Peter Fitzgerald

Mr. FITZGERALD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I conclude by saying that Senator Paul Simon was a credit to the State of Illinois and a credit to the Senate, and we will miss him. God rest his soul and may God bless his widow and family. Exhibit 1 [From the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 28, 1997] In Praise of a Decent Former Politician (By R. Bruce Dold) One of my best lessons in southern Illinois politics came with Paul Simon's 1984 campaign for the U.S. Senate, the one where he dusted Sen. Charles Percy and made amends for his one big political loss, the 1972 bid for governor. Simon planned to hit about 13 towns in one day, moving from Vandalia to Cairo and over to Carbondale, with a brief stop at his Makanda home to show off his Lincoln book collection to the handful of reporters with him. He'd be meandering over a few hundred miles, which normally would require a helicopter. For Simon, all it required was Joe Bob Pierce. Joe Bob is something of a Renaissance man--an electric power lineman with a Baptist divinity school degree who can drive like a bat out of hell, that last talent being the one Simon required that day. So the trip went like this. We would drive to the Franklin county Courthouse public square, and Simon would give a little speech, and then he would do the real campaigning. This amounted to greeting each person in the crowd by her first name and inquiring about her children and her frail grandfather, and then moving on to the next soul with a hearty ``nice to see you.'' Then we would pile into Joe Bob's car and he would hit triple digit m.p.h. on Rt. 142 until we barreled into the parking lot of the Saline Valley Conservancy District, where Simon would do it all over again. And I realized by the second stop that he actually knew all of these people, and the ages of their kids, and the health status of their grandfathers. Simon wasn't supposed to win that election but he did, in part because he swept most of Southern Illinois. He's back home now after ending an impressive career in politics. He's believed to be the only person who ever served in the Illinois and U.S. House and Senate. On paper, his career makes no sense. Before politics, he was a newspaper editor who shook things up in a part of Illinois that liked things calm. He was too liberal for his congressional district, too liberal for this state, too liberal for Congress. He was a bigger-government advocate in a little-government era. Didn't matter. People thought he cared about them. He won his last Senate race by almost 1 million votes. A few Washington types, and a few well-known Chicago politicians, still believe it was an act, that Simon was just another pol who had perfected a gee-whiz persona and the public got snookered into buying it. And while I always liked Paul Simon, I was also suspicious enough of politics in general to keep alive the prospect that they might be right. OK, now that he's retired, it's safe to say that they are wrong. When Simon left the Senate and there was no electoral advantage to being pure, he still did the right thing. He turned down offers to lobby in Washington--one offer was for $600,000 a year to work for foreign governments. I'm taking his word on this--there's that suspicion rising again. But in the years I've known him he hasn't given me reason not to take his word. He also turned down several teaching offers at better-known schools around the country to take a job running the new Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, near his home. Nobody needs to hold a tag day for him, since he's drawing $120,000 a year from SIU. But they offered him $140,000 and he requested a $20,000 cut so he wouldn't be paid more than the chancellor. That's the kind of gesture that makes the political cynics snicker, and makes the rest of the world think Paul Simon is a very decent guy. Now that Simon's back home and doesn't have to be concerned about his own elections, he could be more of a political broker in this state. He proved he could transfer his credibility and popularity last year when Richard Durbin was a relatively unknown central Illinois congressman making his introductions to Chicagoans at the same time he was asking them to send him to the Senate. Nobody up here knew Richard Durbin from Richard Burton. But Simon's endorsement, repeated on television commercials, was gold. It gave Durbin instant credibility and carried him to the election. So Simon could throw his weight around. He intends not to. Other than supporting Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun's re-election bid, he's planning to lay low in politics. He could be a big factor in the Democratic primary for governor next year. Lots of people want to run. But it looks like Simon won't play the game. He told me this week he's been approached by several potential candidates, but doesn't plan to endorse anybody. He's happy teaching his government and non-fiction writing courses and doesn't want to taint his new institute with the smell of partisan politics. ``I anticipate I will be less involved in party activities than I was before,'' he said. ``I have to be reaching out to both political parties.'' For a political writer in Chicago, saying something kind about a politician is akin to volunteering to put a kick-me sign on your back. But here goes: the people were right all along, Paul Simon really is a very decent guy.