Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Pakistan's Nuclear Exchange with North Korea
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my grave concern regarding Pakistan's transfer of equipment to support North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program.

Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that North Korea has violated its commitment to the United States, established in a 1994 accord, to freeze its nuclear program. According to reports by your administration, North Korea has in fact been secretly building a program to enrich uranium since the late 1990's.

What I find appalling is that this nuclear program that the United States worked tirelessly to halt, was in fact sustained through the assistance of Pakistan. Not only did the transfer of critical equipment from Pakistan to North Korea take place around 1997, in addition, this relationship has continued even after President Musharraf seized power by force in 1999. Lastly, Pakistan is thought to have provided technology up to even three months ago--I find this particularly outrageous.

The Bush administration has declined to openly discuss Pakistan's involvement in this crucial situation with North Korea. Although the administration seems to have evidence pointing to Pakistan's direct involvement, I see no punitive measures taking place because Pakistan is a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. In fact, Pakistan has received over one billion dollars' worth of direct and indirect assistance from the U.S. since September 11, 2001. I find it incredible that the U.S. has provided virtually all the assistance President Musharraf has requested, yet at the same time, Pakistan still continues to consort with North Korea by exchanging nuclear equipment for missiles.

Mr. Speaker, I sent a letter to President Bush last month urging the administration to conduct a full investigation of Pakistan's role in providing North Korea with nuclear information and equipment. We must fully investigate President Musharraf's relationship with North Korea since his military coup in 1999, and even more important, to what extent this relationship between the two nations continued after September 11, 2001. To this day, I have not received a response to my request.

In addition, I requested that the administration take immediate steps to ban all military sales to Pakistan and to reimpose Symington sanctions on Pakistan for assisting a foreign nuclear weapons program. Lastly, I urged the administration to also take similar steps and ban any future arms sales they have with Pakistan. I have not received a response to these requests either, however, it seems clear that the administration is opposed to imposing any corrective measures on Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I am reiterating these requests that I had previously made to the administration because I think it is important for us to understand that Pakistan should not be exempted of its responsibility in colluding with North Korea over a nuclear weapons program. This situation poses a direct threat to our allies in Asia and to our safety in the United States.

Since the administration is not inclined to recognize the severity of Pakistan's relationship with North Korea, an ``axis of evil'', and since the administration is not willing to use its authority to reimpose the Symington Sanctions, I will introduce legislation early in the 108th Congress to sanction Pakistan for delivering nuclear enrichment equipment without international safeguards as determined by the Symington Amendment of 1976.

Mr. Speaker, we must show Pakistan that their promise to help us in our war on terrorism cannot be an empty promise. They cannot have it both ways and until President Musharraf learns this lesson we must reinstate the Symington Sanctions to protect our allies in Asia and our own nation.

1B) Teach Peace and Disarmament in our Schools
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to bring to my colleagues' attention, and to the attention of their constituents who may wish to get involved in peace education, the recently released United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education.

The study is the result of successful collaboration between the Hague Appeal for Peace--a citizen's organization dedicated to reducing wars and armed conflict and promoting reconciliation and economic development--the Government of Mexico and the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs.

By working together--governments, civil society and the United Nations--the effort to sustain peace through education stands a greater chance of success.

Humankind's genius invented technological wonders in the last century that have made life more livable and longer for many. It also produced, and then governments used, the atomic bomb, and then perfected it to incomprehensible destructive capacity. We are discovering new pieces of information from direct participants about how close we came to a global nuclear exchange during the Cuban Missile crisis 40 years ago. And we are confronted with a new awareness of dangers that might arise with the use of weapons of mass destruction for terrorism.

Education alone is not a security blanket. It is not a guarantee for progressive thinking. Indeed, we have learned that young people being educated in some religious schools in the Middle East were being indoctrinated with hatred for the West and the United States.

However, in a democratic society, education is a tool for enlightenment. As H.G. Wells said in his 1921 work, The Outline of History, ``Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.'' We would do well to heed his warning.

Fortunately, the complacency and lack of interest in questions of disarmament and non-proliferation, especially about extant nuclear dangers and solutions, is starting slowly to break down. During talk of war and inspections of weapons of mass destruction, we find ourselves in a teachable moment.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a time in history when it is critical to embrace the idea that peace, dialogue, and disarmament can and should be taught in school and that it should be taught as an integral part of school curricula and programs in the United States and across the world. And there has emerged a plan to help educators learn how to teach peace.

A ten-country United Nations group of experts issued a study in October on the status of disarmament and non-proliferation education efforts world-wide, making a set of 34 recommendations to Governments, the UN, other international organizations, and civil society on how to improve peace and disarmament education as a means of fostering tolerance and a culture of non-violence.

It calls for a joint effort to revitalize disarmament education to empower young people through knowledge to help make the world a more peaceful place. Surely this is an idea that all of us in Congress, regardless of party or political persuasion, can support.

The Study is available on the United Nations Web site at http://disarmament.un.org/education/index.html, and I commend it to my colleagues for further reading. I am also enclosing several additional documents for the RECORD about the project for the benefit of my colleagues and their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share this information with my colleagues and I also appreciate the hard work that the Hague Appeal for Peace, the United Nations, and the Government of Mexico put into this exciting and important peace education project.

All the following recommendations are important. They vary, however, in the resources required for their implementation, the pace with which they can be put in place and the amount of time needed before they yield significant results. Those recommendations with asterisks represent steps that can and should be taken rapidly and at a relatively low cost.

*1. Member States are encouraged to accord importance to disarmament and non-proliferation education and training in their programmes and policies, consistent with their national legislation and practices, taking into account present and future trends. They are also encouraged to use, designate or establish public advisory bodies, where appropriate, whose responsibilities include advising on disarmament and non-proliferation education and training practices. Member States are encouraged to share their experience in disarmament and non-proliferation education and training with other Member States, international organizations, civil society and the Department for Disarmament Affairs.

*2. Relevant United Nations offices and other international organizations and agencies should prepare, adapt and disseminate a wider range of user-friendly educational material on disarmament and non-proliferation. The current experience in this field should be tapped and existing educational material, including educational modules, resource books, guide and online programmes, should be tailored to the needs of individual countries, specific audiences or the international community at large.

*3. The United Nations and other international organizations should translate its disarmament and publications into all United Nations official languages and, when possible, into other languages for additional dissemination. Upon request by the United Nations or relevant international organizations, Member States, academic and research institutions and NGOs are encouraged to support or assist in translating relevant materials.

4. The United Nations and other international organizations should increase their capacities to disseminate disarmament and non-proliferation education-related materials (print and audio-visual) more widely to all regions of the world. While strengthening existing distribution channels, they should explore new ones, such as cooperation with educational networks, teachers unions and curriculum committees as well as electrical access. Member States, local academic institutions, research centres and NGOs are also encouraged to assist in dissemination efforts. As it is essential to reach the local community level, channels of dissemination such as school libraries, gathering places, radio and television are highly recommended.

5. The Department of Disarmament Affairs should gather information about the involvement of regional and intergovernmental organizations in disarmament and non-proliferation education, training and data collection activities. The Department should examine ways to foster an exchange of experiences and regional perspectives to facilitate the development of disarmament and non-proliferation education programmes.

6. The Department of Disarmament Affairs should examine, accumulate and make public and easily accessible the different disarmament and non-proliferation curricula and programmes that States have developed for their formal school systems and university courses as well as for informal training.

7. UNU and UPEACE are encouraged to develop intensive postgraduate and other courses on disarmament and non-proliferation for representatives of all regions of the world, including government officials, legislators, military officers, NGOs, the media and students, working in cooperation with academic and non-governmental institutions that have expertise in designing and implementing such courses. UPEACE, in coordination with the Department of Disarmament Affairs, may wish to host seminars and workshops as well as to develop model university and school material.

8. Member States are encouraged to include parliamentarians and/or non-governmental advisers in delegations to United Nations disarmament-related meetings, taking into account national legislation and practices.

9. The Department of Disarmament Affairs and its regional centres, in cooperation with UNIDIR, UNU and UPEACE, are encouraged to establish a virtual library of reports of ``lessons learned'' on disarmament-related aspects of peace operations and make it available to both Governments and NGOs on a disarmament and non-proliferation online education resource site (see recommendations 25).

10. Municipal leaders, working with citizen groups, are encouraged to establish peace cities, as part of the UNESCO Cities for Peace network, through, for example, the creation of peace museums, peace parks, web sites and the production of booklets on peacemakers and peacemaking.

