Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this could and should be a day of common purpose, a day in which we are united, not divided, behind a vital and big goal; that is, giving senior Americans, who have worked their whole lives, access to the prescription drugs they need to stay alive and well. This is a promise that Presidents and Members of Congress of both parties have made and failed to keep for years and years and years. Since the vast majority of us agree on the outlines of a solution, we had the opportunity, and I believe the responsibility, to finally make good on those years of rhetoric and deliver a solid and sensible prescription drug benefit plan under Medicare. Instead, this President and this Congress have rushed into this opening and have stuffed what was once a decent bill--the one that passed the Senate overwhelmingly earlier in the year--with irresponsible and hurtful ideas that, rather than strengthening Medicare, weaken it and that, rather than just offering prescription drug benefits to millions of seniors who need it, reduce the benefits that millions of seniors have today. It has given with one hand and taken with another. So instead of being a day of common purpose, which we had here on the Senate floor when we passed a prescription drug benefit bill just a few months ago, this is a day of all too common partisan politics, ideological politics that has divided this Congress, diminished this Government, degraded our democracy, and, ultimately, disserves our people. It did not need to be this way. Everybody knows what the problem is, and just about everybody agrees that it is serious. We live in the wealthiest and most advanced country in the world. Yet millions of our seniors have a health care plan that excludes what is now an essential component of modern medical treatment; that is, prescription drug benefits. It is a little like having a car warranty that covers everything but the engine. America can do better. That is why I supported the landmark bill that overwhelmingly passed the Senate in July. Thanks to bipartisan leadership, we crafted a compromise that could have made a good downpayment for America's elderly. It was not perfect, but it was a good head start, a good start forward. Not everyone in my party supported that agreement. But I believed, despite its flaws, it was a necessary and worthy first step. But a funny thing--or, rather, a bad thing--happened to that bill on the way to the conference. That solid, bipartisan bill was taken over by ideologues and others determined to stuff it full of pet, partisan projects that really end up hurting millions of seniors, lessening the coverage they have now, and threatening Medicare. Unfortunately, the special interests were in the room and too many of our Democratic colleagues were out of the room. They used this bill as a vehicle for pushing into law a long list of things that had nothing to do with the basic goal, which was to provide prescription drug benefits under Medicare. In fact, this bill takes us two steps back for every one step forward. That is why I am opposing it. Has the tone in Washington changed? Well, it has. It is more bitter than ever, more self-serving than ever, less constructive than ever. And I am afraid no simple prescription can cure the tone I am talking about; only real bipartisan leadership can. As one who supported the original Senate version of the bill, I am not only disappointed at this outcome, I must say I am furious at it, furious because millions of seniors, desperate for the relief, have found their plight exploited, not alleviated. I did not rush to this judgment. I wanted to support a solution. When the outlines of the bill began to emerge last week, I saw some provisions that I liked and some that troubled me. I wanted to fix them. I spoke to people on both sides. I made suggestions to the conferees about changes that might be made. But no changes were made. So, ultimately, I have no choice but to oppose this bill. Let me just cite briefly some of the most significant provisions that I believe are wrong with the bill. First, it would make millions of low-income seniors pay more for the drugs they are currently getting under Medicaid and give them a more narrow choice of drugs that will be covered. So it takes billions, in the so-called wraparound coverage that Medicaid would provide, from seniors for their drug benefits and gives those billions to HMOs to subsidize them as they move toward privatization of Medicare. Second, it includes up to $16 billion in cuts for cancer care. Let me repeat that: $16 billion in cuts for cancer care. I have been hearing for months now from cancer patients and oncologists, cancer doctors, worried that this exactly might happen. Third, it will spend billions of dollars by expressly prohibiting the Federal Government from negotiating the best possible price for prescription drugs. Fourth, driven only--I would say primarily--by ideology, but because it is against all the evidence of what works, this bill will commit us to an overpriced version of privatized Medicare that would actually drive up costs for taxpayers, not lower them, and jeopardize the stability of the Medicare Program, which is one of the best programs the Government has provided seniors in America in the last century. The fact is, Medicare as we know it is more efficient, more affordable, than the privatized version that is part of this bill. In recent years, here are the facts: Costs per covered person have risen almost 10 percent for private insurers providing Medicare coverage or the Medicare substitute while Medicare has been able to limit those increases in costs to just over 4 percent. That means Medicare has been twice as good at holding down costs as the private insurance substitute. So why are we subsidizing, at greater cost, that alternative? The array of people opposing this bill is broad. One group is the Democratic Leadership Council, sort of ``mother church'' of the moderate Democrats. The DLC referred to this bill as ``Medimess.'' Two points I want to make briefly. It says the bill misses a chance to reform the medical payment system to focus it on paying for quality care, not just care for our seniors. And, second, given limited funds, the DLC argues that the bill should have targeted and exclusively done this for the lowest income seniors and those seniors with the highest drug costs. Unfortunately, it did a lot more than that. I have been moved in recent days by the complaints from cancer patients and AIDS patients and their families and advocates and psychiatric patients and their families and advocates who are convinced that the restricted list of drugs covered by Medicare, the so-called formulary--restricted as compared to what they are receiving now under Medicaid or under their retirement plans--will limit, ultimately, the lifespan of themselves or their loved ones. The American people know, as I have heard their calls, that something is wrong with the bill that promises instant relief but does not help a single senior really until 2006. Would you buy a drug with that kind of lag time? In fairness, there is at least one good thing to say about that delay. It means that when another President comes to occupy the Oval Office early in 2005, he can set about fixing the bill, if it passes before it goes into effect. The proponents of this Medicare prescription drug bill have, in my opinion, tampered with America's seniors.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of great importance related to Russia's continued participation in the Group of Eight, or G-8. Senator McCain and I submitted today a resolution calling on the President of the United States and the Secretary of State to work with our partners in the G-8 to condition Russia's continued involvement on its meetings the basic norms and standards of a democratic government. The G-8 is a gathering of the world's wealthiest industrial democracies. It is important that we do not lose sight of this world. It is well and good that all of the G-8 members are wealthy industrialized nations, but the real thing that binds us, the real thing that makes it a club worth joining is the fact that all of the participants are democracies. It is for this reason that China is not a member. When President Clinton discussed Russia's joining the G-8 back in 1997 when Russia participated in the summit in Denver, he attributed Russia's participation to ``President Yeltsin's leadership and to the commitment of the Russian people to democracy and reform.'' But the actions of President Yeltsin's successor, President Putin, over the past 3 years raise serious concerns about Russia's continued commitment to democracy. This drift away from democratic practices cannot and should not be ignored. The list of offending actions is long and disturbing. Since 2000, President Putin has seized control of national television networks and otherwise limited the freedom of expression to the point that the group ``Reporters without Borders'' ranks Russia 121st out of 139 countries in its worldwide press freedom index. The recent arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky set off alarm bells because of its blatant political motives, despite claims otherwise. President Putim's government has attempted to control the activities of nongovernmental organizations, religious organizations, and other pluralistic elements of Russian society in an attempt to mute criticism of the government. Russian troops in Chechnya have been allowed to suppress the rights of Russian citizens with impunity, including in the conduct of recent elections that fell far short of minimal international standards of freedom and fairness. And the list could go on. Continued membership in the G-8 is very important to Russia and to President Putin personally. We should use this leverage to get Russia back on the democratic track. Allowing Russia to continue its involvement in the G-8 and to host the 2006 G-8 Summit while continuing to undermine democracy makes mockery of the very principles that bind the G-8 countries together. We need to take steps not to ensure that Russia lives up to the commitments it made when it joined this club of industrialized democracies. To do otherwise would be to shirk our responsibilities as a leader of the democratic world. I urge my fellow Senators to support this resolution.