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to report to my colleagues in the Senate the death of a former Member of this body, U.S. Senator Paul Simon from Illinois. Senator Simon died earlier today. He was 75 years old. This comes as a great shock to all of us who knew and loved Paul Simon. Earlier today, I had written him a get well note and sent him some flowers. It was announced a couple of days ago that he was going into the hospital for heart bypass surgery and also to have a leaky heart valve replaced. Apparently something happened during the surgery--I don't know what--but Senator Simon, unfortunately, passed away, and we all send our love and our prayers to his wife Patty, his children, his grandchildren, and to all his colleagues at Southern Illinois University where he will be missed greatly. Senator Simon's first wife, Jeanne, died a few years ago. I also had the privilege of knowing her. May God rest her soul as well. Senator Simon was a nationally known figure, primarily from his having been a candidate for the Presidency in 1988. In Illinois, he was truly a giant for many decades--three or four decades or more. He served both in the State house of representatives and the Illinois State Senate, as well as in the U.S. Congress and then later in the U.S. Senate. He is thought to be the only person from Illinois to have served in both houses of the Illinois Legislature and then in both Houses of Congress. He was also in the late sixties and early seventies the Lieutenant Governor from Illinois. On his last reelection race for the U.S. Senate, he won by over a million votes, with 65 percent. I believe he had the highest plurality of anybody running that year. He was an extraordinary figure, extremely popular, and extremely well respected, especially for his character and integrity. Many people may have disagreed with Senator Simon's policy positions on a variety of issues, but no one ever questioned his ethics and integrity. In fact, those who served with him in the Senate, I am sure, remember his famous bow ties. Those bow ties almost became a symbol of ethics and integrity in the State of Illinois because of Senator Simon. He was a remarkable man. He started in the early 1950s--maybe before that; maybe in the late forties--as a newspaper editor in southern Illinois. He was about 19 years of age when he was asked to take over a troubled newspaper in Troy, IL, in Madison County. He actually revived the newspaper by going after a corrupt gambling cabal in Madison County. He ultimately put together a string of some 13 newspapers that he sold in the 1960s, and then went from journalism into politics and government service; he never looked back. He had numerous legislative accomplishments in the U.S. Senate, including the Direct Student Loan Program, the job training partnership amendments, and many other initiatives across a wide spectrum of issues. Of course, he was very accomplished in the Illinois Legislature as well. Some people think they have done a lot when they have read a book. Senator Simon probably wrote as many books as most people have read. He is the author of at least 21 books, and maybe more than that. He had 55 honorary degrees. As I mentioned, he was a candidate for President in 1988. One of the most astonishing things about Paul Simon was that his ethics and integrity were not just an act. I think a lot of the professional politicians maybe didn't always appreciate him in Chicago, for example. They maybe thought his bow tie and his constant efforts to maintain the highest standards in Illinois and the Federal Government were an act. But you could see after he retired from the Senate when he was offered, reportedly by foreign governments, to become a high paying lobbyist--I think one foreign government offered him over $600,000 a year to become their lobbyist, and he was offered a variety of lucrative positions. He turned all that down so he could return to Makanda, IL, down in the southern part of the State where he came from so he could teach at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale and be a professor. He turned down higher paying professorships elsewhere in the country. He wanted to come back home and be at Southern Illinois University. He put together a wonderful public policy institute with some others there, including Mike Lawrence, who was the press secretary to our former Gov. Jim Edgar in Illinois. I was in the area down by SIU this past summer. I had dinner with Mike Lawrence and he was telling me how hard it was to keep up with Paul Simon. Even at his age, he was keeping a remarkable schedule. So it came as a great surprise to hear of his passing today. It is a great loss. We will all miss him. He was nothing but kind to me. Even though I was a member of the opposite party, Senator Simon last called me when I announced I would be retiring from the Senate. He was always courteous and kind in offering to help everyone he could. I remembered from long ago reading a column that was written about Paul Simon, which I thought was a fabulous testament to this wonderful man. The column was written in the Chicago Tribune on February 28, 1997. It was by R. Bruce Dold, entitled ``In Praise of a Decent Former Politician.'' This column is written by a journalist who had covered Senator Simon for many years, including following him around on his election campaigns and seeing his interaction with people all over the State of Illinois. This reporter wrote about how he was amazed that Senator Simon would come into a small town and say hi to everybody, and he would actually know the names of their children and how their grandfather was doing. Senator Simon had a genuine affection for people. He was a tireless worker. He held over 600 town meetings in his two terms in the Senate, which is a very tough pace to keep up with for any of us in the Senate. He was a remarkable man. I ask unanimous consent that this commentary written by R. Bruce Dold be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. As I stated during a Commerce Committee hearing on September 2, 2003 regarding this issue, the original lease transaction is nothing more than a complex, byzantine transaction that obscured the true cost of the tankers, reduced the transparency of the arrangement, and would unnecessarily cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. I commend the Senator from Arizona for his watchful eye over the negotiation and execution of this tanker deal. I also commend Senators Warner and Levin for brokering the compromise agreement and putting the public interest ahead of a powerful special interest.