11. UNU and UPEACE are encouraged to provide assistance to those city councils and prefectures that are willing to host seminars on disarmament and non-proliferation issues for the media, academics, local and national politicians, trade union representatives, religious leaders and the wider public.

12. Religious leaders and institutions are encouraged to develop educational material promoting a culture of peace and disarmament.

*13. Member States, in cooperation with the United Nations and relevant international organizations, are encouraged to sponsor training, fellowships, and awareness programmes, on as wide a geographical basis as possible, for researchers, engineers, scientists and other academics in areas of particular relevance, but not limited to treaties and agreements on weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. They are also encouraged to give special emphasis to training customs, licensing and law enforcement officers for the purpose of fulfilling international obligations of Member States in the disarmament and non-proliferation fields.

*14. The Department of Disarmament Affairs, in cooperation with UNU and UPEACE, should be encouraged to organize a programme of training for educators and trainers in disarmament and non-proliferation. These programmes may be implemented cooperatively with international organizations such as IAEA, OPCW and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear -Test Ban Treaty Organization.

15. The Department of Disarmament Affairs, in cooperation with UNESCO, UPEACE, UNIDIR and NGOs, should produce and maintain an updated international bibliography of reference literature for teachers, including an updated directory of peace studies programmes and disarmament and non-proliferation research centres, and make this available on a disarmament and non-proliferation online education resource site (see recommendation 25).

16. UNESCO IBE is encouraged to convene regional meetings with ministers of education, educational administrators and university presidents to discuss the issues involved in developing disarmament and non-proliferation education for primary, secondary and university students. The International Conference on Education is encouraged to devote one session of a future meeting to disarmament and non-proliferation education, for example, through a workshop on science and ethics.

*17. The United Nations, relevant international organizations, Member States, NGOs and research institutes should develop and strengthen programmes, workshops, fellowships and materials or disarmament and non-proliferation topics for journalists and media representatives in order to enhance their knowledge of these issues. Special attention should be paid to the development of programmes and materials designed for local media in post-conflict situations, as essential partners in the disarmament and non-proliferation education process.

18. Disarmament and non-proliferation educational materials developed by the United Nations, such as the Cyberschoolbus web site, should include complementary material on how parents can encourage attitudes of peace and non-violence. Efforts should also be made by educators, parents and the business community to devise and produce toys, computer games and videos that engender such attitudes.

19. Additional fellowships and scholarships should be provided for various target audiences by or through the Department of Disarmament Affairs (directly or through its regional centres), UPEACE, UNIDIR and the NGO Committee on Disarmament, among others. An important educational supplement to disarmament and non-proliferation classroom training should be on-the-job training, which may be conducted at the sites of international organizations, national governmental agencies, NGOs and research centres. Opportunities for such on-the-job training should be expanded.

*20. The United Nations, relevant international organizations, Member States, and corporate and private donors are encouraged to provide assistance, including funds, educational material and equipment to NGOs in different regions of the world and to universities to establish or expand their disarmament and non-proliferation libraries with free and open public access to their resources. Member States should be encouraged to fund research institutes that focus on disarmament and non-proliferation and offer scholarships for advanced university students to carry out research on disarmament and non-proliferation and its pedagogy. The United Nations should make greater efforts to tap the financial resources of private enterprises in the fields of information and communications technology.

2A) National Defense and Space
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate in 1991, we were faced with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Actually, my first speech on the floor was about Iraq and the war and the fact that we had to make a very difficult vote.

   As I leave the Senate, here we are still facing--12 years later--Saddam Hussein and an imminent war with Iraq. So there is some irony there, I guess.

   Before I make some closing remarks about my tenure here and leaving the Senate, I want to make a few remarks about something that I think has been somewhat ignored over the past several years in this body and, indeed, in the country, and that is the future of space and how space will help us to protect our national security and also not only our national security but just the pure science of space and the fascination

[Page: S11665]

   I hope the 21st century will be the one that takes us into space to help protect our Nation and, indeed, perhaps the world. I believe whoever controls space will control peace here on earth.

   I made these statements several years ago and got some negative editorials for it. I was called spaceman by one of the more, if you will, ``prominent'' newspapers in my State. As Harry Truman said, ``If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.'' Sometimes a price is to be paid for leadership. I believe if they can say about me that I was one of the folks here that promoted space and the good things that can come to our Nation as a result of space--if I can be remembered for that--I would be very happy.

   I want to draw my colleagues' attention to our Nation's

   future security in space. In 1998, I delivered a speech at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University on November 18, just 4 years ago. In that speech, I spoke about the challenge of space power. I labeled space the ``permanent frontier.'' Some say it is the ``final frontier.'' It is not final, it is permanent.

   That is the fascinating part about space. I remember looking at the stars as a kid and thinking this goes on forever. It is a permanent frontier. There is no limit to how far we can go in the exploration of space.

   When I came to the House in 1985, I served on the Space Subcommittee of the Science and Technology Committee until my election to the Senate in 1990. I had the pleasure of being in Congress during the Reagan administration. I remember with pride and emotion President Reagan's firm leadership and his commitment to rebuilding our military after years of neglect. He, too, offered a promise of space power, with his visionary Strategic Defense Initiative. Despite tremendous opposition and ridicule, with cynics and critics calling SDI ``star wars,'' his vision is being fulfilled today. It was a vision.

   The ABM Treaty is on the waste heap of history, where it belongs. Mutual assured destruction has been exposed for the sham that it was, and we are moving toward deployment of a robust, multilayered ballistic missile defense system and toward providing the American people the protection they need from the growing and imminent threat of ballistic missiles in the hands of rogue states such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and others.

   We stand now at a very uncertain time--perhaps on the brink of a greatly expanded war on terrorism. And while we try to find and eliminate terrorists and their cells, we are at risk in our cities, in the heartland, of more devastating terrorist attacks. In the heartland of our country, never before have we felt threatened like this.

   None of us wish to be at war. I have served in war. I don't want to be in war. But we are in a state of war. I enlisted to serve in the Navy in Vietnam. I know what the horrors of war bring. But if this Nation has to go to war with Iraq, or anywhere else, to ensure our liberty, to ensure our freedom, to ensure that our lives are free of the threats of aggressive, dangerous dictators and the global terrorist network, I will support our President and I will support our troops, whether or not I am in the Senate.

   All of my efforts in national security over my career in the House and Senate have been focused on ensuring that our troops--the men and women who put the uniform on and defend us every day--are well organized, trained, and equipped for war. Nothing less than that is satisfactory. If we are going to show the world that we are strong and we are prepared for war, few would choose the risky path of challenging us, and that is the message we must send.

   The task of organizing, training, and equipping our forces is not a one-time effort; it is a continuously evolving challenge that must be attended with the same aggressiveness and unyielding commitment that our warfighters apply on the battlefield. The threats we face are constantly changing, as we saw on September 11, and our approach to warfighting must change as well.

   As we have so vividly demonstrated in our prosecution of the global war on terrorism, we now have to protect our cities in our own homeland--our own buildings, the very buildings where we are sitting now.

   My colleagues, I say to you, as I leave, that it is our job

   as leaders representing this great Nation to make sure our military is properly organized, trained, and equipped to meet its future challenges, and nothing we do here is more important.

   In the early years of this Nation, we relied on the power of our Army and our Navy. In the early years of the last century, we saw the emergence of air power--which was also criticized when it first started--that has dominated our initial application of force in recent conflicts. But times are changing. The threats we face are changing.

   GEN Chuck Horner, commander of our troops in Desert Storm, said after the conflict that we have witnessed the first space war--that was in 1991, tanks and troops navigating flawlessly through a featureless desert. That was the war against Iraq in 1991. Unprecedented intelligence; advance warning of incoming missiles; bombs dropped precisely on targets; command, control, and communications synchronizing a military scattered across a vast theater of war in the Middle East--all of these contributions were made possible by the use of space systems in 1991.

   Had we not had those space systems and had we not had control, or had Iraq had control, the whole outcome may have been different.

   This was not a real space war that General Horner was referring to. There were no shots fired in space. What we witnessed was an awakening to the enormous benefits that space systems provide our military. It is important to remember that we are not the only witnesses. The world and our potential adversaries watched us and learned from our prosecution of that war and every conflict since.

