go beyond library and bookseller records. Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek any records maintained by a business. These business records could contain sensitive, personal information--for example, medical records maintained by a doctor or hospital or credit records maintained by a credit agency. All the FBI would have to do is simply assert that the records are ``sought for'' its terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act goes too far. Americans rightfully have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their library, bookstore, medical, financial, or other records containing personal information. Prudent safeguards are needed to protect these legitimate privacy interests. The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act is a reasonable solution. It would restore a pre-PATRIOT Act requirement that the FBI make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy while leaving in place other PATRIOT Act expansions of this business records power. My bill will not prevent the FBI from doing its job. It recognizes that the post-September 11 world is a different world. There are circumstances when the FBI should legitimately have access to library, bookseller, or other personal information. I'd like to take a moment to explain how the safeguard in my bill would be applied. Suppose the FBI is conducting an investigation of an international terrorist organization. It has information that suspected members of the group live in a particular neighborhood. The FBI would like to obtain records from the library in the suspects' neighborhood. Under current law, the FBI could decide to ask the library for all records concerning anyone who has ever borrowed a book or used a computer, and what books were borrowed, simply by asserting that the documents are sought for a terrorism investigation. But under my bill, the FBI could not do so. The FBI would have to set forth specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a suspected terrorist. The FBI could obtain only those library records--such as borrowing records or computer sign-in logs--that pertain to the suspected terrorists. The FBI could not obtain library records concerning individuals who are not suspected terrorists. So, under my bill, the FBI can still obtain documents that it legitimately needs, but my bill would also protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. I might add that if, as the Justice Department says, the FBI is using its PATRIOT Act powers in a responsible manner, does not seek the records of law-abiding Americans, and only seeks the records of suspected terrorists or suspected spies, then there is no reason for the Department to object to my bill. The second part of my bill would address privacy concerns with another Federal law enforcement power expanded by the PATRIOT Act--the FBI's national security letter authority. The FBI does not need court approval to use this power. My bill would amend section 505 of the PATRIOT Act. Part of this section relates to the production of records maintained by electronic communications providers. Libraries or bookstores with internet access for customers could be deemed ``electronic communication providers'' and therefore be subject to a request by the FBI under its NSL authority. As I mentioned earlier, some librarians are so concerned about the potential for abuse by the FBI that they have taken matters into their own hands before the FBI knocks on their door. Some librarians have begun shredding on a daily basis sign-in logs and other documents relating to the public's use of library computer terminals to access the internet. Again, safeguards are needed to ensure that any individual who accesses the internet at a library or bookstore does not automatically give up all expectations of privacy. Like the section 215 fix I've discussed, my bill would require an individualized showing by the FBI of how the records of internet usage maintained by a library or bookseller pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy. Yes, the American people want the FBI to be focused on preventing terrorism. And, yes, it may make sense to make some changes to the law to allow the FBI access to the information that it needs to prevent terrorism. But we do not need to change the values that constitute who we are as a Nation in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We can protect both our Nation and our privacy and civil liberties. An increasing number of Americans are beginning to understand that the PATRIOT Act went too far. Four States and over 350 cities and counties across the country have now passed resolutions expressing opposition to the PATRIOT Act. And it's not just the Berkeleys and Madisons of this Nation, but other States and communities with strong conservative and libertarian values, such as Alaska and cities in Montana, that have passed such resolutions. I have many concerns with the PATRIOT Act. I am not seeking to repeal it, in whole or in part. In this bill, my colleagues and I are only seeking to modify two provisions that pose serious potential for abuse. The privacy of law-abiding Americans is at stake, along with their confidence in their government. Congress should act to protect our privacy and reassure our citizens. The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act bill is a reasonable approach to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Computer Trespass Clarification Act of 2005, which would amend and clarify section 217 of the USA-PATRIOT Act. This bill is virtually identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 2783. Section 217 of the PATRIOT Act addresses the interception of computer trespass communications. This bill would modify existing law to more accurately reflect the intent of the provision, and also protect against invasions of privacy. Section 217 was designed to permit law enforcement to assist computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking. The