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in the strong opposition to the bill before us, the conference Energy Policy Act of 2003. The bill before us is a pork-laden, budget-busting, fossil-fuel promoting vestige of the past, developed largely in secret by a handful of GOP Members. This legislation is a mere shadow of what it was and could be. This could have been a proud moment for this Congress and for the Nation. Rather than caving to special interests and wallowing in pork barrel politics, we could have risen to the challenge and met our obligation to help prevent such crises as the Enron energy scandal and the blackout of 2003 from reoccurring. We could have acted to promote our economic prosperity, strengthen our national security, and protect the health and welfare of all Americans through bold, balanced legislation. We could have finally tackled global warming--the greatest environmental challenge of our time. We could have considered a real jobs bill, based on opening new markets and spurring new technologies. We could have set American energy policy on a better, brigther course. Instead, we are stuck with this--a sewer of an Energy bill. The bill that has emerged from the closed door, Republican-only conference, and which we consider today is a legislative disaster. Sadly, it bears little resemblance to the balanced, bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate last July. The Senate bill, which originally passed this body in the 107th Congress, strengthened our national security, safeguarded consumers, and protected the environment, and was developed in open, meaningful, bipartisan fashion. Before I move to the substance of the conference bill, I must offer a few harsh words with the process of GOP majority employed to produce it. In all my time in the Senate, I have never witnesses a more unfair and unstatesmanlike spectacle. With the exception of the tax provisions of this bill, in which Senator Grassley seized every possibility to involve his Democratic colleagues, this is a thoroughly partisan product. Here is the way the conference went: One conference meeting at which Democratic conferences offered opening statements only: complete shut out of Democratic conferences from negotiations over the substance of the bill: a few staff-level meetings for show after policy decisions had already been made and reflected in GOP-only developed text; special-interest lobbyists exerting extraordinary influence over the bill; release of a more than 1,000-page document only 48 hours before the scheduled meeting to adopt it--40 percent or more of which was new text. It is inconceivable to me that legislation of this import was developed this way. Quite simply, this process afforded no real opportunity for Democrats to influence the final product and no opportunity for the American public--whom this body is charged to represent--to view and comment on the final product. I second the comments of many of my Democratic colleagues that we will never be subject to a conference like this again. In dissecting the pork-laden bill that emerged from the smoke-filled back rooms of the conference committee, let me first highlight one provision of extraordinary importance to the State of Connecticut. Connecticut has worked for decades to ensure that the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines and electric cables across our national treasure, the Long Island Sound, fully comply with State and Federal environmental and energy laws. The bill before us contains a provision to permanently activate the Cross Sound Cable--a provision that did not appear in either the House or the Senate bill and as to which no one received advance notice. The Cross Sound Cable had been temporarily activated by Federal order in emergency response to the summer's massive blackout, but had been prevented from permanent activation by the State of Connecticut until it complies with State laws. So much for States rights and environmental and consumer protection. Shameful. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Let me review the most egregious offenses buried in this bill. First, subsidies and giveaways to industries and special interests. My good friend, Senator McCain, has labeled this bill the porkiest of the porkbarrel, budget-busting bills. CBO estimates that the bill will cost more than $30 billion in industry tax incentives and direct spending. Taxpayers for Common Sense has estimated that it will cost in excess of $90 billion. This stunning price tag includes millions of dollars in direct incentive payments to mature energy industries, including payments to undertake equipment upgrades they would have to do anyway. The bill authorizes $1.1 billion for a nuclear reactor in Idaho to demonstrate uneconomic hydrogen production technologies. It has loan guarantees to build coal plants in several States, provided as last-minute sweeteners to secure Senatorial support for the bill. The bill contains interesting new ``green bonds'' for five projects throughout the country, by which projects would get financial benefits for ``green'' construction of primarily shopping centers. One project, in Shreveport, LA includes a new Hooters restaurant. Is this groundbreaking energy legislation? How can we approve legislation gushing money this way given the mushrooming budget deficit? Our neediest citizens will surely pay the cost. Second, inadequate consumer protections. The bill does not adequately protect consumers against utility mergers and electricity market manipulation. For example, broad, effective prohibitions against price gouging schemes used by Enron and other energy trading firms, which passed the Senate 57 to 40 earlier this month, are excluded from the bill. The legislation repeals the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, without putting adequate consumer protections in place. Third, electric transmission line and natural gas pipeline and construction. The bill allows the Secretary of Energy to determine the siting of transmission lines through Federal lands, including national forests and national monuments, except those in the National Park System, over the objection of the responsible Federal agency. The bill overrides State energy and environmental legal authorities to give the Federal Government power to site and construct transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. Fourth, MTBE liability protection. In a provision added in conference to benefit companies primarily based in Louisiana and Texas, the bill provides retroactive and prospective liability protection for producers of methyl tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE, cutting off the rights of injured Americans across the country and imposing a huge financial burden for cleanup on our States and local communities. Simply unbelievable. Fifth, environmental protection rollbacks and giveaways. The icing on the cake for this bad bill is the significant environmental protections it strips away for the benefit of energy producers. The bill also contains new provisions to make our air much dirtier. The conference bill would exempt metropolitan areas from meeting the Clean Air Act's ozone-smog standard. This issue was never considered by the Senate or the House and was inserted into the conference report during ``conference committee'' meetings. A new report from Clean the Air reveals that the ill-conceived Energy bill would have severe public health consequences around the country, especially for children. Delays in implementing the Clean Air Act could lead to nearly 5000 hospitalizations due to respiratory illness and more than 380,000 asthma attacks and 570,000 missed school days each year. The bill exempts all construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from coverage under the Clean Water Act and removes hydraulic fracturing, an underground oil and gas recovery method, from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The conference bill expedites energy exploration and development at the expense of current National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, requirements. Environmental review is waived for all types of energy development projects and facilities on Indian land. I want to be fair. The conference bill does contain provisions that make limited progress--baby steps only--toward achieving energy goals. And the bill recognizes the political reality that the Senate has spoken forcefully to the fact that it will not permit the Bush administration to drill in another of our Nation's treasures, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. You can search the bill to find requirements for renewable fuels, (increase in sales of renewable fuels, including ethanol, from 2 billion gallons to 5 billion gallons by 2012); Federal energy efficiency standards for energy use and appliances; increase in Federal Government purchase of renewable energy, 7.5 percent of electricity from sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass; funding for energy research and development, including related to hydrogen fuels; and limited tax incentives for alternative vehicles, renewable energy sources, and energy efficiency. That is why some of my colleagues claim this bill articulates an energy program for the 21st century. Hogwash. These weak provisions do not even register on the scale against the predominant special interest, fossilized provisions of the conference bill. What is this bill missing? Frankly, the list is staggering. I have time to highlight five key areas: First, renewable portfolio standards. Our Senate-passed bill required utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy facilities by 2020. Such a provision would spur new technology development and work to wean the country off foreign oil dependence and the drilling-first-and-only mindset that has predominated American energy policy for generations. In addition, the majority touts this bill as a great jobs creation bill; according to studies of the Tellus Institute and Union for Concerned Scientists, the renewable industry would create new, sophisticated job opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Americans. Second, climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels threaten not only our environment, but also our economy and our public health. Should we continue unabated our current rate of polluting, we threaten to disrupt the delicate ecological balance on which our livelihoods and lives depend. This bill is so short-sighted that it contains no provisions of any kind to address climate change. Third, fuel economy improvements. No credible Energy bill can lack means to improve fuel economy for automobiles and trucks. This is key to reducing our dependence on foreign oil because the transportation sector is the single largest user of petroleum. Fourth, oil savings provision and specific hydrogen standards. Amendments agreed to by the Senate last summer contained provisions with specific deadlines--real teeth--to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to move us to the hydrogen fuel program of the future. Neither appears in this bill. Fifth, Alaska natural gas pipeline. I strongly support the construction of this pipeline, which will bring millions of gallons of natural gas to the lower 48 States and create almost half of the new jobs, 400,000, touted under this bill. The conference bill, however, fails to provide the necessary incentives to enable construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, which would prevent the U.S. from becoming more dependent on natural gas imports. This abominable bill must not be made law. Any Senator serious about advancing America's energy and environmental policies and curtailing Government waste is compelled to vote against the Energy bill before us. We can and must do better. Americans deserve a real Energy bill, one that we can be proud of. This is not it. Let us reject this legislation and return to the drawing board, recommitting ourselves to producing a balanced, innovative, and responsible energy policy for the 21st century.