   Like General Horner, General Krulak, former Marine Commandant, and a soldier greatly respected by me and by his marines and fellow officers, said that ``between 2015 and 2025, we have an opportunity to put a fleet on another sea. And that sea is space.''

   That is a very far-reaching and visionary statement, Mr. President, from a great American, Chuck Krulak.

   Our troops deserve every advantage we can give them. We ought to lay up at night thinking about what advantages we can give these men and women. If we are to preserve our current space advantage, then we must protect our space systems from any attack and deny our adversaries that same use of space. We must maintain space control. We also must do more than maintain the current status quo. Space offers our warfighters so much more; a space-based radar that tracks enemy movements behind the lines without risking air crews, a space plane that can project force anywhere on earth in 45 minutes or less, a low orbit space plane, new ways of looking for new threats. I fought to save that space plane, and it was cut during the 8 years of the Clinton administration.

   The space plane, I believe, is beginning to receive the attention it deserves within the hierarchy of the Air Force Space Command.

   The MSP, the military space plan, could access virtually all orbits and with specific upper-stage systems could help protect our extensive and vital space-based assets. This plan could provide platforms to support potential air, sea, and ground operations through its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensor payloads while also providing potential precision long-range strike capability without putting men and women in uniform in harm's way--a tremendous asset to our arsenal. Yet it has been slowed down; it was cut. We now need to bring it back.

   As we look even further into the future, visionaries see capabilities--this is always what I like to talk about, what the future will bring. It is fun to hear these visionaries talk, but in the future we are going to see capabilities like special operations troops delivered rapidly from one location to another through space and lasers, destroying targets instantaneously deep inside the enemy's territory. When the missile is fired, we blow it up with a laser over their territory, not ours.

   Not only do these visions offer fast and effective military action, they offer the possibility of putting fewer men and women forward deployed with their lives at risk.

   We cannot forget we must invest today to develop these and all the

[Page: S11666]

   In 1999, with the support of my colleagues, I chartered the Space Commission to make recommendations to reorganize Government to better deliver the military space capabilities this Nation needs for the future. That Commission brought together this Nation's best defense and space leaders.

   One of them was Donald Rumsfeld. He led the group just before he became our current Secretary of Defense. I would like to believe he was selected in part because he did such an outstanding job with the Space Commission--I hope that is one of the reasons why President Bush selected him as Secretary of Defense--and earlier with the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission.

   Secretary Rumsfeld and his fellow commissioners found that future space warfare is a ``virtual certainty,'' and that we had better be prepared for it. The Space Commission's report warned about the ominous possibility of a ``space Pearl Harbor.'' It called for protecting satellites essential for military operations and developing space weapons to deter attacks in or from space and to defend against attacks if they occur.

   The U.S. is now heavily dependent upon satellites with hundreds in orbit serving commercial as well as military uses. We are more dependent on space than any other nation in the world. Think about your cell phone. Were it not for space, you would not be using it.

   In 1998, a Galaxy IV satellite malfunctioned. It shut down 80 percent of U.S. pagers and video feeds for cable and broadcast transmissions. It took weeks to restore service. In 2000, the U.S. lost all information from satellites for 3 hours when computers in ground stations malfunctioned. These incidents served to show how critical space has become to us.

   The Space Commission recognized space weapons to deter attacks from space would be essential because we cannot protect satellites adequately without weapons in space. Remember that. Let me repeat it: We cannot protect our satellites in space without weapons in space. A weapon in space does not have to be an offensive weapon; it can be a defensive weapon.

   The resulting space management reorganization stemming from

   the work of the Space Commission is nearly complete. The various stakeholders have decided which of the Space Commission's recommendations it will implement and how. Frankly, though, I am still skeptical that the changes that have been made will be effective in delivering the space capabilities this Nation needs.

   Over the course of the last year, we have discovered that most of our current space programs are ``broken,'' severely underfunded, and behind schedule, and that is not good. I am not naive, and I do not blame the recent reforms for the current problems. However, I am not convinced the reforms that have been implemented are capable of making the tough choices that both, A, fix the problems with our current space programs and, B, keep us aggressively pressing forward with developing new technologies and capabilities we need for the future.

   When we won the war in the Persian Gulf in 1991, it was with highly sophisticated weapons. Somebody 20, 30 years ago had the vision to build them. They did not crawl under a rock and say: That is just too far in the future; we are not going to deal with it--precision bombs and precision ordnance. Somebody had to think about it. Somebody had to put it on the drawing board. Somebody had to pay for it and build it.

   If the Air Force cannot or will not step up to its responsibilities as the executive agent for military space, then Congress must do it, as the space commissioners noted, and create a separate space force to become that strong advocate. I have spoken of the need for the Air Force to build a dedicated space warfare cadre of younger space-trained officers and to stop assigning nonspace officers to lead space billets in space organizations. I predict that early in this 21st century, there will be a space force just as there now is an Air Force. There will be a space force.

   For far too long, the Air Force's space institutions and commands have been led by officers not specializing in space. That must change if we are to move into this space era.

   I have been a long-time advocate for the potential of national security space on the Hill. I know being an advocate for space is not easy. Believe me, I know. I have been ridiculed for it. These capabilities are complex, and they are not cheap, although I believe space power ultimately could be more cost-effective than some of our legacy systems.

   I have also learned that some of the needed space capabilities, such as the Kinetic Energy Antisatellite or KE ASAT Program, can take longer than a career in Congress to deploy. Today we are only a modest amount of funding short of being ready to flight-test KE ASAT, one of our near-term space control programs.

   KE ASAT offers the promise of complete space control at minimal cost to the taxpayers and delivers the essential 4 Ds--i.e., the ability to disrupt, degrade, deny, and destroy--required to deal with the enemy threat.

   The old Soviet Union built a co-orbital satellite killer that it tested in space at least 20 times and which was operational with Soviet strategic forces for a decade. China is reportedly developing a hunter-killer microsatellite that would attach itself to an adversary's satellite and destroy it. Imagine the disruption that could cause us both militarily and commercially. We must be ready to protect against the deployment and use of such systems.

   We cannot shy away from, nor shortchange, our commitment to transform our military for the future. This is our challenge.

   I have carried the space banner through many tough fights,

   including the line-item veto by President Clinton of our emerging space power programs. Missile defense has survived, KE ASAT has survived, and the space plane, too. But these programs need ongoing commitment and funds toward deployment and real security for our Nation and our service men and women. They need to be reviewed at the highest levels of DOD, by the Secretary, by Under Secretaries Aldridge and Teets, and by the Secretary's trusted aide who served at the Space Commission as its Director, now at PA&E, Steve Cambone.

   Some of my friends have asked why I focused on space since there is not a strong space constituency in my home State of New Hampshire. I beg to differ. There is a major constituency in New Hampshire that demands a strong, cost-effective national defense. In fact, I would argue that same constituency stretches all across America--a constituency that supports our military every day, not just during trying times.

   If it is the right thing to do, whether you have a constituency in your State for it, we are here to lead. We are here to lead this Nation.

   New Hampshire also is proud of its high-tech industry. New Hampshire is also the State that sent astronaut Alan Shepard and Christa McAuliffe to participate in the National Space Program. Christa lost her life aboard the Challenger in 1986. Both of them had ``the right stuff,'' and they created a surge of enthusiasm for space exploration.

   As I prepare to leave the Senate, I look around and ask myself: Who is going to pick up the space banner I have carried? Who will advocate today for the needs of our future fighting men and women in space?

   Forty years ago, and spurred in part by the shock of the Soviet success with Sputnik in 1957, President Kennedy challenged the Nation to look into space. He criticized Republicans--the Eisenhower administration--in fact, for letting the Russians get ahead in space. President Kennedy recognized even in those early days of space exploration the criticality of space that General Horner witnessed in Desert Storm.

   President Kennedy told us the Nation that controls space will come to dominate the world. In a speech to Rice University in 1962, John F. Kennedy said the following:

   The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not. And it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space.

   We mean to lead it, for the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and

[Page: S11667]

   That was well said by a Democrat President. He was absolutely right.

   Who do you want to control the satellites in space? Who do you want to control what goes on in space: Communist China, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, or the United States of America?

   The day before his assassination, President Kennedy spoke at a dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, and he noted:

   This Nation has tossed its cap across the wall of space and we have no choice but to follow it.