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I understand that preliminary estimates suggest that buying no more than 80 tankers in a way that avoids lease-specific costs could save taxpayers as much as $5.3 billion over the Air Force's original proposal to lease 100 tankers.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam President. Having used up my time, I will now yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, Senator Brownback from Kansas.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam President, I thank both my colleagues from Kansas. I appreciate the remarks that were just made by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I would like to go back to some of the statistics that have been cited in this debate. I guess I have been very troubled to hear on the radio this morning, on call-in radio, the figures being cited over and over again that were offered last night on the other side of the aisle. We kept hearing that they had only blocked four judges. Well, that is simply not true, and I think it is very important that the American people know that is not true. I have in my hands a chart that was prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that shows that of the Presidents going back to Carter, in 1977, through August 1, 2003, the Senate has blocked a higher percentage and a higher number of judges who were nominated by President Bush than any other President in the Nation's history--or at least going back to 1977. And I am sure nothing was going on prior to 1977 like what is going on today. The fact is, according to this survey, President Bush has nominated a total of 264 people to serve on the district and appellate courts in this country. As of August 1, 2003, only 144 of them have been confirmed. That is only 54 percent of the number of nominations made by President Bush. Now we need to break that down. Of district court nominees, President Bush, as of August 1, has nominated 185 nominees to the district court. Only 117 of them have been confirmed. That means the Senate had rejected or not acted on 68 of those district court nominees. With respect to the appellate courts, as of August 1, the President had nominated 79 appellate court judges and the Senate, as of August 1, only confirmed 27 of them. That is only 34 percent of the total. So that means 52 of President Bush's nominees to the appellate courts have been blocked by the Senate. My friends on the other side of the aisle have done something very clever. They have just arbitrarily decided they are only going to talk about judicial nominees who have been filibustered and blocked on the floor of the Senate and they are not going to talk about those whose nominations have been blocked in other ways, such as in committee. Thus, the American people have been given a misleading impression overnight. They have been misled into thinking the Senate has only blocked four nominees for the appellate courts. Well, it has been far more than that. As of August 1, it had been 52. I do not know what the figure would be right as of today, but I would have to tell you, if you compare it to the previous Presidents, the treatment of President Bush's nominees has been deplorable. Going back to President Carter, he nominated 61 appellate judges; 56 of them were confirmed. In other words, Carter, in 4 years, only had five appellate court nominees who did not make confirmation; 91 percent of his nominees were confirmed. President Reagan, who was a Republican President, served while there was a Democratic Congress. He had 81 percent of his appellate nominees confirmed. The first President Bush had 77.8 percent of his appellate court nominees confirmed. President Clinton had 56 percent of his appellate court nominees confirmed. If you get down to this President, George Bush, he only has had, as of August 1, 34 percent of his appellate court nominees confirmed. I am very concerned about what this means for our country. It could mean that a minority in the Senate is usurping for itself the power to control the Federal judiciary. Under our Constitution, the President is supposed to appoint the judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. We have some idea what the Constitution meant by that because Alexander Hamilton addressed the issue in Federalist Paper No. 76. He said the Senate's role is to refuse nominations only for ``special and strong reasons'' having to do with ``unfit characters.'' I do not even think anyone has made the argument that the nominees who have been blocked in the Senate in this Congress have been unfit. I think the arguments against their nominations have been more ideological; simply the other side does not agree with these people, suspects they may be conservative. Many of President Bush's nominees have been pro-life. I am concerned there may be a litmus test that is being applied on the other side, that they are simply not going to allow pro-life judges on our appellate courts. That is very troubling because that is upsetting our constitutional order that our Founding Fathers have made. The key point here is, I do not want the American people to come away with the impression that only four of President Bush's nominees have been blocked. The number is far higher. It is probably a total of over 100. Probably about 120 have been blocked. As of August 1, 68 district court judges have been blocked and 52 appellate court judges. So this whole thing about just four judges having been blocked is really nonsense, and we ought to set the record straight.