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the emerging field of nanotechnology constitutes an opportunity for the U.S. to claim global leadership in a new frontier in science and technology that has the potential to transform every aspect of our lives. By manipulating matter at a molecular scale, nanotechnology will allow us to develop new materials and devices that have unique properties currently beyond the realm of conventional technology. Nanotechnology is what scientists and technologists often call an enabling technology--a tool that opens the door to new possibilities constrained only by physics and the limits of our imaginations. This field has the great potential to affect our economy and quality of life since it has such broad prospective applications in so many different areas including medicine, electronics, energy, telecommunications, computing, and manufacturing. It has been estimated that the impact of nanotechnology on existing and new manufacturing will be in the trillions of dollars. In addition to creating new job opportunities, this exciting new initiative has the potential to provide novel therapeutic treatments and a fundamental understanding of diseases including cancer. For example, research in building innovative tools to study biology at the nanometer scale will unlock mysteries and shed light on the vast number of biological processes. The new authorizing legislation the Senate is passing today, which I am pleased to have played a role in, should be an important step in this effort. Yet, despite the enormous potential that nanotechnology offers, it is not an area in which we have assumed uncontested leadership. From an international perspective, the United States faces the danger of falling behind its Asian and European counterparts in supporting the pace of nanotechnological advancement. While our Nation certainly possesses the raw resources and talent to lead the world in developing this technology, it is also clear that a long-term focus and sustained commitment, as well as new collaboration between Government, academia, and industry, will be needed to ensure our place at the head of the next wave of innovation. In recognition of the need to support ongoing nanotechnology efforts and to spur new ones, I was pleased to join Senator Ron Wyden in cosponsoring the original ``21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act'' last year, which was reintroduced this year S. 189. My staff worked with the Commerce Committee on the initial drafting of this bill, and I was able to assist in including parallel legislation in last year's defense authorization P.L. 107-314, section 246 to help assure that Department of Defense research and development in nanotechnology works in concert with the civilian agencies covered by this bill. Much of the original Senate bill is retained in this final legislation. The revised S. 189 legislation we act on today, which we anticipate will also soon be approved by the House, will build on the efforts of the National Nanotechnology Initiative NNI, which was started under President Clinton and has received continued support under President Bush, to establish a comprehensive, intelligently coordinated program for addressing the full spectrum of challenges confronting a successful national science and technology effort, including those related to funding, coordination, infrastructure development, technology transition, and social issues. The time is now ripe to elevate the U.S. nanotechnology effort beyond the level of an Executive Branch initiative. Funding for nanotechnology will soon reach $1 billion a year, and the NNI currently attempts to coordinate programs across a wide range of Federal agencies and departments. This level of funding and the major coordination challenges that arise with so many diverse participants require having a program that is based in statute, provided with greater support and coordination mechanisms, afforded a higher profile, and subjected to constructive Congressional oversight and support. The final legislation closely tracks many of the recommendations of the National Research Council, NRC, which completed a thorough review of the NNI in 2002. The NRC report commended the leadership and multi- agency involvement of the NNI, and its recommendations included the establishment of an independent advisory panel. As the field of nanotechnology covers a wide variety of disciplines including engineering, physics, chemistry and life sciences, guidance is needed from a panel composed of experts from each of the disciplines. A comprehensive perspective is necessary for helping to set the directions and goals of the national program, including advice on the focus of research that should be conducted in the academia sector, as well as assistance in the transition of technology from academic into the private sector that will ensure the competitiveness of U.S. industry. Although members of the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST, which the President is likely to select as the advisory body under section 4 in the final bill, are highly accomplished and esteemed, they are not necessarily steeped in the field of nanotechnology. Therefore, our expectation is that PCAST will set up its own nanotechnology panel composed of experts from both academia and industry representing the key nanotechnology disciplines. This independent panel should work in coordination with the National Science and Technology Council and the new Program Office, particularly across stove piped agency boundaries to better assure a fully integrated, crosscutting, interdisciplinary research effort. Otherwise, the promise of this research will not be realized. To ensure that the United States takes the lead in this new and promising field of science and technology, we must provide for the organization and guidance necessary to foster interaction between Government, academia, and industry, so as to maximize the potential benefits of nanotechnology to our economy. This legislation provides a strong foundation and comprehensive framework that elicits contributions from all three sectors of our society in pushing nanotechnology research and development to the next level. I hope that we may all work together in a bipartisan fashion on implementing this bill to set the stage for U.S. economic growth over the next century.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I support this important amendment, to put a halt to the Bush administration's disrespectful and disturbing treatment of the lives of America's seniors in setting environmental policy. It is unconscionable that the administration continues to push agencies to evaluate pollution-control proposals on the basis of the age of the individuals who are protected. Judging people as less worth protecting based on their age--and to do so for the benefit of polluters--is preposterous and wrong. Despite statements by administration officials aimed to quiet protest over the ``senior death discount'' factor --a factor used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent regulatory cost-benefit analyses that literally devalues the lives of Americans 70 and older-- the administration continues to push agencies to apply economic techniques for evaluating pollution-control proposals on the basis of the life expectancies of the individuals protected, slanting the analysis against the elderly who, of course, have fewer years left. This effort by the administration reinforces the broader bias against the environment inherent in economic cost-benefit analysis, which can give short shrift to unquantifiable values of human health and a strong ecology, while overestimating the economic costs to polluters. By lowering the calculated economic benefit of protecting the elderly, these techniques will understate the apparent benefits of environmental protection, because the old are among the most vulnerable to respiratory and other diseases caused by pollution. The intended result is to block tougher environmental protections. Selling out America's grandparents at a discount for the benefit of polluters is discriminatory and wrong. I am pleased to support this amendment to put a halt to this repugnant practice.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Private First Class Anthony D. D'Agostino, U.S. Army, of Waterbury, CT. It is with great sadness of heart that rather than celebrating his birthday, which would have been November 6, we are instead mourning his death. He is the sixth member of the military from Connecticut to die in Iraq. Even as we mourn his passing, however, we can celebrate his life. His father served in the military, and PFC D'Agostino continue that great tradition. He lived as a true patriot and defender of our great Nation's principles of freedom and justice. He was a member of the 313th Signal Company, 3rd Signal Brigade, Fort Hood, TX. No doubt, PFC D'Agostino was looking forward to some well-deserved rest and recuperation as the CH-47 helicopter he was traveling in was shot down by a shoulder-type missile, forcing it to crash land. He was killed along with 15 others on what has been characterized as one of the bloodiest days in Iraq. PFC D'Agostino's mission was clear, as was his resolve. He served as a messenger of high justice and idealism in the best tradition of American principles and patriotism. I am both proud and grateful that we have the kind of fighting force he so exemplified. Our Nation extends its heartfelt condolences to his family. We extend our appreciation for sharing this outstanding soldier with us, and we offer our prayers and support. You may be justifiably proud of his contributions.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in the course of this debate, I have been deeply disturbed to hear the characterization my Republican colleagues have given to a filibuster reform proposal Senator Harkin and I offered nearly a decade ago. They have referred to our proposal, and our statements in support of it, as precedent for their efforts here today. As I have said in the past, I believe that is deeply wrong. To make clear both what our proposal did, and why my Republican colleagues' characterizations of it are wrong, I thought it would be worthwhile to make sure the record included testimony I offered to the Senate Rules Committee this past June. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of that testimony be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. At the same time, I am compelled to state for the record my dissatisfaction with the process that first delayed the conference report for months, and then presented the conferees with a conference report and a deadline for filing that precluded Senators from familiarizing themselves adequately with the final product. Despite my concerns about the process, and my opposition to three specific provisions in this bill, the men and women in uniform protecting the United States need the support this bill provides. I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for their dedication and leadership in bringing this difficult process to a successful conclusion. Our security depends upon the unrivaled strength of America's military and the unmatched skills, dedication and bravery of America's servicemen and - women, which they are demonstrating on a daily basis. This defense blueprint ensures that we will be able to continue to give our troops in the field the best possible equipment, while at the same time preparing them for future challenges. The funds authorized in this bill will allow our military to continue to conduct operations with the intensity and effectiveness that the worldwide fight against terror requires. Secondly, and no less important, our military services will be able to continue transformation at the pace necessary to meet the challenges they will face in the coming decades. There are many important provisions in this bill. I want to briefly highlight ones that I think are particularly important. First, the strength of our military depends primarily on the men and women who are serving with such dedication and courage. They deserve fair compensation and adequate support for their families. This bill authorizes critical increases in pay and improvements in their quality of life that are so important to America's soldiers and their families. This bill increases base pay by 4.1 percent, increases family separation allowance, increases hostile fire pay, authorizes the first increment of concurrent receipt for disabled retirees, expands commissary access for Selected Reserve members and their families, and enhances health care benefits for reservists. I am particularly pleased that we have made progress in increasing the benefits for our reservists and their families, because they are bearing an important share of the sacrifices our military is making for our defense. We have also included important provisions to maintain the momentum in transforming our military services. The Airland Subcommittee, where I have the honor of serving as Ranking Member, under the able leadership of Senator Sessions, has fully supported the critical programs for transforming the Army and Air Force, such as the Army's interim brigades and the Future Combat System, and the Air Force F-22 fighter and the Joint Strike Fighter. I am also pleased that we have included a provision to improve the Department of Defense's capacity to expand high speed high bandwidth capabilities for network centric operations, which is critical for our military to expand it's military dominance. Despite my approval of the bill, I oppose some of the labor/personnel and environmental provisions contained in the legislation, and I did not sign the conference report to signal my disagreement with these provisions. I am disappointed that some provisions giving the Department of Defense additional personnel flexibility went too far in weakening the legal protections of DOD civilian employees who are critical to the military's performance and to its fighting men and women and that key work of the Government Affairs Committee, which has primary jurisdiction, was ignored in propounding these provisions. I intend to describe at another time my concerns with the personnel provisions in this bill. On the environmental front, I am disappointed that the conference bill contains unnecessarily broad exemptions for the Department of Defense from an array of environmental protections, most of which originated in the House of Representatives. Without question, we can protect our troops and conserve our natural resources--especially our wildlife and marine mammals--at the same time. We have built the strongest military force in the world while the Department of Defense has complied with the same environmental laws as everyone else. This bill undermines the protections for wildlife under the Endangered Species Act by allowing an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan certified in writing to confer an undefined ``benefit'' on species to substitute for critical habitat designation. Unlike the Senate's bill, the conference bill does not require the Department of Defense to fund or dedicate resources to implement or monitor the plan; or the Department of Interior to determine that the plan will effectively conserve species within the lands it covers. While I would hope that the Department of Defense would feel obliged to dedicate sufficient resources, the country would be better served to have required it. The bill's changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act for military readiness and federally funded scientific research activities were not part of the Senate's bill. Quite simply, they may have disastrous consequences for whales and other species living off our Nation's coasts. For example, the Marine Mammal Protection Act's core prohibition against taking actions with the potential to injure or disturb marine mammals has been severely weakened. Now, only acts that injure or have the significant potential to injure marine mammals, or that are likely to disturb their behavioral patterns to the point of abandonment or significant alteration, are prohibited. And these changes also are an unnecessary intervention into the work of the committee with expertise. They come just as the Senate and House committees with jurisdiction over these questions have begun their work of reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection Act. I only hope the committees will revisit these provisions in the reauthorization of that legislation. In closing, let me express my concerns about how the conference was managed. It is unfortunate, in my view, that on an issue as important as this--the very essence of our Nation's ability to wage the current war against terrorism and at the same time prepare for unknown challenges in the future--that it took months to reach a consensus on this bill and that the final conference report was presented to all members with inadequate time to review the final product prior to filing. Such an important bill should not be handled in this manner.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am disappointed that some provisions in this legislation giving the Department of Defense additional personnel flexibility go too far in weakening the legal protections of DoD civilian employees, who are critical to the military's performance and to its fighting men and women. I pledge to actively monitor DoD's implementation of its new authority to guard against abuse. Throughout the development of this legislation, the administration has tried to push a regressive agenda to do away with important worker safeguards--and, in the process, to risk opening up the workplace to politicization and unfair treatment and to close off important channels of communication between labor and management. Congress rejected much of this, but some risks remain. On the Governmental Affairs Committee, where I serve as Ranking Member, we worked hard and forged a sensible bipartisan compromise on these issues for the department. This legislation, S. 1166, was approved by our committee by a 10 to 1 vote. The provisions of S. 1166 were considered by the conferees, and some of our compromises were incorporated into this conference report. However, at the insistence of House majority conferees and the administration, the conference agreement also includes a number of provisions that risk opening up the workplace to cronyism and arbitrariness and undermining established means for fairly resolving issues between labor and management, so it is important that Congressional intent be closely adhered to. For example, in the area of collective bargaining, the conference agreement included the provision of S. 1166 stating that the Secretary of Defense has no authority to waive chapter 71 of civil service law, which governs labor-management relations. The conferees also retained an amendment, which I had offered in our committee, assuring that the Secretary of Defense cannot choose to bargain only with large national unions and refuse to bargain with others that do not represent large numbers of Defense Department employees. However, the conferees also agreed to a new provision authorizing the Secretary of Defense, together with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to establish a ``labor relations system'' for the Department of Defense to address the ``unique role'' of the Department's civilian workforce. As the conference report makes chapter 71 non-waivable, this new provision overrides chapter 71 only where the new provision and chapter 71 are directly inconsistent with each other. The new provision authorizing establishment of a labor relations system does not conflict with the statutory rights duties, and protections of employees, agencies, and labor organizations set forth in Chapter 71-- including, for example, the selection by employees of labor organizations to be their exclusive representatives, the determination of appropriate bargaining units, the rights and duties of unions in representing employees, the duty to bargain in good faith, the prevention of unfair labor practices, and others--and such rights, duties, and protections will remain fully applicable at the department. The conference agreement provides that, in establishing a labor relations system, the Secretary will be authorized to ``provide for independent third party review of decisions, including defining what decisions are reviewable by the third party, what third party would conduct the review, and the standard or standards for that review.'' The Secretary may use this provision to expedite the review of decisions, but not to alter the statutory rights, duties, and protections established in chapter 71 or to compromise the right of parties to obtain fair and impartial review of decision. The mutual trust required for productive labor-management relations requires a level playing field. The conference report also includes other provisions, which weaken a number of safeguards that we had included in S. 1166, including the statutory mandate that DoD meet standards for the quality of its system for rating employee performance and that the department phase in its new personnel system to enable the department