original Department of Justice draft of the bill that later became the PATRIOT Act included this provision. A section by section analysis provided by the Department on September 19, 2001, stated the following: ``Current law may not allow victims of computer trespassing to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring unauthorized attacks as they occur. Because service providers often lack the expertise, equipment, or financial resources required to monitor attacks themselves as permitted under current law, they often have no way to exercise their rights to protect themselves from unauthorized attackers. Moreover, such attackers can target critical infrastructures and engage in cyberterrorism. To correct this problem, and help to protect national security, the proposed amendments to the wiretap statute would allow victims of computer attacks to authorize persons `acting under color of law' to monitor trespassers on their computer systems in a narrow class of cases.'' I strongly supported the goal of giving computer system owners the ability to call in law enforcement to help defend themselves against hacking. Including such a provision in the PATRIOT Act made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the drafters of the provision made it much broader than necessary, and refused to amend it at the time we debated the bill in 2001. As a result, the law now gives the government the authority to intercept communications by people using computers owned by others as long as they have engaged in some unauthorized activity on the computer, and the owner gives permission for the computer to be monitored--all without judicial approval. Only people who have a ``contractual relationship'' with the owner allowing the use of a computer are exempt from the definition of a computer trespasser under section 217 of the PATRIOT Act. Many people-- for example, college students, patrons of libraries, Internet cafes or airport business lounges, and guests at hotels--use computers owned by others with permission, but without a contractual relationship. They could end up being the subject of government snooping if the owner of the computer gives permission to law enforcement. My bill would clarify that a computer trespasser is not someone who has permission to use a computer by the owner or operator of that computer. It would bring the existing computer trespass provision in line with the purpose of section 217 as expressed in the Department of Justice's initial explanation of the provision. Section 217 was intended to target only a narrow class of people: Unauthorized cyberhackers. It was not intended to give the government the opportunity to engage in widespread surveillance of computer users without a warrant. I should note that there is no specific evidence that the provision is being abused. But, of course, unless criminal charges are brought against someone as a result of such surveillance, there would never be any notice at all that the surveillance has taken place. The computer owner authorizes the surveillance, and the FBI carries it out. There is no warrant, no court proceeding, no opportunity even for the subject of the surveillance to challenge the assertion of the owner that some unauthorized use of the computer has occurred. My bill would modify the computer trespass provision in the following ways to protect against abuse, while still maintaining its usefulness in cases of denial of service attacks and other forms of hacking. First, it would require that the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizing the interception has been subject to ``an ongoing pattern of communications activity that threatens the integrity or operation of such computer.'' In other words, the owner has to be the target of some kind of hacking. Second, the bill limits the length of warrantless surveillance to 96 hours. This is twice as long as is allowed for an emergency wiretap. With four days of surveillance, it should not be difficult for the government to gather sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant if continued surveillance is necessary. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to annually report on the use of Section 217 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Section 217 is one of the provisions that is subject to the sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act and will expire at the end of 2005. We in the Congress need to do more oversight of the use of this and other provisions of PATRIOT Act in order to evaluate their effectiveness. The computer trespass provision now in the law as a result of section 217 of the PATRIOT Act leaves open the possibility for significant and unnecessary invasions of privacy. The reasonable and modest changes to the provision contained in this bill preserve the usefulness of the provision for investigations of cyberhacking, but reduce the possibility of government abuse. We must continually seek to balance the need for effective tools to fight crime and terrorism against the civil liberties of our citizens. The Computer Trespass Clarification Act strikes the right balance, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers. Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 40.5 cents per mile. We are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services. But the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. A representative of one organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that dozens of volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging Federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. And the same is true for thousands of other non-profit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation. By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 40.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence. This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress in nearly every respect. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill in 1999, and it is essentially the same provision that passed the Senate as part of the CARE Act. At the time of the 1999 tax bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce in the Senate the Reasonable Notice and Search Act. This bill is nearly identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1701. It addresses Section 213 of the USA-PATRIOT Act, the provision of that important statute passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that has caused perhaps the most concern among Members of Congress and the public. Section 213, sometimes referred to as the ``delayed notice search provision'' or the ``sneak and peek provision,'' authorizes the government in limited circumstances to conduct a search without immediately serving a search warrant on the owner or occupant of the premises that have been searched. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, secret searches for physical evidence were performed in some jurisdictions under the authority of Court of Appeals decisions, but the Supreme Court never definitively ruled whether they were constitutional. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act authorized delayed notice warrants in any case in which an ``adverse result'' would occur if the warrant were served before the search was executed. Adverse result was defined as including: 1. endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; 2. flight from prosecution; 3. destruction of or tampering with evidence; 4. intimidation of potential witnesses; or 5. otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. This last catch-all category could apply in virtually any criminal case. In addition, while some courts had required the service of the warrant within a specified period of time, the PATRIOT Act simply required that the warrant specify that it would be served within a ``reasonable'' period of time after the search. It is interesting to note that this provision of the PATRIOT Act was not limited to terrorism cases. In fact, before the PATRIOT Act passed, the FBI already had the authority to conduct secret searches of foreign terrorists and spies with no notice at all under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Furthermore, the PATRIOT Act ``sneak and peek'' authority was not made subject to the sunset provision that will cause many of the new surveillance provisions of the act to expire at the end of this year unless Congress reenacts them. So Section 213 was pretty clearly a provision that the Department of Justice wanted regardless of the terrorism threat after 9/11. Perhaps that is why this provision has caused such controversy since it was passed. In 2003, by a wide bipartisan margin, the House passed an amendment to the Commerce-Justice- State appropriations bill offered by Representative Otter from Idaho, a Republican, to stop funding for delayed notice searches authorized under section 213. The size of the vote took the Department by surprise, and it immediately set out to defend the provision aggressively. Clearly, this is a power that the Department does not want to lose. I raised concerns about the sneak and peek provision when it was included in the PATRIOT Act. I did not, and still do not, believe there had been adequate study and analysis of the justifications for these searches and the potential safeguards that might be included. I did not argue then, however, and I am not arguing now that there should be no delayed notice searches at all and that the provision should be repealed. I simply believe that this provision should be modified to protect against abuse. My bill will do four things to accomplish this. First, my bill would narrow the circumstances in which a delayed notice warrant can be granted to the following: potential loss of life, flight from prosecution, destruction or tampering with evidence, or intimidation of potential witnesses. The ``catch-all provision'' in section 213, allowing a secret search when serving the warrant would ``seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial'' can too easily be turned into permission to do these searches whenever the government wants. Second, I believe that any delayed notice warrant should provide for a specific and limited time period within which notice must be given--7 days. This is consistent with some of the pre-PATRIOT Act court decisions and will help to bring this provision in closer accord with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under my bill, prosecutors will be permitted to seek 7-day extensions if circumstances continue to warrant that the subject not be made aware of the search. But the default should be a week, unless a court is convinced that more time should be permitted. Third, Section 213 should include a sunset provision so that it expires along with the other expanded surveillance provisions in Title II of the PATRIOT Act, at the end of 2005. This will allow Congress to determine if the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement has been correctly struck. Finally, the bill requires a public report on the number of times that section 213 is used, the number of times that extensions are sought beyond the 7-day notice period, and the type of crimes being investigated with this power. This information will help the public and Congress evaluate the need for this authority and determine whether it should be retained or modified after the sunset. These are reasonable and moderate changes to the law. They do not gut the provision. Rather, they recognize the growing and legitimate concern from across the political spectrum that this provision was passed in haste and presents the potential for abuse. They also send a message that Fourth Amendment rights have meaning and potential violations of those rights should be minimized if at all possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act. The bill is identical to the bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 1507. This bill would amend Sections 215 and 505 of the USA-PATRIOT Act to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. It would set reasonable limits on the Federal Government's access to library, bookseller, medical, and other sensitive, personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA'') and related foreign intelligence authority. I am pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues have joined me as original cosponsors of this important legislation. Millions of Patriotic Americans love our country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad, but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home. Much of our Nation's strength comes from our constitutional liberties and respect for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for our two and a quarter century history. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values, are what make our country worth fighting for as we strive to win the war on terror. Here at home, there is no question that the FBI needs ample resources and legal authority to prevent future acts of terrorism. But the PATRIOT Act went too far when it comes to the government's access to personal information about law abiding Americans. Even though in the end I opposed the PATRIOT Act, there were many provisions that I did support. And even in those provisions I sought to amend when the bill was debated, there was often some change that I supported. For example, Congress was right to expand the category of business records that the FBI could obtain pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek a court order to obtain only travel records--such as airline, hotel, and car rental records--and records maintained by storage facilities. The PATRIOT Act allows any business records to be subpoenaed. I don't quibble with that change. But what my colleagues and I do find problematic--and an increasing number of Americans who value their privacy and First Amendment rights agree with us--is that the current law allows the FBI broad, almost unfettered access to personal information about law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism or spying. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act requires the FBI to show in an application to the court that the documents are ``sought for'' an international terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. There is no requirement that the FBI make a showing of individualized suspicion that the documents relate to a suspected terrorist or spy. In other words, under current law, the FBI could serve a subpoena on a library for all the borrowing records of its patrons or on a bookseller for the purchasing records of its customers simply by asserting that they want the records for a terrorism investigation. Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, librarians and booksellers have become increasingly concerned by the potential for abuse of this law. I was pleased to stand with the American Booksellers Association and the Free Expression Network over 2 years ago when we first started to raise these concerns. Librarians and booksellers are concerned that under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seize records from libraries and booksellers in order to monitor what books Americans have purchased or borrowed, or who has used a library's or bookstore's internet computer stations, even if there is no evidence that the person is a terrorist or spy, or has any connection to a terrorist or spy. These concerns are so strong that some librarians across the country have taken the unusual step of destroying records of patrons' book and computer use, as well as posting signs on computer stations warning patrons that whatever they read or access on the internet could be monitored by the federal government. As a librarian in California said, ``We felt strongly that this had to be done. . . . The government has never had this kind of power before. It feels like Big Brother.'' And as the executive director of the American Library Association said, ``This law is dangerous. . . . I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy? There's no clear link between a person's intellectual pursuits and their actions.'' The American people do not know how many or what kind of requests Federal agents have made for library records under the PATRIOT Act. The Justice Department refuses to release that information to the public. But in a survey released by the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, about 550 libraries around the Nation reported having received requests from Federal or local law enforcement during the past year. About half of the libraries said they complied with the law enforcement request, and another half indicated that they had not. Americans don't know much about these incidents, because the law also contains a provision that prohibits anyone who receives a subpoena from disclosing that fact to anyone. In testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft stated that as of September 18, 2003, the Department of Justice had never used Section 215. The Department has not made that claim in public testimony since then, leading many to speculate that the provision has now been used. Whether it has been used once, or dozens of times, the problem with the section remains--it is too broad and does not permit adequate judicial supervision. There is a potential for overreaching that Congress must address. David Schwartz, president of Harry W. Schwartz Bookshops, the oldest and largest independent bookseller in Milwaukee, summed up well the American values at stake when he said: ``The FBI already has significant subpoena powers to obtain records. There is no need for the government to invade a person's privacy in this way. This is a uniquely un-American tool, and it should be rejected. The books we read are a very private part of our lives. People could stop buying books, and they could be terrified into silence.'' I would not claim that we have reached the point where people in this country are afraid to buy books, but section 215 is a tool that is unnecessarily broad. And it raises the specter of indiscriminate government snooping into the private lives of innocent citizens, which is an unnecessary distraction from the serious law enforcement work that is needed to fight terrorism. It is time to reconsider those provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are un-American and, frankly, unpatriotic. But my concerns with the PATRIOT Act go beyond library and bookseller records. Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could seek any records maintained by a business. These business records could contain sensitive, personal information--for example, medical records maintained by a doctor or hospital or credit records maintained by a credit agency. All the FBI would have to do is simply assert that the records are ``sought for'' its terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act goes too far. Americans rightfully have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their library, bookstore, medical, financial, or other records containing personal information. Prudent safeguards are needed to protect these legitimate privacy interests. The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act is a reasonable solution. It would restore a pre-PATRIOT Act requirement that the FBI make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy while leaving in place other PATRIOT Act expansions of this business records power. My bill will not prevent the FBI from doing its job. It recognizes that the post-September 11 world is a different world. There are circumstances when the FBI should legitimately have access to library, bookseller, or other personal information. I'd like to take a moment to explain how the safeguard in my bill would be applied. Suppose the FBI is conducting an investigation of an international terrorist organization. It has information that suspected members of the group live in a particular neighborhood. The FBI would like to obtain records from the library in the suspects' neighborhood. Under current law, the FBI could decide to ask the library for all records concerning anyone who has ever borrowed a book or used a computer, and what books were borrowed, simply by asserting that the documents are sought for a terrorism investigation. But under my bill, the FBI could not do so. The FBI would have to set forth specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a suspected terrorist. The FBI could obtain only those library records--such as borrowing records or computer sign-in logs--that pertain to the suspected terrorists. The FBI could not obtain library records concerning individuals who are not suspected terrorists. So, under my bill, the FBI can still obtain documents that it legitimately needs, but my bill would also protect the privacy of law- abiding Americans. I might add that if, as the Justice Department says, the FBI is using its PATRIOT Act powers in a responsible manner, does not seek the records of law-abiding Americans, and only seeks the records of suspected terrorists or suspected spies, then there is no reason for the Department to object to my bill. The second part of my bill would address privacy concerns with another Federal law enforcement power expanded by the PATRIOT Act--the FBI's national security letter authority. The FBI does not need court approval to use this power. My bill would amend section 505 of the PATRIOT Act. Part of this section relates to the production of records maintained by electronic communications providers. Libraries or bookstores with internet access for customers could be deemed ``electronic communication providers'' and therefore be subject to a request by the FBI under its NSL authority. As I mentioned earlier, some librarians are so concerned about the potential for abuse by the FBI that they have taken matters into their own hands before the FBI knocks on their door. Some librarians have begun shredding on a daily basis sign-in logs and other documents relating to the public's use of library computer terminals to access the internet. Again, safeguards are needed to ensure that any individual who accesses the internet at a library or bookstore does not automatically give up all expectations of privacy. Like the section 215 fix I've discussed, my bill would require an individualized showing by the FBI of how the records of internet usage maintained by a library or bookseller pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy. Yes, the American people want the FBI to be focused on preventing terrorism. And, yes, it may make sense to make some changes to the law to allow the FBI access to the information that it needs to prevent terrorism. But we do not need to change the values that constitute who we are as a Nation in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We can protect both our Nation and our privacy and civil liberties. An increasing number of Americans are beginning to understand that the PATRIOT Act went too far. Four States and over 350 cities and counties across the country have now passed resolutions expressing opposition to the PATRIOT Act. And it's not just the Berkeleys and Madisons of this Nation, but other States and communities with strong conservative and libertarian values, such as Alaska and cities in Montana, that have passed such resolutions. I have many concerns with the PATRIOT Act. I am not seeking to repeal it, in whole or in part. In this bill, my colleagues and I are only seeking to modify two provisions that pose serious potential for abuse. The privacy of law-abiding Americans is at stake, along with their confidence in their government. Congress should act to protect our privacy and reassure our citizens. The Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act bill is a reasonable approach to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.