   What a great visionary President Kennedy was on this issue. Leveraging space to ensure our freedom and to protect our allies is not a partisan issue. It is our moral obligation, pure and simple, just like it was to respond to the attacks of the Japanese and the Germans during World War II. It was our moral obligation to stop the killing by the Nazis, to stop the Bataan death marches, to stop the tyranny and the aggression. It is now our moral obligation to protect this Nation from the threat from space.

   In his now famous speech at the Citadel, candidate George W. Bush said:

   We need to skip a generation of technology.

   And in space,

   We must be able to protect our network of satellites essential to the flow of our commerce and the defense of our country.

   He called for a new spirit of innovation and recognized the fact that many officers express impatience with the prevalent bureaucratic mindset that frustrates--and, I would argue, fails to reward--creativity.

   We must reward creativity. George Bush called for a culture of command where change is welcomed and rewarded, not dreaded. To do that, we need to break with the past, get out of the box, put in charge people who are visionaries, who are ready to fulfill the President's and the Secretary of Defense's vision, to fulfill Ronald Reagan's vision for peace using space for peace. Even President Reagan, the hard-core conservative, offered to provide to the Soviet Union the technology to bring peace to the world if that was what it took.

   As we stand now on the brink of an expanded war with Iraq, I ask myself whether we have provided our sons and daughters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, all the best technology that this country has to help them accomplish their mission quickly and bring them home safely. Have we? I do not think we have, with all due respect. We have the opportunity to do it if we will think about it now.

   I think we can do better. I believe this body has the vision, the expertise, the knowledge, and the good people in it to ensure that we organize, train, and equip our military for the future, a future that leverages the full potential of space that we have only begun to realize. But we must exercise stringent oversight. We must serve as the catalyst to push a grudging--and it is a grudging--bureaucracy and military industrial complex into fulfilling that potential.

   Bureaucracies are not innovative. They basically exist. They do not like change. We need to give them change. We need to impose it upon them.

   President Reagan, speaking to the Young Astronauts program

   in 1986, told the participants that they were on ``the edge of our known world, standing on the shores of the infinite.''

   What a statement: We are standing on the edge of our known world, on the shores of the infinite.

   He called for them to touch the mystery of God's universe and to set sail across its waters into the most noble adventure of all. President Reagan achieved because he dreamed, because he motivated and he inspired. He understood that Americans, by nature, are dynamic people. They are good people. The change they bring is for the good, for the best of America, and that is all he worked on--for excellence, to rise to the challenge, the shining city on the hill, undaunted by threats, and with hope and optimism. That was President Reagan, following the words of President Kennedy.

   Through enormous sacrifice, America has preserved her own freedom and freed millions around the world. We go to far off countries, serve in combat, die on fields in countries we have never heard of, day in and day out, year after year. As leaders in Congress, we are committed to preserving these freedoms for future generations, but to achieve that goal we must reach into space with gusto for its science, for its mystery, for the security it can offer us.

   Control of space is more than a new mission to consider funding, it is our moral legacy. Moving into space is our next manifest destiny. It is our chance to create sanctity and security for centuries to come. It is our chance to do it. As I leave the Senate, I want to inspire my colleagues to pick up that cause because it is the right thing to do.

   SENATE SERVICE

   I know there are others who wish to speak, but I am going to take a couple of minutes, because I am leaving the Senate, and close on a few personal thoughts. I do respect my good friend, Senator Sessions. I will be only a few minutes.

   I remember when I came down to the floor to sign the book in December of 1990. Senator Byrd was there, as he always is, and he watched as I signed 1,794. He said: Senator Smith, you are the new Senator from New Hampshire. You want to remember there are tens of millions of people--I will never forget this--who have been part of the United States of America since 1776, and you are 1 of only 1,794 to have served in the Senate.

   I will never forget it, and I never have. Senator Byrd is one of the finest people to ever walked on to this floor. I admire him greatly. It has been an honor and privilege to serve with him, but it has been a great honor to serve the people of New Hampshire for 18 years, 12 in the Senate and 6 in the House. It has been an extraordinary privilege to occupy this desk, the desk of Daniel Webster, for 9 years.

   There is a very interesting story about this desk. Actually, Daniel Webster represented Massachusetts in the Senate, although he was from New Hampshire. He was a New Hampshire native. So when Senator Kennedy, TED KENNEDY, gave up the desk to take his brother John's desk, the desk became a free spirit, and Senator Norris Cotton passed a resolution in the Senate that the Webster desk will forever more belong to the senior Senator from the State of New Hampshire. That is a long time, forever more. So nobody else is going to get it.

   I have etched my name in the drawer, from Webster coming down through those great people who occupied this seat, down to where I have etched my name. It is a reminder, as I sit at this desk--these desks open from the top like so. There are very few desks in this Chamber that do not open that way, and one is Daniel Webster's because he did not want to pay to have

   it done because it cost too much money. It cost $5 to $10 in those days, and he said taxpayers should not have to pay for that, so it just has a drawer in it. Webster was a frugal person. He was also a great orator.

   Next to Webster's desk is the desk of Jefferson Davis, which is now occupied by Senator Cochran of Mississippi. I am reminded of the great speech Jefferson Davis gave with so much emotion that he left the Senate to go back to his home State of Mississippi during the Civil War.

   There is so much history in this Chamber. One of the things you do when you are leaving the Senate, you take time to smell the roses a little bit and you look around. President Reagan said history is a ribbon, always unfurling.

   History is a journey. Every one of us, Senator Sessions, Senator Inouye, my great friend who now occupies the chair, they are all part of history. It is unfurling as we stand. What we say today is a memory tomorrow. Life is nothing but memories. But we have a chance to make part of that history, to chart that course, for America, 1 of 100 people to do it at any given time in American history.

   I have learned more about friendship, patriotism, and loyalty in the last 18 years while a Member of Congress, from people in my State, my family, the Senate, so many wonderful people, good friends, than I could ever have imagined.

[Page: S11668]

   Senator Reid indicated a few moments ago he was sorry I did not win, but I am reminded of Theodore Roosevelt who won and lost his share of elections. This is a great quote for you young people. Think about it because you are going to be facing challenges. All the pages who are sitting here, you are going to win some and you are going to lose some.

   You will have great disappointments and you will have great successes. That is what life is. It is a heck of a lot more fun to win than it is to lose. I speak from experience on that.

   Teddy Roosevelt said: Far better it is to dare mighty things, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory or defeat.

   You can't succeed if you are afraid to fail. You have to fight the fight. You have to fight for the cause. The cause will go on. People will depart the stage. Webster departed; Lincoln departed; many people have departed the stage of running the United States of America--or even the world, Churchill--but others must step up. Maybe they don't step up quite at the level of the ones who are following but they step up.

   That is why America must go on. I want 500 years from now the Senator from Alabama--Senator Thurmond might be here--but Senator Sessions and I won't--I want those two Senators from New Hampshire and Alabama to be here on this floor in this great country, still the free country it is, having good debates just as we have done so many times.

   There are so many things one gets the opportunity to do as a Senator. What I have enjoyed the most is helping people, constituent service, working every day with people in the State. Somebody lost their medal that they deserved from World War II or perhaps they are trying to get a child from another country. We do these things every day. That is what I enjoy the most. That is what I will miss the most. I remember a young man who had leukemia. He was dying. He called my office and said his dream was to see a space launch at Cape Canaveral. He could not afford to go and he was very sick. I made it happen and arranged with NASA to have him go and see the space launch. He came back home and died. It is little things such as that. We did not ask for any press on it. Those are the things that I will remember.

   When you say you are a strong conservative--and people want to lock you in as somebody who does not care or who is not compassionate--I like to help people who sometimes cannot help themselves. Captain McVeigh, the Navy captain of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, who was wronged, who eventually committed suicide because of a terrible ordeal he went through where he was unfairly blamed for the loss of his ship, we cleared his name, thanks to the help of Senator JOHN WARNER, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

   Fighting so many issues--the POW/MIA, dealing with families of those people; serving as the chairman of the Ethics Committee, in the Senate, chosen by all of you to have that high honor--I could go on and on--chairing the Environment and Public Works Committee.

   I believe I came here on principle. My motto was Jimmy Stewart's in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.'' He went to right a wrong. They were going to flood some Boy Scout camp with a big dam. He came down and stopped it. That kind of ambition and enthusiasm and concern about your fellow man is what I brought here. I came with principle.