to get fair and objective processes in place. The conferees also included new provisions that would give the Secretary of Defense latitude to waive premium pay for employees working irregular schedules or in dangerous situations, and to disregard statutory checks against cronyism and politicization in promoting, reassigning, and laying off employees. Finally, even aside from the weakened employee protections in the legislation itself, I am very concerned that the department may try to impose its new personnel authorities without adequate preparation and funding. Under the new system, the department wants to use employee performance, rather than seniority, to determine salary increases. To avoid arbitrary pay decisions, however, the department must establish personnel systems that can make meaningful distinctions in employee performance based on appropriate criteria, and managers must be adequately trained to use these new authorities. In evaluating this legislation last summer, GAO warned that the vast majority of DoD's systems for appraising employee performance are not well-enough established to take on the task of supporting a meaningful performance- based pay system. Moreover, successful projects where pay is based on performance must be adequately funded, or else pay levels will be determined by budget constraints rather than by the competency and efforts of employees; and colleagues will be pitted against each other in competition for limited funding for performance pay, thereby disrupting unit cohesion and teamwork. An experienced supervisor at the Defense Department, quoted in a news article today about this legislation, well expressed these risks in the following terms: ``The changes are going to be swift and we're going to go into this thing blind,'' he said. ``The worst thing we can do to the employees of the DoD . . . is to come in and demoralize them by putting in new pay systems that can't be financed or executed.'' As the department, together with the Office of Personnel Management, proceeds to develop the regulations and the personnel systems to implement this legislation, I intend to watch closely. I expect the department to provide a fully open process, in close collaboration with its employees, for developing the regulations necessary to implement the new personnel authorities. And the department should not implement pay-for-performance or other authorities until personnel systems are in place, managers are trained, and funding is available, so that the risks of favoritism, politicization, and a demoralized workforce inherent in this legislation are kept to a minimum. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the fiscal year 204 Department of Defense authorization bill. With so many of our young men and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world, it is very important that Congress support our troops and the important pay increases and personnel benefits in this bill. This legislation authorizes a 3.7 percent across the board pay increase for all uniformed members of the armed services and targeted pay raises of 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent for mid-career servicemembers. I strongly support these provisions of the bill. These pay increases are well earned. I am also pleased that imminent danger pay at the level of $225 per month and family separation pay of $250 per month was extended until December 31, 2004. With United States troops bearing so much of the burden in Iraq, many military families are having a difficult time making ends meet. Extending these benefits is the least we can do. But let me be clear. This $401 billion Defense authorization bill contains many troubling provisions that will make us less secure and that I oppose. First, this legislation repeals a 1989 ban on the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons and provides funding for research into new bunker-busting nuclear weapons. Developing new and low-yield nuclear weapons will not make us safer--it will only lead to a dangerous escalation in the arms race. These provisions send the wrong message to the rest of the world and are based on a flawed strategy developed by President Bush that contemplates scenarios for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons. Second, this legislation significantly rolls back environmental safeguards on our military bases. The bill prohibits the Secretary of Interior from designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act on any lands owned or controlled by the Department of Defense if the lands are subject to a management plan developed by the military that provides a ``benefit'' to the species. the conference report also gives the military greater leeway to conduct activities that might disturb marine mammals, such as whales. Under this bill, the Secretary of Defense may exempt any action or category of actions from the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, if the Secretary deems it is necessary for national defense. These environmental rollbacks are unfortunate. I urge the Department of Defense to take extra care not to abuse these new broad authorities. Finally, I am concerned this bill did not do more to limit sole- source contracting by the Department of Defense. During Senate consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment stating that the Department of Defense should meet its own goal of replacing Halliburton's sole-source contract to reconstruct Iraq's oil industry with a fully competitive contract by August 31, 2003. It is now November and Halliburton's sole source contract is still in place and a new competitive contract has not been awarded. I appreciate that the final bill contains a provision requiring a report within 30 days on why this sole-source contract has been allowed to continue. However, it is regrettable that conferees did not establish a deadline for the termination of Halliburton's sole-source contract. Despite these concerns, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for their hard work on this legislation. It is a bill that will help our military men and women who are serving to protect our Nation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues Senator Daniel Akaka and Senator Peter Fitzgerald and cosponsor legislation that would begin the crucial process of reforming the mutual fund industry. In the wake of shocking revelations of abusive trading and self-dealing in some of America's largest funds, it is imperative that we act quickly, and I commend my friend Senator Akaka for his leadership. We must do two things in order to reassure the 95 million Americans who invest in mutual funds that they have not misplaced their trust. We must find out how this was allowed to happen, and we must put safeguards in place to prevent these widespread abuses from poisoning our markets again. As the deceptions and conflicts of the Wall Street analysts were uncovered last year in the wake of the Enron scandal, the oft-heard advice to the average investor was to invest in mutual funds. Investors took this advice in droves. Half of all American households own shares in mutual funds, and of the $7 trillion invested in mutual funds, $2.1 trillion of it is invested for retirement. Perhaps these working families felt comfortable entrusting their precious savings with mutual funds because these funds offer one of the most highly regulated investments available. Mutual funds, their directors and their managers owe their investors a statutory fiduciary duty. Mutual funds are overseen by the SEC through a prescribed registration and reporting process as well as a regular examination and audit process, pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940. Unfortunately, the trust of these American families has been abused. According to a just-released survey conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, half of the largest 88 mutual funds have permitted a practice called ``market-timing,'' which allows some investors to trade quickly in and out of the funds, even though many of those funds had explicit policies against such trading because of its detrimental impact on other investors in the fund. Many fund companies admitted providing portfolio information, unavailable publicly, to certain large investors to help them make trading decisions. Also, a full one-quarter of the brokerage firms surveyed indicated that they had allowed certain customers to engage in late-trading, an illegal practice that allows favored investors to execute trades based on that day's price, but after the market close, when new information has come to light. Perhaps most shocking, Stephen Cutler, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division, has said that there is evidence that officials at fund companies profited personally at the expense of their customers by market-timing their own funds. The SEC didn't discover these abuses on its own initiative, however. It acted only after the New York State Attorney General and the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth took steps to investigate and stop this conduct. The SEC didn't discover the abuses through the extensive reporting process mutual funds go through; the SEC didn't discover the abuses through the broad and regular examinations the SEC does of these mutual funds; the SEC didn't even discover the abuses after it received a tip from an insider, who went to the SEC with his attorney, evidence in hand. Yesterday, I sent a ten-page letter to SEC Chairman William Donaldson, demanding to know how the SEC could have failed to uncover such a sweeping problem in the mutual fund industry. I asked how the SEC planned to change its practices in order to ensure that it is never again caught so unaware. Congress gave the SEC the responsibility to monitor the mutual fund industry, and we must ensure that the SEC does its job. This is not the first time the SEC has been caught off guard with a scandal on Wall Street. In October 2002, the staff of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I was then the Chairman, released a report, Financial Oversight of Enron: The SEC and Private- Sector Watchdogs, detailing the ignored red flags and the missed opportunities that kept the SEC from detecting the problems at Enron before that company collapsed, taking with it the jobs and retirement savings of thousands of Americans. Again, despite being fully aware of the troubling conflicts faced by Wall Street analysts, the SEC turned a blind eye to that problem until this Committee and others held hearings on the issue and New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer exposed how deeply deceptive many analyst recommendations truly were. I hope this mutual fund scandal represents the last time the SEC is playing regulatory catch-up. In addition to holding the SEC accountable, Congress must also act to protect investors by fixing the holes in the statutory scheme