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding the floor for a few moments. The Senator may wish to resume debate following my remarks. I want to present a counterpoint, I guess, to the opinions of my distinguished colleague. I think he made a very eloquent case in favor of why we should have class action lawsuits in this country, and I would simply point out to my colleagues that this bill does not in any way diminish our ability to have worthwhile class action lawsuits. In fact, I think the intent of the bill that is passed out of the Judiciary Committee and which Senator Hatch spoke about earlier this afternoon is, in fact, to make the process for class action suits better, fairer, and more beneficial to the plaintiffs. One of the things the bill would do is create a consumer bill of rights to protect the class action plaintiffs, the actual clients of the class action lawyers. We have all heard about cases in which a class action lawsuit is filed, and in the end, the defendant corporation settles for millions of dollars paid to the lawyer and all the clients, or the plaintiffs get a coupon or something of insignificant value. So contrary to the impression created by Senator Durbin, I want to make it clear to my colleagues that this bill does not in any way seek to do away with class action lawsuits. In fact, we seek to make them better and more beneficial to the plaintiffs, the clients themselves, and cut down on some of the abuses. I rise to support S. 1751, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003, and I do so today with a special interest in the commonsense fairness of this legislation. There is, in my State of Illinois, as mentioned by Senator Durbin, one of the infamous venues that have come to be commonly described as ``judicial hellholes,'' State courts where plaintiffs' lawyers know they can file abusive, frivolous, and even extortionate class action lawsuits against defendant companies operating nationwide and get results they could not get in the vast majority of fair jurisdictions elsewhere in the United States. It is an abuse that must stop. Under S. 1751, every person's right to file a lawsuit is preserved. Every current legal theory for relief may still be advanced. Under S. 1751, a class action lawsuit can be filed just as easily as it can be today. S. 1751 is a limited and commonsense approach to a widely recognized abuse in our judicial system. It simply makes truly national lawsuits easier to hear in Federal court, and it simply requires judges to take a close look before approving some of the greedier and more abusive features of class action litigation, such as coupon settlements that I mentioned at the outset, where lawyers get millions of dollars and class action members get virtually worthless coupons. My State has the dubious distinction of hosting one of the judicial hellholes to which Senator Durbin was referring. In fact, if anyone has been following the editorial page in the Wall Street Journal, they have written several editorials about this county. It is Madison County, IL. It is in southwestern Illinois, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis. If my colleagues have never been to Madison County, it is a suburban county with a surge in shuttered plants and steel mills and a new cottage industry in abusive class action litigation. Several recent studies have looked at class actions in the Madison County courts, and here is what they found: Over a 2-year period, the number of class actions in the county increased by 1,850 percent. In 1998, there were only two class actions filed in Madison County, a number consistent with a community with Madison County's size and economic base. During 2000, the number rose to 39. During 2001, 43 new class action lawsuits were filed, another 10-percent increase, and the upward trend is increasing. As of the middle of this year, Madison County was already up to 39--I think Senator Durbin said 43 cases--as of July of this year. That puts it on pace to break its own record. These findings suggest that Madison County has one of the highest class action filing rates in the country. Indeed, according to an article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Madison County has developed a nationwide reputation as the place to file nationwide class actions, even though it only has one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population. It has about 259,000 people. Here is another troubling statistic: In recent years, only a few thousand class actions were filed annually in the entire Federal court system. That amounts to a per capita rate of about 7.6 class actions for every million residents. In Madison County in 1999, the per capita rate of State court class actions was nearly 9 times higher, with about 61 class actions filed per million people. These are not local disputes. The vast majority of class actions in Madison County were brought on behalf of nationwide classes. The percentage seeking nationwide class action status is a whopping 81 percent. In Madison County, lawyers have sought to certify classes over the last 3 years that included all Sprint customers nationwide who have ever been disconnected on a cell phone call--I am sure that has happened to all of us--all RotoRooter customers nationwide whose drains were repaired by allegedly unlicensed plumbers, and all consumers in the Nation who purchased limited edition Barbie dolls that were later allegedly offered for a lower price elsewhere. Why were all these suits filed in Madison County? Why were they not filed in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, or State courts elsewhere in Illinois? Well, because a few lawyers have figured out that the judges in Madison County are very friendly to plaintiffs. It is no surprise that the same five firms appeared as counsel in approximately 45 percent of the cases filed during the 1999-to-2000 period, and that most of these firms are not located in Madison County. Of the 66 plaintiffs' firms that appeared in the Madison County cases filed during 1999 and 2000, 56, or 85 percent, listed office addresses outside of Madison County. These studies present a real mystery. Lawyers from all over the country are flocking to Madison County, IL, to file class actions on behalf of people who do not live in Madison County, against companies that do not reside in Madison County, concerning events that did not occur in Madison County. What is wrong with this picture? Does anybody really think that it is just an accident that these lawyers from all over the country are flocking into Madison County with their cases? As the Washington Post recently noted in an editorial criticizing class action abuses, having invented a client, the lawyers also get to choose a court. Under the current absurd rules, national class actions can be filed in just about any court in the country. Large, nationwide class actions should be in Federal court, not in some small county court in some remote location that has nothing to do with the parties or the case. This is an abuse of the system, plain and simple. We are nowhere near the outer perimeter of tort reform here. This is an easy one. This is common sense, a simple, honest, straightforward reform narrowly tailored to achieve fairer results in cases of truly national significance. I urge you, Mr. President, and all my colleagues, to support S. 1751. I yield the floor. If none of my other colleagues wishes to speak at this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act. I am joined in introducing this legislation by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, who serves as the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security, which I chair. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 2886 that Congressman Todd Platts, chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, introduced in the House of Representatives on July 24, 2003. The House bill has bipartisan support from the leadership of the House Government Reform Committee, including Chairman Tom Davis, Ranking Minority Member Henry Waxman, and the vice chairman and ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, Marsha Blackburn and Edolphus Towns. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is included in the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended, and is subject to the same audit requirements that currently apply to over 100 Federal agencies. Improving financial management in the Federal Government to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, has long been a priority for me. The Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act) is regarded as one of the most important statutes that contributes significantly towards accomplishing this objective. The original CFO Act required 24 Federal agencies to submit audited financial statements to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congress, thereby improving the accountability of Federal agencies to the taxpayer. In the 107th Congress I sponsored the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act that extended this audit requirement to all Federal agencies with budgets over $25 million, unless the Office of Management and Budget provided a waiver from the requirement. President Bush signed the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act into law on November 7, 2002, as Public Law 107-289. As my colleagues may know, an auditor may certify a financial statement as unqualified, also known as a clean audit, or as unqualified. An unqualified opinion means that an agency's financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows of the agency. A qualified opinion contains an exception to the standard opinion, but the exception is not of sufficient magnitude to invalidate the statement as a whole. Finally, an agency may also receive a disclaimer of opinion. A disclaimer is the worst case because it indicates that the agency's accounts are in such disorder that the auditor is not in a position to make any certification. This past year we have seen dramatic improvement by Federal agencies regarding their financial reporting and audit compliance. In February 2003, the Office of Management and Budget announced that a record 21 of the 24 CFO Act agencies submitted unqualified financial audits, including for the first time the Agriculture Department. As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I raised the issue of financial management with Secretary Ann Veneman at her nomination hearing on January 18, 2001, and stressed the importance of unqualified opinions. I was, therefore, pleased to see that the USDA received its first unqualified opinion this year, demonstrating remarkable improvement in the department's financial management. I also discussed financial management recently with the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Tom Ridge, when he testified before the Government Affairs Committee on May 1, 2003. At that time, Secretary Ridge assured me that financial management is a top priority for the Department, and every effort will be made to comply with the provisions of the CFO Act. While Secretary Ridge and the Office of Management and Budget have demonstrated their commitment to financial accountability, the bill I am introducing today will ensure that future secretaries and future administrations also will comply with the CFO Act. The legislation I propose will ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is subject to the same financial management requirements as all other cabinet departments by accomplishing the following: It will include the Department in the list of agencies covered by the CFO Act, and make necessary adjustments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 so that it is consistent with the provisions of the CFO Act; it will ensure that the Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Homeland Security is subject to the same requirements as all other similarly situated CFOs in cabinet-level departments by providing that the CFO is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate; it will require the CFO at the Department of Homeland Security to report directly to the Secretary and be a part of the statutorily created CFO Council; and it will require the Department of Homeland Security to include in each performance and accountability report an audit opinion of the Department's internal controls over its financial reporting. Application of the Chief Financial Officers Act to the Department of Homeland Security is essential to ensure that effective financial management and reporting requirements are adhered to by the newest, and one of the largest, cabinet-level departments in the Federal Government. The Department of Homeland Security is in the process of integrating 22 agencies, many with disparate financial systems and a number with their own CFOs. Inclusion of the Department within the management requirements of the CFO Act will help ensure that the financial process is properly managed by requiring full financial disclosure of the Department's financial activities. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill to protect against financial waste, fraud, and abuse within the Department of Homeland Security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act. I am joined in introducing this legislation by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, who serves as the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security, which I chair. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 2886 that Congressman Todd Platts, chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, introduced in the House of Representatives on July 24, 2003. The House bill has bipartisan support from the leadership of the House Government Reform Committee, including Chairman Tom Davis, Ranking Minority Member Henry Waxman, and the vice chairman and ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, Marsha Blackburn and Edolphus Towns. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is included in the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended, and is subject to the same audit requirements that currently apply to over 100 Federal agencies. Improving financial management in the Federal Government to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, has long been a priority for me. The Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act) is regarded as one of the most important statutes that contributes significantly towards accomplishing this objective. The original CFO Act required 24 Federal agencies to submit audited financial statements to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congress, thereby improving the accountability of Federal agencies to the taxpayer. In the 107th Congress I sponsored the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act that extended this audit requirement to all Federal agencies with budgets over $25 million, unless the Office of Management and Budget provided a waiver from the requirement. President Bush signed the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act into law on November 7, 2002, as Public Law 107-289. As my colleagues may know, an auditor may certify a financial statement as unqualified, also known as a clean audit, or as unqualified. An unqualified opinion means that an agency's financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows of the agency. A qualified opinion contains an exception to the standard opinion, but the exception is not of sufficient magnitude to invalidate the statement as a whole. Finally, an agency may also receive a disclaimer of opinion. A disclaimer is the worst case because it indicates that the agency's accounts are in such disorder that the auditor is not in a position to make any certification. This past year we have seen dramatic improvement by Federal agencies regarding their financial reporting and audit compliance. In February 2003, the Office of Management and Budget announced that a record 21 of the 24 CFO Act agencies submitted unqualified financial audits, including for the first time the Agriculture Department. As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I raised the issue of financial management with Secretary Ann Veneman at her nomination hearing on January 18, 2001, and stressed the importance of unqualified opinions. I was, therefore, pleased to see that the USDA received its first unqualified opinion this year, demonstrating remarkable improvement in the department's financial management. I also discussed financial management recently with the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Tom Ridge, when he testified before the Government Affairs Committee on May 1, 2003. At that time, Secretary Ridge assured me that financial management is a top priority for the Department, and every effort will be made to comply with the provisions of the CFO Act. While Secretary Ridge and the Office of Management and Budget have demonstrated their commitment to financial accountability, the bill I am introducing today will ensure that future secretaries and future administrations also will comply with the CFO Act. The legislation I propose will ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is subject to the same financial management requirements as all other cabinet departments by accomplishing the following: It will include the Department in the list of agencies covered by the CFO Act, and make necessary adjustments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 so that it is consistent with the provisions of the CFO Act; it will ensure that the Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Homeland Security is subject to the same requirements as all other similarly situated CFOs in cabinet-level departments by providing that the CFO is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate; it will require the CFO at the Department of Homeland Security to report directly to the Secretary and be a part of the statutorily created CFO Council; and it will require the Department of Homeland Security to include in each performance and accountability report an audit opinion of the Department's internal controls over its financial reporting. Application of the Chief Financial Officers Act to the Department of Homeland Security is essential to ensure that effective financial management and reporting requirements are adhered to by the newest, and one of the largest, cabinet-level departments in the Federal Government. The Department of Homeland Security is in the process of integrating 22 agencies, many with disparate financial systems and a number with their own CFOs. Inclusion of the Department within the management requirements of the CFO Act will help ensure that the financial process is properly managed by requiring full financial disclosure of the Department's financial activities. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill to protect against financial waste, fraud, and abuse within the Department of Homeland Security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