   I came here to Congress under Ronald Reagan. I am a Reagan Republican. I am leaving the Congress a Reagan Republican--a Republican who stands on his platform, who runs on that platform, not away from the platform. And, yes, that includes the right-to-life, that includes the right to protect the second amendment, that includes cutting taxes and spending and living within your means, helping our veterans, a strong national defense. That is what it means. That is our platform. I don't run from it. I don't run from it here in the Senate; I never have. That may be one of the reasons why I am leaving--involuntarily.

   A friend of mine, Mel Thompson, the former Governor of New Hampshire, said you stand for something or you stand for nothing. I can proudly say I have tried to stand up for what I believe in while I have been here.

   It has been a great honor, the highest honor of my life, to be here, to serve here, to make the friends I have made here. I will never, ever forget it.

   I say thank you in closing to several members of my staff. I know some have come onto the floor today since it is my last speech, unless I come back again--you never know. I appreciate them, and I ask unanimous consent that a list of my staff, both on the Environment and Public Works Committee and my personal staff, be printed in the RECORD to honor their service to our country.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Environment and Public Works Smith Staff

   David Conover, Chris Hessler, Martin Hall, Alex Johnson, Melinda Cross, Chelsea Maxwell, Angelina Giancarlo, Kristy Rose, Erin Hass, Genevieve Erny, Paul Jensen, Suzanne Matwyshen-Gillen, Michele Nellenbach, James Qualters, Megan Stanley, Nathan Richmond, Patricia Doerr, and Emma Dabson.

   Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I single out three or four people. My chief of staff, Pat Petty, who is no longer my chief of staff, but who served me for about 15 years, I recognize his service to the Senate, to the country. My current chief of staff, Dino Carluccio, who started in my office as basically an intern and went off to Europe to study in Italy sent me a note saying: You need me in your office. And I remember saying to my current chief, my chief of staff at the time, anybody who has that much self-confidence we ought to hire. We did. Now he is the chief of staff. He worked his way up in the true sense of the word. He is a great American.

   Lisa Harrison worked for one of my opponents in my primary, the first primary, the first time I won in 1984. She was working for the other guy, but I liked her. I thought she had a good personality, she was smart, and she was one of the few people on the other campaigns who said hello to me when I walked into the room. She got a job and has been with me for 18 years and is one of the best communication directors in the Senate.

   Ed Corrigan, my legislative director, has been with me for 10 years, a real conservative, committed guy. He knows the rules of the Senate, inside and out, a great American, great patriot.

   And Dave Conover, who is my chief of staff at the Environment and Public Works Committee, has done an outstanding job there. We had a great run for a year and a half. We preserved the Everglades and passed brownfields and MTBE legislation and other bills to make our air, land, water, and our wildlife habitat cleaner.

   I am proud to have served with them all. I had two people in my State staff, Dorothy Vatize and Marti Jones, who have served with me for 18 years, all 18 years I have been here. One is retiring and the other is leaving to do other things.

   It has been an honor to serve here--again, the highest honor of my life. I will never forget it. I am not sure what comes next, but as has been said many times, Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie has said it a number of times to me, God closes one door and he opens another. He did close one, I am sure of that. The other one is not yet open, but we will find it.

   Having mentioned the chaplain, there is no finer person in the entire world than Lloyd Ogilvie. He is one of the most Christian men and such an inspiration to all of us in the Senate, a friendship I will have with me forever.

   I say thank you to all my colleagues and friends and others I have made here, and thank you to the people of New Hampshire for allowing me the privilege of serving you in this body and in the House of Representatives for 18 years.

   I yield the floor.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.

3A) Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2002
IRAQI SCIENTISTS IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2002 -- (Senate - November 20, 2002)

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3079, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   A bill (S. 3079) to authorize the issuance of immigrant visas to, and the admission to the United States for permanent residence of, certain scientists, engineers, and technicians who have worked in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs.

   There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Biden substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the RECORD.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The amendment (No. 4979) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to, as follows:

   Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

   This Act may be cited as the ``Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2002''.

   SEC. 2. ADMISSION OF CRITICAL ALIENS.

   (a) Section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15), is amended--

   (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of the subparagraph (U);

   (2) by striking the period at the end of the subparagraph (V) and inserting ``; or''; and

   (3) by adding a new subparagraph (W), reading:

   ``(W) Subject to section 214(s), an alien--

   ``(i) who the Attorney General determines, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Director of Central Intelligence and such other officials as he may deem appropriate, and in the Attorney General's unreviewable discretion, is an individual--

   ``(I) who has worked at any time in an Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them;

   ``(II) who is in possession of critical and reliable information concerning any such Iraqi program;

   ``(III) who is willing to provide, or has provided, such information to the United States Government;

   ``(IV) who may be willing to provide, or has provided, such information to inspectors of the United Nations or of the International Atomic Energy Agency;

   ``(V) who will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information; and

   ``(VI) whose admission would be in the public interest or in the interest of national security; or

   ``(ii) who is the spouse, married or unmarried son or daughter, parent, or other relative, as determined by the Attorney General in his unreviewable discretion, of an alien described in clause (i), if accompanying or following to join such alien, and whose admission the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence, determines in his unreviewable discretion is in the public interest or in the interest of national security.''

   (b) Section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1184, is amended by--

   (1) redesignating subsections second (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), second (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and

   (2) adding a new subsection (s) reading:

   ``(s) Numerical limitations and conditions of admission and stay for nonimmigrants admitted under section 101(a)(15)(W).

   ``(1) The number of aliens who may be admitted to the United States or otherwise granted status under section 101(a)(15)(W)(i) may not exceed a total of 500.

   ``(2) As a condition for the admission, and continued stay in lawful status, of any alien admitted to the United States or otherwise granted status as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(W), the nonimmigrant--

   ``(A) shall report to the Attorney General such information concerning the alien's whereabouts and activities as the Attorney General may require;

   ``(B) may not be convicted of any criminal offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of 1 year or more after the date of such admission or grant of status;

   ``(C) must have executed a form that waives the nonimmigrant's right to contest, other than on the basis of an application for withholding of removal or for protection under the Convention Against Torture, any action for removal of the alien instituted before the alien obtains lawful permanent resident status;

   ``(D) shall cooperate fully with all requests for information from the United States Government including, but not limited to, fully and truthfully disclosing to the United States Government including, but not limited to, fully and truthfully disclosing to the United States Government all information in the alien's possession concerning any Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them; and

   ``(E) shall abide by any other condition, limitation, or restriction imposed by the Attorney General.''

   (c) Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, §U.S.C. 1255, is amended by--

   (1) In subsection (c), striking ``or'' before ``(8)'' and inserting before the period, ``or (9) an alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(W)'';

   (2) Redesignating subsection (1), relating to ``U'' visa nonimmigrants, as subsection (m); and

   (3) Adding a new subsection (n) reading:

   ``(n) Adjustment to permanent resident status of `W' nonimmigrants.

   ``(1) If, in the opinion of the Attorney General, a nonimmigrant admitted into the United States (or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status) under section 101(a)(15)(W)(i) has complied with section 214(s) since such admission or grant of status, the Attorney General may, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence, and in his unreviewable discretion, adjust the status of the alien (and any alien who has accompanied or followed to join such alien pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(W)(ii) and who has complied with section 214(s) since admission or grant of nonimmigrant status) to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resident if the alien is not described in section 212(a)(3)(E).

   ``(2) Upon the approval of adjustment of status of any alien under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date of such approval and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of visas authorized to be issued under sections 201(d) and 203(b)(4) for the fiscal year then current.''

   (d) Section 212(d) of the Immigrantion and Nationality Act, §U.S.C. 1182(d), is amended by inserting a new paragraph (d)(2) reading:

   ``(2) The Attorney General shall determine whether a ground of inadmissibility exists with respect to a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(W). The Attorney General, in the Attorney General's discretion, may waive the application of subsection (a) in the case of such a nonimmigrant if the Attorney General considers it to be in the public interest or in the interest of national security.''

   (e) Section 248(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1258(I), is amended by striking ``or (S)'' and inserting ``(S), or (W)''.

   SEC. 3. WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFINED.

   (a) IN GENERAL.--In this Act, the term ``weapon of mass destruction'' has the meaning given the term in section 1403(1) of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2717; 50 U.S.C. 2302(1)), as amended by subsection (b).

   (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.--Section 1403(1)(B) of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2717; 50 U.S.C. 2302(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``a disease organism'' and inserting ``a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of title 18, United States Code)''.