for mutual funds. That's why I'm pleased to cosponsor the Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 2003, which enjoys widespread support from consumer groups. It contains many of the policy changes I urged the SEC to consider in my letter to Chairman Donaldson. It would strengthen the independence of mutual fund boards of directors by tightening the definition of independence and by requiring that 75 percent of the directors be independent. The bill would also require that mutual fund boards have nominating committees comprised solely of independent directors, so that directors are not chosen by management. In my letter to the SEC, I also criticized the opaque or, in some cases, lack of, disclosure to investors about mutual fund fees. The Mutual Fund Transparency Act would significantly improve such disclosure to investors, by including in the fees disclosed to investors the costs the fund incurs when it executes trades of its holdings. Currently, such costs are not included among these more visible fees, which are disclosed in documents provided directly to mutual fund shareholders. Trading costs are currently only disclosed in filings with the SEC, but if this bill became law, trading costs would be included among the fees provided directly to investors. Such information is useful because it can give investors a sense of how often their funds are buying and selling assets and at what expense. The bill would also require funds to tell shareholders how fund advisers are compensated. Public companies are required to tell their shareholders how their managers are paid; mutual fund shareholders should have the same information. Finally, the bill would require that brokers offering mutual funds to investors inform those investors of any fees or incentives those brokers are receiving for making those sales in a sale confirmation. The bill also mandates that the SEC study three initiatives to improve mutual fund oversight and transparency. The first two ask the SEC and the Comptroller General, respectively, to look at financial literacy among mutual fund investors and at mutual fund advertising, to determine how relevant information can be made clearer and more readily understandable to the average investor. In my letter to the SEC, I suggested the agency consider using consumer research methods in order to achieve such a result. The third study required by the bill relates to the formation of a Mutual Fund Oversight Board to take over the frontline efforts of mutual fund regulation from the SEC, while remaining under that agency's oversight. This may be a good approach, but I have concerns about the costs of such a board being borne by mutual fund investors, which is one of the areas suggested for study. I hope other options would be explored. The Mutual Fund Transparency Act is clearly an important first step in closing some of the gaps in the laws governing these important investment vehicles. But there is more work to do, and I look forward to working with Senator Akaka and the other cosponsors of this bill in making further necessary improvements. For example, we should consider strengthening the fiduciary duties owed by mutual fund directors and managers to their shareholders. In addition, as I indicated in my letter to the SEC, guidelines must be developed to prevent mutual fund directors from serving on more boards of funds than they can effectively oversee; at some of the major funds, directors serve on a hundred or more boards. Compliance officers at the funds must be elevated to emphasize their role. I suggested in my letter to the SEC that such a compliance officer should be active at each fund and should report directly to an independent committee of the board. Moreover, as I pointed out to the SEC in my letter to Chairman Donaldson, we must close the loophole that allowed so many brokers and mutual funds to circumvent the law on late trading. Imposing a hard deadline of a time at which trades must be into the mutual fund may be the solution to this problem. We also must provide even more, clearer information to investors about the fees they are actually paying to participate in mutual funds. In my letter the SEC, I asked the agency why investors should not receive on their monthly statements detail about the fees they actually paid to the fund during that time period, similar to the finance charge information that credit card consumers get. I also suggested that funds be required to provide comparative fee information. This would help people make better investment decisions, and might also encourage more competition among funds to reduce expenses. Mutual funds hold the nest eggs, the retirement savings, and the college funds for many of America's working families. Through those investments in their own futures, those families are also feeding capital into today's economy, fueling the engine that creates and maintains American jobs. In a very real sense, these mutual fund investments are investments in the American dream. We must act now to protect them, and to restore the integrity to the mutual fund industry. Once again, I thank Senator Akaka for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this important and timely legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues Senator Daniel Akaka and Senator Peter Fitzgerald and cosponsor legislation that would begin the crucial process of reforming the mutual fund industry. In the wake of shocking revelations of abusive trading and self-dealing in some of America's largest funds, it is imperative that we act quickly, and I commend my friend Senator Akaka for his leadership. We must do two things in order to reassure the 95 million Americans who invest in mutual funds that they have not misplaced their trust. We must find out how this was allowed to happen, and we must put safeguards in place to prevent these widespread abuses from poisoning our markets again. As the deceptions and conflicts of the Wall Street analysts were uncovered last year in the wake of the Enron scandal, the oft-heard advice to the average investor was to invest in mutual funds. Investors took this advice in droves. Half of all American households own shares in mutual funds, and of the $7 trillion invested in mutual funds, $2.1 trillion of it is invested for retirement. Perhaps these working families felt comfortable entrusting their precious savings with mutual funds because these funds offer one of the most highly regulated investments available. Mutual funds, their directors and their managers owe their investors a statutory fiduciary duty. Mutual funds are overseen by the SEC through a prescribed registration and reporting process as well as a regular examination and audit process, pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940. Unfortunately, the trust of these American families has been abused. According to a just-released survey conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, half of the largest 88 mutual funds have permitted a practice called ``market-timing,'' which allows some investors to trade quickly in and out of the funds, even though many of those funds had explicit policies against such trading because of its detrimental impact on other investors in the fund. Many fund companies admitted providing portfolio information, unavailable publicly, to certain large investors to help them make trading decisions. Also, a full one-quarter of the brokerage firms surveyed indicated that they had allowed certain customers to engage in late-trading, an illegal practice that allows favored investors to execute trades based on that day's price, but after the market close, when new information has come to light. Perhaps most shocking, Stephen Cutler, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division, has said that there is evidence that officials at fund companies profited personally at the expense of their customers by market-timing their own funds. The SEC didn't discover these abuses on its own initiative, however. It acted only after the New York State Attorney General and the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth took steps to investigate and stop this conduct. The SEC didn't discover the abuses through the extensive reporting process mutual funds go through; the SEC didn't discover the abuses through the broad and regular examinations the SEC does of these mutual funds; the SEC didn't even discover the abuses after it received a tip from an insider, who went to the SEC with his attorney, evidence in hand. Yesterday, I sent a ten-page letter to SEC Chairman William Donaldson, demanding to know how the SEC could have failed to uncover such a sweeping problem in the mutual fund industry. I asked how the SEC planned to change its practices in order to ensure that it is never again caught so unaware. Congress gave the SEC the responsibility to monitor the mutual fund industry, and we must ensure that the SEC does its job. This is not the first time the SEC has been caught off guard with a scandal on Wall Street. In October 2002, the staff of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I was then the Chairman, released a report, Financial Oversight of Enron: The SEC and Private- Sector Watchdogs, detailing the ignored red flags and the missed opportunities that kept the SEC from detecting the problems at Enron before that company collapsed, taking with it the jobs and retirement savings of thousands of Americans. Again, despite being fully aware of the troubling conflicts faced by Wall Street analysts, the SEC turned a blind eye to that problem until this Committee and others held hearings on the issue and New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer exposed how deeply deceptive many analyst recommendations truly were. I hope this mutual fund scandal represents the last time the SEC is playing regulatory catch-up. In addition to holding the SEC accountable, Congress must also act to protect investors by fixing the holes in the statutory scheme for mutual funds. That's why I'm pleased to cosponsor the Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 2003, which enjoys widespread support from consumer groups. It contains many of the policy changes I urged the SEC to consider in my letter to Chairman Donaldson. It would strengthen the independence of mutual fund boards of directors by tightening the definition of independence and by requiring that 75 percent of the directors be independent. The bill would also require that mutual fund boards have nominating committees comprised solely of independent directors, so that directors are not chosen by management. In my letter to the SEC, I also criticized the opaque or, in some cases, lack of, disclosure to investors about mutual fund fees. The Mutual Fund Transparency Act would significantly improve such disclosure to investors, by including in the fees disclosed to investors the costs the fund incurs when it executes trades of its