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

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, at 5:30 we are going to be voting on a nomination to the Federal bench for the northern district of Illinois. The nominee is Samuel Der-Yeghiayan from Vernon Hills, IL. Senator Durbin and I have recommended Samuel Der-Yeghiayan to President Bush, who has appointed Sam, and he has been confirmed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I will say a couple of words in support of his nomination. Since 1978, Mr. Der-Yeghiayan has worked in the United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service first as a trial attorney in Chicago, later as acting district director, acting trial appellate attorney, and for about 18 years the chief district counsel for the INS in Chicago. He has a very good reputation. Everyone, whether Republican or Democrat, from the many different communities in Chicago speaks very highly of Samuel Der-Yeghiayan. He has a very good reputation in legal circles in Illinois. Since the year 2000 he has been acting as an immigration review judge in the United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review. Sam Der-Yeghiayan has his JD degree from Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire. He was on the Law Review at Franklin Pierce. There is an interesting aspect to Mr. Der-Yeghiayan's background that I think makes him somewhat unique. I am advised that he would be the first immigrant of Armenian descent ever to be named to the Federal bench. Mr. Der-Yeghiayan is himself an immigrant, having come to this country at an early age, and has done very well. I am very proud of his nomination. I believe he is a very fine man, has a wonderful family, and he will be a great asset to our Federal judiciary. I thank my colleagues and I thank Senator Durbin for his support for the nominee.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session and that the nomination of Clay Johnson, to be Deputy Director for Management, OMB, be discharged from the Governmental Affairs Committee; I further ask consent that the Senate proceed to its consideration and the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 224 en bloc; further, that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 54, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

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

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 12. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill. The Graham amendment relating to the Outer Continental Shelf is currently pending to the energy bill. Under a previous agreement, when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill tomorrow morning, there will be up to 90 minutes of debate prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment. Therefore, the first vote of tomorrow's session will occur at approximately 11 a.m. In addition to the Graham amendment, the Senate will consider other amendments to the Energy bill, and Members should expect rollcall votes throughout the day.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 499, to authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish in the State of Louisiana a Memorial to honor the Buffalo Soldiers; S. 546, to provide for the protection of paleontological resources on Federal lands, and for other purposes; S. 643, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the University of New Mexico, to construct and occupy a portion of the Hibben Center for Archaeological Research at the University of New Mexico, and for other purposes; S. 677, to revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; S. 1060 and H.R. 1577, to designate the visitors' center at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, as the ``Kris Eggle Visitors' Center''; H.R. 255, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant an easement to facilitate access to the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center in Nebraska City, Nebraska, and H.R. 1012, to establish the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam President, and my dear colleague from California, I think this is simply commonsense legislation and long overdue. I think it is unfortunate that we made the mistake when passing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act back a few years ago, which created that special carve-out for energy and metals and broadband contracts that were traded in an online exchange, that they could be exempt from regulation by anybody. Because had we not made that mistake, had Congress not made that mistake, it might have prevented the manipulation and fraud and abuse that was done at the hands of a whole bunch of energy companies. We might have prevented that, if we had not allowed this loophole to be included in that Commodity Futures Modernization Act. And I think it is high time we simply close that loophole. Madam President, I will be interested to see who comes to the floor to make an argument that we should still have this loophole so that energy and metals contracts can be traded without any oversight by any regulator, so no one can discover the price, so that there is no protection for the customers of these exchanges. I will be interested to see who comes to the floor and what their argument is in favor of this because, I have to tell you, on most pieces of legislation that come before this body, it is pretty easy to see what the arguments will be on the other side. There is normally at least a plausible public policy rationale on both sides of the issue. But in this case, I have to say that, looked at very objectively, it is hard to understand how anybody could oppose this commonsense measure to protect the integrity of our energy and metals trading markets in this country. It seems like a very commonsense piece of legislation. I compliment Senator Feinstein. She has been tenacious in bringing this up, and she has been persistent to make sure that we had the opportunity to offer the amendment on the floor. Madam President, I yield the floor.