   The bill (S. 3079), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

4A) Smallpox Producer Liability Waivers
I would say of this 484 page bill, 98 percent of it is the Gramm-Miller substitute which we debated for weeks. There were several changes made that have been much discussed. I believe there is a more efficient way of characterizing those changes than the way they have been characterized. I want to try to explain them.

   Let me just first start by saying when the House writes a bill and the Senate writes a bill, there are often differences in the bill, and there is always give and take. Some have talked about extraneous material in the bill. I would have to say that in my 24 years in Congress, there are almost always issues dealt with in a bill that some people view as extraneous. I would say there are relatively few in this bill. But let me talk about the issues that are subject to the amendment Senator Lieberman has offered. This amendment strikes provisions in the compromise--I think there are seven of them. I don't have my notes with me, but I remember them well enough to talk about them.

   Three of these provisions have to do with liability. Let me remind my colleagues that since the Civil War, we have had provisions of law that have dealt with liability for people who were producing new products for war efforts. One of the ways of encouraging people to be innovative and one of the ways to get products from the drawing board to the battlefield quickly is to protect people from liability.

   There was a provision in the original Senate amendment, the Gramm-Miller amendment, that the Senators from Virginia were responsible for. That was a provision whereby the Federal Government would indemnify manufacturers of products that would be used in the war on terrorism, so that if a liability issue arose, the Federal Government would step in and basically cover the liability. I would have to say that was not my preferred option, but in putting the amendment together we accepted it.

   The House had another approach, which was to basically limit liability, require that lawsuits occur in Federal court, and set up a procedure to deal with liability that arose in these issues.

   In putting together the compromise with the House, we took something between the two that did not have the liability limits the House adopted but was a movement toward reducing runaway liability and removing the taxpayer from the line of fire.

   That accounts for three of the criticisms made. I want to address the one that is most discussed, and that is the one that has to do with mercury-based injections and smallpox vaccine.

   Under the bill, as it is now written, we are treating smallpox vaccine as an instrument of the war on terrorism. Before, we had dealt with it as a response to a disease. We had a liability fund for vaccines in the past, but now that we have eradicated smallpox , the only fear we have of it is the reintroduction by terrorist elements. So we bring smallpox vaccine under this liability limit.

   Those of my age will remember, if you get a smallpox shot, you get a skin reaction which produces a permanent scar. I say to my colleagues that this is pretty terrorism specific because no one would take a smallpox vaccination except for the terrorist threat because there are risks involved. Some small percentage of people have very negative reactions, some people die, and almost everybody has a scar from smallpox .

   This bill would require people who sue to enter into a negotiation with the Justice Department before they file suit, and to negotiate the possibility of a payment out of an indemnity fund.

   Some of our colleagues have said: Why did you make it retroactive? Wasn't that some kind of benefit to some vaccine producer? I remind my colleagues that nobody is taking smallpox vaccine now, nor would anybody take it unless there was an imminent threat. But we do have some of the vaccine stockpiled.

   Why would you make it retroactive to cover that stockpile that has already been produced? The reason you do that is, if you give a protection against liability for all vaccine produced in the future but not for what we have stockpiled, the manufacturers will destroy the stockpile and produce more vaccine. And if we had a sudden threat, we would not have the stockpile.

   So if this were a vaccine that was routinely taken, then I think the criticism would be well founded. But I think it is a total mischaracterization to say this is some kind of pharmaceutical bailout when it is targeted toward smallpox vaccine and the stockpile now has relevance only in terms of terrorism.

   In terms of manufactured products to use in the war on terrorism, I simply say, in every major conflict in modern history, we have had some liability limits for the people producing things for wartime use.

5A) Maritime Transportation Security Act
When he is reviewing project proposals and awarding grants, I encourage the Secretary of Transportation to give preference to those projects that incorporate technologies that are capable of automatically detecting shielded nuclear weapons, liquid and other explosives, and chemical and biological agents weapons in fully loaded cargo containers without the need for humans to open the containers to manually inspect them. Based on testimony received by the Congress, it would appear that pulsed fast neutron technology is capable today of meeting this need. As a result, I hope that this technology and other technologies will be identified, developed, and installed in our ports as part of the ongoing process of enhancing port security through this legislation.

Long Beach State's Center for the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies (CCDoTT) has been developing maritime technology for many years, and has recently turned their attention to port security technology as well. In the FY03 Defense Appropriations bill CCDoTT was granted $4.3 million for continuation of their important work to develop more efficient cargo handling in ports, high-speed ship designs, and port security research. This funding will allow the center to continue assessing cargo inspection technologies that can help meet the needs of agencies such as the U.S. Customs Service and the Coast Guard.

Section 70107 of the accompanying report authorizes an additional $15 million for fiscal years 2003 through 2008 for research and development grants for port security. I am pleased that report language for the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2002 particularly notes the importance of the research being done at Long Beach State's Center for the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies. This language encourages the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Defense to obligate any current and prior year appropriations under the continuing cooperative agreement. The Center is sponsored by the U.S. Maritime Administration and U.S. Department of Defense and I am certain it will continue to provide invaluable research for America's maritime interests. Again, I am pleased with, and strongly support, this timely port security legislation.

5B) Department of Homeland Security
Mrs. CLINTON. I must confess I thought he was referring to the Senator from Arkansas who perhaps was in the Chamber.

[Page: S11388]  GPO's PDF

   As I said, I appreciate the Senator's yellow, flashing lights about some of the issues we are about to contend with going forward in the Homeland Security Department. In the months following September 11, which are really the time period that has brought us to this day, we knew as a Nation we had to take some additional steps, some unprecedented steps to protect ourselves. I believe we have attempted to do so certainly with respect to our men and women in military uniform.

   I am very proud of the support we have given to our armed

   forces. I am proud to represent the 10th Mountain Division in upstate New York. When I go there, when I speak with the young officers and enlisted men who come to see me or when I go to Fort Drum to see them, I feel confident I can look them in the eye and tell them we are doing all we know to do to make sure they are ready, well equipped, and compensated appropriately. They are trained to the best of their abilities, and we are doing all as a Nation we can to support them.

   I do not have that same level of confidence when I go to my firehouses, my police stations, my emergency rooms throughout New York. I cannot look into the eyes of our firefighters, our police officers, our emergency responders and tell them we have done all we need to do to make sure they are as well prepared, well trained, and safe in their defense here in the homeland.

   So are we safer today than we were on the morning of September 11, 2001? The answer is only marginally. Because somewhere along the way, we have not kept that laser-like focus we needed to match our will and our resources and to get those resources to the front lines at home as we have around the world.

   The people who we are going to count on to make our homeland safer are the ones who will pick up the phone when we dial 911. They will respond to the call. They will leave the firehouse and the police station. They will leave the emergency room. They will be there in order to protect us.

   The votes we cast this afternoon for the creation of a Homeland Security Department are just that. They are votes to create a Department here in Washington.

   My hope is the approval of this bill will set into motion a necessary reorganization process that will ultimately result in improved coordination, information sharing, and a stronger, safer America.

   But we have to be absolutely clear to the American people about what it is we are voting for. This bill has to do with structural reorganization. There are many things in this bill we absolutely need to make us safer. Unfortunately, there are many things in this bill that have absolutely nothing to do with our security.

   I am concerned that Americans will believe, because we have passed this bill, our Nation is safer. But when we pass it and when Americans read about it or see coverage about it on television, they need to know this measure does not increase patrols or technology along our northern borders. It does not give our firefighters, police officers, and emergency personnel the resources, training, and equipment they desperately need. It does not increase security measures at our ports, our railroads, our public transportation systems. It does not increase our capability of detecting biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear weapons.

   What this bill does is fall short on many important measures. We had the opportunity to do this right, to do more than create a Department. The Senate's original bill coming out of the Governmental Affairs Committee under Senator Lieberman's leadership, on a bipartisan vote, would have included critical measures that would make our country safer today. In the end, we failed to act on those critical measures.

   There is a lot in this bill that secures the future for special interests at the expense of the security of the American people. I believe those who are using this legislation as a vehicle for their own particular commercial or special interest have done this country a grave disservice.

   That is why Congress cannot stop with this vote. As the distinguished Senator from Montana said: We have to watch this process with vigilance. We have to be involved in the rulemaking. We have to ask the hard questions about resources. We have to continue to fight to make sure every substantive measure we need to enhance our security gets passed in the next Congress.