holdings. Currently, such costs are not included among these more visible fees, which are disclosed in documents provided directly to mutual fund shareholders. Trading costs are currently only disclosed in filings with the SEC, but if this bill became law, trading costs would be included among the fees provided directly to investors. Such information is useful because it can give investors a sense of how often their funds are buying and selling assets and at what expense. The bill would also require funds to tell shareholders how fund advisers are compensated. Public companies are required to tell their shareholders how their managers are paid; mutual fund shareholders should have the same information. Finally, the bill would require that brokers offering mutual funds to investors inform those investors of any fees or incentives those brokers are receiving for making those sales in a sale confirmation. The bill also mandates that the SEC study three initiatives to improve mutual fund oversight and transparency. The first two ask the SEC and the Comptroller General, respectively, to look at financial literacy among mutual fund investors and at mutual fund advertising, to determine how relevant information can be made clearer and more readily understandable to the average investor. In my letter to the SEC, I suggested the agency consider using consumer research methods in order to achieve such a result. The third study required by the bill relates to the formation of a Mutual Fund Oversight Board to take over the frontline efforts of mutual fund regulation from the SEC, while remaining under that agency's oversight. This may be a good approach, but I have concerns about the costs of such a board being borne by mutual fund investors, which is one of the areas suggested for study. I hope other options would be explored. The Mutual Fund Transparency Act is clearly an important first step in closing some of the gaps in the laws governing these important investment vehicles. But there is more work to do, and I look forward to working with Senator Akaka and the other cosponsors of this bill in making further necessary improvements. For example, we should consider strengthening the fiduciary duties owed by mutual fund directors and managers to their shareholders. In addition, as I indicated in my letter to the SEC, guidelines must be developed to prevent mutual fund directors from serving on more boards of funds than they can effectively oversee; at some of the major funds, directors serve on a hundred or more boards. Compliance officers at the funds must be elevated to emphasize their role. I suggested in my letter to the SEC that such a compliance officer should be active at each fund and should report directly to an independent committee of the board. Moreover, as I pointed out to the SEC in my letter to Chairman Donaldson, we must close the loophole that allowed so many brokers and mutual funds to circumvent the law on late trading. Imposing a hard deadline of a time at which trades must be into the mutual fund may be the solution to this problem. We also must provide even more, clearer information to investors about the fees they are actually paying to participate in mutual funds. In my letter the SEC, I asked the agency why investors should not receive on their monthly statements detail about the fees they actually paid to the fund during that time period, similar to the finance charge information that credit card consumers get. I also suggested that funds be required to provide comparative fee information. This would help people make better investment decisions, and might also encourage more competition among funds to reduce expenses. Mutual funds hold the nest eggs, the retirement savings, and the college funds for many of America's working families. Through those investments in their own futures, those families are also feeding capital into today's economy, fueling the engine that creates and maintains American jobs. In a very real sense, these mutual fund investments are investments in the American dream. We must act now to protect them, and to restore the integrity to the mutual fund industry. Once again, I thank Senator Akaka for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this important and timely legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators McCain, Reed, DeWine, Lautenberg, Schumer and Chafee in introducing this important legislation. This bill aims to build common ground on gun violence--a problem that has too often divided Members of Congress. As citizens of this great Democracy, we have rights and we have responsibilities. We have the right to own guns, but we have a responsibility not to sell them to criminals. That is the simple but important set of values on which the legislation we introduce today is founded. For several decades, our Nation has had a clear policy against allowing convicted felons to buy guns, because we know that mixing criminals and guns far too often yields violent results. Through the Brady law, we established what seems like an obvious corollary to that policy--a requirement that those selling guns determine whether someone trying to buy a firearm isn't supposed to get one before they sell it to them. The Brady law has been an enormous success. Since its enactment, background checks have stopped almost one million gun sales to those who by law aren't allowed to own guns--convicted felons, spouse abusers, fugitives from justice, among others. This has saved an untold number of our citizens from the violence, injury or death the sale of many of these guns would have brought. But the Brady law contained an unfortunate loophole that has since been exploited to allow convicted felons and other people who shouldn't own guns to evade the background check requirement by buying their guns at gun shows. The problem is that Brady applies only to Federal Firearms Licensees, so-called FFLs--people who are in the business of selling guns. Brady explicitly exempts from the background check requirement anyone ``who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.'' As a result, any person selling guns as a hobby or only occasionally, whether at a gun show, flea market or elsewhere, need not obtain a Federal license and therefore has no obligation to conduct a background check. This means that any person wanting to avoid a background check can go to a gun show, find out which vendors are not FFLs, and buy a gun. This situation is dangerous not only because it allows convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns, but also because--in contrast to FFLs--non-FFLs have no obligation to keep records of the transaction, thereby depriving law enforcement of the ability to trace the gun if it later turns up at a crime scene. Our bill will change that. We will make sure that no one will be able to buy a gun at a gun show without it first being determined whether that person is a convicted felon, a spouse abuser or a member of one of the other categories of people we all agree should not be allowed to buy guns. Our bill does this, though, by taking into account some of the concerns that were expressed about previous efforts to close this loophole. First, our bill has a simple definition of a gun show--an event where 75 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale--and we make clear that that definition doesn't include sales from a private collection by nonlicensed sellers out of their homes. Second, to respond to the argument that previous proposals made it too difficult for nonlicensed sellers to fulfill the background check requirement, our bill makes sure that nonlicensed sellers will have easy access to someone who can initiate background checks for them, by creating a new class of licensee whose sole purpose will be to initiate background checks at gun shows. Third, we have tried to respond to those who say that a three-day check is too long for gun shows, because those events only last a couple of days. It is worth noting that the length allowed for the check doesn't affect the overwhelming majority of gun purchasers, because over 90 percent of checks are completed almost instantly. But to allay the concerns that have been expressed, we have come up with a compromise that authorizes a State to move to a 24-hour check for nonlicensed dealers at gun shows when the State can prove that a 24- hour check is feasible. A State can prove that by showing that 95 percent of the records that would disqualify people in that State from buying guns are computerized and searchable by the NICS system. And, because of the particular need to keep guns out of the hands of spouse abusers, the bill specifically provides that a State must have computerized 95 percent of its domestic violence misdemeanor and restraining order records dating back 30 years before it is eligible to go to a 24-hour check at gun shows. One significant difference between the bill Senator McCain and I introduced last Congress and the one we introduce today is that my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, has worked with us to craft a single gun show loophole closing bill. I am truly pleased that we can now all go forward together in a unified effort to bring greater responsibility to our gun laws. Now I know that there are many, including President Bush, who argue that what we need to solve the gun violence problem are not new laws but the enforcement of existing ones. I agree with part of that statement, and firmly support efforts to crack down on those who violate our gun laws. But I believe we must go farther than that, because we will never be able to enforce existing laws unless we close the loopholes in them that criminals exploit. And we all know that there is a big loophole in the provision saying that felons and spouse abusers aren't supposed to buy guns, and that is that criminals know that if they go to a gun show, they will be able to avoid the background check that was set up to keep them from getting guns. Gun crime remains a critical public safety problem. For too long, differences over finding a solution to that problem have unnecessarily divided the Congress, and the American people have been left to suffer the violent consequences. But the reality is that most of us agree on most of the critical questions. We agree that the laws on the books should be enforced, that the rights of law-abiding gun owners should be protected, and that convicted felons and spouse abusers shouldn't be able to get guns. The bill we are introducing today would write those principles into law. I hope all of my colleagues support it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators McCain, Reed, DeWine, Lautenberg, Schumer and Chafee in introducing this important legislation. This bill aims to build common ground on gun violence--a problem that has too often divided Members of Congress. As citizens of this great Democracy, we have rights and we have