   Let's start with the obvious. Let's support our first responders. They are the ones who are our front line soldiers at home. We need to do what we have been asked to do by mayors and police and fire commissioners. They have asked us for direct funding that they can best utilize to make sure those firehouses stay open, those hazardous material suits and equipment are bought and available. That is why I still believe we should pass legislation I introduced last November that would provide direct funding to local communities--the Homeland Security Block Grant Act.

   We also know the recent report by former Senators Hart and Rudman, the terrorism panel's report, clearly states we are not doing enough to support our first responders. That report expressed grave concern that 650,000 local and State police officers still operate without close U.S. intelligence information to combat terrorists.

   We have not done enough to help local and state officials detect and respond to biological attacks. The report expressed concerns that our firefighters and local law enforcement agencies still--more than a year later--do not have the proper equipment to respond to a chemical or biological attack. And they don't even have the communications systems that will let them talk to each other--police departments, fire departments--across municipal and county lines in an emergency.

   Madam President, I was also greatly disappointed that the SAFER Act, which would have allowed our Nation to hire 25,000 more firefighters over the next couple years, was completely eliminated from the bill. This is the time to do more for our first responders, not less.

   We also have to act immediately to secure our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. While the homeland security bill creates a new Department, it does not adequately address the real threat of terrorist capabilities and desires to destroy our nuclear powerplants. Last year, Senators Jeffords, Reid, and I introduced the Nuclear Security Act. We moved that act through the committee. It is unfortunate the bill does not address nuclear security, particularly with respect to our nuclear powerplants. We clearly have a problem there, as we do with radiological attacks from a a so-called dirty bomb.

   Every day that goes by without us having those resources available in local communities around our country to respond is a day I cannot look into the eyes of my constituents and say, yes, we are safer today than we were.

   We have all gone over the many provisions in the bill that have absolutely nothing to do with security. I regret deeply that they were included in this bill, and the impact of them will be known for years to come.

   Madam President, this bill, which does some good by helping us better focus here in Washington, does not do nearly enough of what needs to be done out in our country. I am particularly concerned that New York does not have a specific coordinator as the bill provides for Washington, DC. We know from every intelligence report that New York City is still a high-risk area.

   This bill has much that perhaps can make us safer, but nothing that will immediately do so; and it does not address the most serious issues with respect to the resources that are needed.

   There is an article in this day's Washington Post about how the fact that we have not funded the war on terrorism here at home means that money--even if it passes in January--will not get to the people who need it the most for quite some number of months.

   This is, unfortunately, a day where we have adopted a piecemeal approach to homeland security without the resources and the comprehensive strategy that many experts have recommended. I hope we will come back in January and address the gaps in our homeland defense strategy going forward.

   I yield the floor. Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I am pleased to see that the Senate is finally ready to pass legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security. My colleagues and I on the Governmental Affairs Committee, under Senator LIEBERMAN's leadership, began this process more than a year ago. When we first started out, I must admit that I had some reservations about making such dramatic changes to the way the Federal Government is organized. The hearings Senator LIEBERMAN chaired during the first half of this year, however, showed me how truly ill prepared we really are to face the threat of terrorism. That is why I supported the original version of Senator LIEBERMAN's homeland security bill when it came before the Governmental Affairs Committee on May 22, 2002, some time before President Bush released his proposed reorganization plan. I supported it again on July 24 after we incorporated a number of the President's recommendations into our original draft.

   I believe we need to create a strong Department of Homeland Security that brings together under one roof the various Federal agencies charged with preventing and responding to terrorist attacks. I am a little disappointed, however, that we appear ready to do so in a way that disregards a good deal of the hard work that went into the bipartisan bill we reported out of Governmental Affairs.

   Among other things, the bill before us today abandons a compromise arrived at in committee on information sharing and the Freedom of Information Act and includes INS restructuring language that is different from anything included in the President's proposal, the House-passed bill or anything that we have debated here in the Senate. It also includes some controversial provisions we have never seen before that seemingly appeared overnight. In the 108th Congress, we can and should have a debate on tort reform. We can and should have a debate on the safety of childhood vaccines. What we should not have done is hastily slip brand new provisions into this critically important bill without debate at the behest of special interests. There are three changes, however, that are of the most concern to me.

   First, there is the new personnel language. This bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) almost total authority to rewrite Federal civil service laws for Department of Homeland Security employees related to hiring and firing, job classification, pay, rules for labor-management relations, performance appraisal and employee appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Thinking that the Secretary and OPM could not possibly know what kind of personnel system was needed at the new Department before they were able to start putting it together, our committee maintained current law and asked the Secretary to report on his or her progress in setting the Department up at least every 6 months and to ask Congress for specific changes in civil service protections to meet specific Department needs.

   As a former Governor who had to reorganize parts of his own State's government, I can appreciate President Bush's desire to have as much flexibility as possible when creating something as large, complex and important as a Department of Homeland Security. However, I do not believe it's necessary to give him or his new Secretary the power to unilaterally change or waive workplace rules over the objections of Department employees and Congress. That is why I supported the compromise put forward by Senators NELSON, BREAUX, and CHAFEE before we adjourned for the election. That language would have left the most important civil service protections related to union rights and employee appeals untouched and set up a system of binding arbitration so that the Secretary and OPM would have to work out any personnel system they draft with the employees who will be required to work under it. I wish that the personnel language in this bill was closer to that contained in Nelson-Breaux-Chafee bipartisan compromise.

   The second issue that is of concern to me in this bill is the language on collective bargaining rights. It says that the President can only use the authority he currently has to remove employees' collective bargaining rights on employees transferred into the new Department if their agency's mission materially changes and their duties involve intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related to a terrorism investigation. It gives him broad authority to waive this test, however, and to use his authority regardless of whether or not the mission of the relevant agency has changed. Our committee-passed bill would have required the administration to go through the Federal Labor Relations Authority to remove employees' collective bargaining rights. I was comfortable with that provision, but even more so with the Nelson-Breaux-Chafee compromise on this issue, which includes the same restrictions on the President's authority included in this bill but which gives Department employees the assurances that their collective bargaining rights will not be taken away arbitrarily simply because they are working in something called the Department of Homeland Security. I wish this bill offered future employees of the Department of Homeland Security as much assurance that their rights would be protected.

   My greatest disappointment with this bill is the glaring omission of any meaningful provisions to improve the security of our Nation's railroads. It is inexplicable that we stand ready to create a Department of Homeland Security that does nothing to protect the millions of Americans who travel by rail every day. After the tragedy of September 11, this Congress and the President moved quickly to stabilize and secure our aviation system and to create the Transportation Security Administration with the mission of protecting all transportation modes.

   The Congress followed suit with the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 to protect our ports and maritime industry, which successfully passed in the Senate last week. And now it seems that the Over-the-Road Bus Security legislation is poised to pass this body. Yet in all these efforts, we have done little to protect rail from terrorist attacks and security threats, creating an Achilles heel in our Nation's efforts to secure our transportation system. For all of our commendable focus and attention on preventing future attacks against the aviation industry, it is unconscionable that we would not work to ensure that the roughly 25 million intercity passengers and many millions more that commute aboard our trains are as safe as the ones in our skies.

   How can we ignore the FBI warnings made a few weeks ago that al-Qaida is considering directly targeting U.S. passenger trains and that operatives may try to destroy key rail bridges and sections of track to cause derailments? How could the Senate have voted to appropriate $2 million to remove jars of formaldehyde and alcohol from the Smithsonian's buildings here on the Mall because of their threat to the Capitol and yet leave the rail tunnel traveling under the Senate and House office buildings and the Supreme Court unprotected from terrorist attack? How can we end the 107th Congress having approved increased and strengthened security programs for every single transportation mode except rail, a mode we know that al-Qaida may currently be targeting?

   In creating the Department of Homeland Security, we had the chance to address this omission. We could have included provisions to secure the nation's critical rail infrastructure and facilities and augment the mission of the Transportation Security Administration. Recognizing the obvious need for greater rail security early on, Senators HOLLINGS, MCCAIN and others worked within the Commerce Committee to produce a bipartisan rail security bill to protect Amtrak and our vital rail infrastructure from attack or sabotage. This bill, S. 1550, was supported by the Bush Administration and reported unanimously out of the committee.