responsibilities. We have the right to own guns, but we have a responsibility not to sell them to criminals. That is the simple but important set of values on which the legislation we introduce today is founded. For several decades, our Nation has had a clear policy against allowing convicted felons to buy guns, because we know that mixing criminals and guns far too often yields violent results. Through the Brady law, we established what seems like an obvious corollary to that policy--a requirement that those selling guns determine whether someone trying to buy a firearm isn't supposed to get one before they sell it to them. The Brady law has been an enormous success. Since its enactment, background checks have stopped almost one million gun sales to those who by law aren't allowed to own guns--convicted felons, spouse abusers, fugitives from justice, among others. This has saved an untold number of our citizens from the violence, injury or death the sale of many of these guns would have brought. But the Brady law contained an unfortunate loophole that has since been exploited to allow convicted felons and other people who shouldn't own guns to evade the background check requirement by buying their guns at gun shows. The problem is that Brady applies only to Federal Firearms Licensees, so-called FFLs--people who are in the business of selling guns. Brady explicitly exempts from the background check requirement anyone ``who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.'' As a result, any person selling guns as a hobby or only occasionally, whether at a gun show, flea market or elsewhere, need not obtain a Federal license and therefore has no obligation to conduct a background check. This means that any person wanting to avoid a background check can go to a gun show, find out which vendors are not FFLs, and buy a gun. This situation is dangerous not only because it allows convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns, but also because--in contrast to FFLs--non-FFLs have no obligation to keep records of the transaction, thereby depriving law enforcement of the ability to trace the gun if it later turns up at a crime scene. Our bill will change that. We will make sure that no one will be able to buy a gun at a gun show without it first being determined whether that person is a convicted felon, a spouse abuser or a member of one of the other categories of people we all agree should not be allowed to buy guns. Our bill does this, though, by taking into account some of the concerns that were expressed about previous efforts to close this loophole. First, our bill has a simple definition of a gun show--an event where 75 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale--and we make clear that that definition doesn't include sales from a private collection by nonlicensed sellers out of their homes. Second, to respond to the argument that previous proposals made it too difficult for nonlicensed sellers to fulfill the background check requirement, our bill makes sure that nonlicensed sellers will have easy access to someone who can initiate background checks for them, by creating a new class of licensee whose sole purpose will be to initiate background checks at gun shows. Third, we have tried to respond to those who say that a three-day check is too long for gun shows, because those events only last a couple of days. It is worth noting that the length allowed for the check doesn't affect the overwhelming majority of gun purchasers, because over 90 percent of checks are completed almost instantly. But to allay the concerns that have been expressed, we have come up with a compromise that authorizes a State to move to a 24-hour check for nonlicensed dealers at gun shows when the State can prove that a 24- hour check is feasible. A State can prove that by showing that 95 percent of the records that would disqualify people in that State from buying guns are computerized and searchable by the NICS system. And, because of the particular need to keep guns out of the hands of spouse abusers, the bill specifically provides that a State must have computerized 95 percent of its domestic violence misdemeanor and restraining order records dating back 30 years before it is eligible to go to a 24-hour check at gun shows. One significant difference between the bill Senator McCain and I introduced last Congress and the one we introduce today is that my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, has worked with us to craft a single gun show loophole closing bill. I am truly pleased that we can now all go forward together in a unified effort to bring greater responsibility to our gun laws. Now I know that there are many, including President Bush, who argue that what we need to solve the gun violence problem are not new laws but the enforcement of existing ones. I agree with part of that statement, and firmly support efforts to crack down on those who violate our gun laws. But I believe we must go farther than that, because we will never be able to enforce existing laws unless we close the loopholes in them that criminals exploit. And we all know that there is a big loophole in the provision saying that felons and spouse abusers aren't supposed to buy guns, and that is that criminals know that if they go to a gun show, they will be able to avoid the background check that was set up to keep them from getting guns. Gun crime remains a critical public safety problem. For too long, differences over finding a solution to that problem have unnecessarily divided the Congress, and the American people have been left to suffer the violent consequences. But the reality is that most of us agree on most of the critical questions. We agree that the laws on the books should be enforced, that the rights of law-abiding gun owners should be protected, and that convicted felons and spouse abusers shouldn't be able to get guns. The bill we are introducing today would write those principles into law. I hope all of my colleagues support it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma as well. It has been a spirited debate. It has been an important and historic debate, but it is the first, I would guess, of many on this critical subject. I must say, it has been a disappointing debate in one regard for me; that is, we are still disagreeing about whether global warming is a problem. The fact is, the overwhelming evidence, upheld by scientists around the world and in America--the National Academy of Sciences, et cetera--says that the planet is warming, and it is happening because of human activity. You cannot look at this picture, a satellite picture--seeing the reduction of the white part from where it was; and the red lines show what it was in 1979, 24 years ago--and not say it is real. Senator Akaka from Hawaii told us last night that the sea level is rising around Hawaii. Senator Snowe of Maine told us that the sugar maples are dying because it is getting warmer. I myself reported on a story from Inupiat Indians in Alaska saying they had seen robins for the first time in their village because it is getting warmer. This is real. I wish we could agree on the reality and then argue about what we should do about it. As I hear the science--so-called-- cited on the other side, I want to predict, respectfully, that we are going to look back at those scientific testaments and put them in the same category as the scientific studies that were introduced by the tobacco industry years ago, saying that tobacco did not harm health or cause cancer, or the studies that were introduced by the chemical industry that said chlorofluorocarbons did not put a hole in the ozone layer, all of which we know now were just plain bunk. I am afraid that is the way we are going to look back at this evidence offered in this debate. Secondly, a lot of the argument about the impact of our proposal on costs and cost of living and jobs is not related to our proposal. It is about the Kyoto protocol. It is about earlier legislation. It is not about the McCain-Lieberman amendment before the Senate for a vote. The one study on our amendment, the MIT independent study, says, in fact, costs will go down in the energy field, that the average cost per household will be $20 a year--well worth what we are going to get in return for a safer, better life for our children and grandchildren. They say there is no job loss that can be expected. In fact, a lot of major entrepreneurs and investors--and I put a letter in the Record to Senator Snowe from 60 leading entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley, who say our amendment will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield my friend and colleague from Florida 6 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is a call to responsibility. It is a call to leadership. I remember last year, as we were coming close to the vote on the Iraq resolution, I met with a group of officials from the administration and Congress--members of both parties--with the Minister of Defense from an allied government. Somebody from the administration said: How can we get the Europeans to support us more on the potential of a war against Saddam? The European Minister said: Get the administration to do something about global warming. This inaction, lack of leadership, debunking by the administration of the problem, failure to accept responsibility is part of the reason we are so deeply divided from some of our closest allies. Senator McCain and I and our cosponsors on both sides of the aisle have put ourselves on a course. History calls us to action. We will not leave this course until the day--may it come sooner than later--when we adopt this amendment or something very much like it. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield to Senator McCain the remaining 2 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd for his statement. Obviously, I regret that he is not going to support the McCain- Lieberman proposal today. But I appreciate very much this fact: He recognizes that there is a problem here. I don't know how some of our distinguished colleagues can say there is not a problem. The science is there. The facts are there. We see it with our own eyes. We can disagree on what to do about the problem. But Senator Byrd, with his characteristic directness and honesty and sense of history, has recognized that there is a problem. I look forward to working with him in the months ahead to see that we can fashion together a common ground response that will deal with the problem that he quite honestly has recognized. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield however much of the 10 minutes Senator McCain will eventually have as he wishes to consume now.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware who has been an active, helpful, and constructive supporter of this proposal, for which I thank him.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. No thank you.