   They understood the important role that Amtrak played immediately following the tragic events of September 11, when, with the aviation system shut down and our highways clogged or closed, Amtrak kept people safely moving in the northeast and across the country. They know it is essential that we provide Amtrak with the means to harden their physical assets and protect the safety and security of the traveling public if we want to ensure that Amtrak can serve the nation in the future as it did after September 11. They realized that more people use Amtrak's Pennsylvania Station in one day than use all of New York's three airports combined. They recognized that, like our other modes, our rail network is essential to the mobility, defense, and economic vitality of our nation. Yet their efforts have been blocked in this body and our railroads remain largely unprotected.

   Following the Commerce Committee's good work and seeing the logical role for rail security within the new Department, I offered, and the Committee voted to accept, a rail security amendment to Senator LIEBERMAN's homeland security bill during the our markup in July. My amendment authorized funds through the Secretary of Homeland Security for critical security and safety needs across Amtrak's national network. Totaling $1.2 billion, my amendment authorized funds to assist the diligent efforts already being made by Amtrak's police force and other law enforcement agencies, giving them the tools to focus on real threats beyond the harmless rail fans police were chasing away as described in an article on the front page of the Washington Post last week. The amendment included: $375 million to finance systemwide security and safety enhancements. These funds would have been used to immediately address serious security risks by protecting infrastructure, stations, and facilities across the entire Amtrak system. Amtrak's top priorities to be addressed with these funds include:

   No. 1, securing tunnels, bridges, interlockings, towers, and yard and station facilities with surveillance equipment, perimeter fencing, security lighting, bomb detection equipment and bomb resistant trashcans for stations, vehicle barriers and other measures.

   No. 2, investing in passenger information systems to allow the creation of watch lists and passenger manifests for tracking purposes and data sharing between Amtrak Police Department and the FBI. Currently, Amtrak does not have the realtime ability to track who is onboard its trains.

   No. 3, communications and command/control upgrades to track and locate trains enroute, to ensure adequate radio coverage across the Amtrak system, and to provide automated data for incident response and crisis management;

   $778 million for life-safety and security improvements to the Amtrak tunnels in New York, Baltimore and Washington. The life-safety problems with the tunnels on the northeast corridor are well documented and require immediate action. The tunnels in New York, 1910, Baltimore, 1872, and Washington 1904 are nearing, or are over 100 year olds and constitute safety hazards due to problems with emergency exits and ventilation. Of specific concern, is a possible terrorist action involving these tunnels, which have limited evacuation capacity, antiquated stairwells, and poor lighting. The results could be catastrophic. The funds will enhance life safety features within the tunnels, including:

   No. 1. Washington, $40 million: upgraded emergency access and egress, improved ventilation and communications. This tunnel sees 50 Amtrak/VRE trains a day and 2 million passengers annually. Additionally, these tunnels pass directly under the Supreme Court and House and Senate Office Buildings.

   No. 2, Baltimore, $60 million: New fire standpipes; improved lighting and communications, egress improvements; and a preliminary design study of tunnel replacement options. This tunnel sees 125 Amtrak/MARC trains a day.

   No. 3, New York, $678 million, 6 tunnels: upgraded ventilation, access, and egress through new stairways and shafts; structural rehabilitation for tunnel access, and improved lighting and signage. The 6 New York Amtrak tunnels provide access to Penn station for Amtrak, New Jersey Transit and the Long Island Railroad. They are gateway to New York and the heart of the Northeast Corridor. Work on the tunnels has already begun with $220 million from the Long Island Railroad and the FRA, through $100 million from FY '02 DOD supplemental Appropriations Act. Funds authorized in this amendment would complete work on 3 of the 4 rebuilt ventilation and escapes shafts, dramatically improving the safety of passengers should an emergency occur in the tunnels;

   $55 million for wrecked equipment repair to ensure Amtrak adequate fleet capacity in the event of a national security emergency. At the time of my amendment, 96 damaged and wrecked cars and five locomotives, or nearly one out of every fifteen Amtrak cars, were sitting idle, out of service, and awaiting repair. Without these cars, Amtrak is in serious danger of being able to provide adequate equipment to service its current routes, let alone offer additional service should there be another national emergency. With these funds, Amtrak could have repaired about half of these, and have some equipment up and running again within 90 days. In our effort to strength the security of the homeland, that we must provide Amtrak with the equipment it needs to serve the existing routes and to handle increased traffic should another security crisis occur.

   After the Governmental Affairs markup and the inclusion of this amendment to the Lieberman substitute, I worked with Senators HOLLINGS and MCCAIN to create a bipartisan rail security package based on the previous Committee work and my amendment that would authorize needed resources while ensuring proper oversight and accountability. We agreed to work together to add this package to the homeland security legislation, in whatever form it took. I believe that Senator MCCAIN spoke briefly about his commitment to enhancing the security of our railroads on the floor last week, and I want to thank him for working with us to create a sound security proposal. I know that he and Senator HOLLINGS share my disappointment that we have not been able to get this package included in the current homeland security bill. Though we were unable to achieve success today, we are committed to doing so next year, and I urge my colleagues to join this effort. Until we have passed a rail security package, we cannot honestly say that we have secured our national transportation system.

   In conclusion, today we missed a tremendous opportunity to truly secure our entire transportation network. Surely, we all agree that doing so is one of the Federal government's chief responsibilities. Debates about the future of Amtrak should not stand in the way of this effort. The fact is that, today, several thousands of riders are on Amtrak trains and hundreds of thousands more use Amtrak's tracks for their daily commute to work. Securing these facilities and these services is not an issue that can wait. As the intelligence community has already warned, the risks to America's railroads are real and exist as we speak. We have a responsibility to act to protect our people and our nation. We must pass rail security legislation as soon as possible.

   Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise to discuss two provisions of the Homeland Security bill, those substantially transferring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ``ATF,'' to the Department of Justice and modifying and improving our explosives laws.

   A driving force behind the President's blueprint for the reorganized Government is the need for the various agencies and bureaus charged with enforcing Federal law to work more cooperatively and effectively in defending

[Page: S11392]  GPO's PDF

   Unfortunately, this realignment of Treasury's law enforcement agencies left out one vitally important bureau, one that has as its primary mission the enforcement of the explosives and firearms laws. The ATF has been the cornerstone of the Federal law enforcement functions at Treasury for decades, but now under the President's plan, it would be left as the only major law enforcement presence in the entire Department.

   The Department of the Treasury is entrusted with responsibilities primarily in the area of monetary policy such as budgets, taxes, and currency production and circulation. In contrast, the ATF's mission consists of enforcing the firearms, arson, and explosives laws as well as the criminal and regulatory functions of the alcohol and tobacco laws. Clearly, these two missions do not jibe.

   ATF serves an important role not only in the enforcement of the criminal laws regarding firearms, explosives, alcohol and tobacco, but also in waging the war on terrorism. We only need to remember the litany of terrorist bombings from the first attack on the World Trade Centers to Beirut in 1982, the East Africa embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, and Oklahoma City, among others, to understand the importance of the ATF's expertise in explosives and firearms on the war on terrorism. Indeed, in the last 20 years, the vast majority of terrorist attacks with Americans as targets have used explosives or firearms. Any effort to strengthen our homeland security that does not take note of this fact is a half measure.

   This bill understands ATF's importance in the war on terrorism by moving it to the Department of Justice where it can coordinate its efforts more easily with the FBI, DEA, and the other premier Federal law enforcement agencies. In addition, the bill authorizes the ATF for the first time as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATFE, and refocuses its mission. It will no longer be responsible for collecting alcohol and tobacco fees, but instead will focus entirely on the criminal enforcement of the explosives, firearms, arson, and tobacco and alcohol smuggling laws. the country against terrorism. The President's plan shifted several agencies charged with different aspects of Federal law enforcement to the proposed Department of Homeland Security, including the Secret Service and the Bureau of Customs, both formerly housed in the Department of the Treasury.

   Unfortunately, this realignment of Treasury's law enforcement agencies left out one vitally important bureau, one that has as its primary mission the enforcement of the explosives and firearms laws. The ATF has been the cornerstone of the Federal law enforcement functions at Treasury for decades, but now under the President's plan, it would be left as the only major law enforcement presence in the entire Department.

   The Department of the Treasury is entrusted with responsibilities primarily in the area of monetary policy such as budgets, taxes, and currency production and circulation. In contrast, the ATF's mission consists of enforcing the firearms, arson, and explosives laws as well as the criminal and regulatory functions of the alcohol and tobacco laws. Clearly, these two missions do not jibe.

   ATF serves an important role not only in the enforcement of the criminal laws regarding firearms, explosives, alcohol and tobacco, but also in waging the war on terrorism. We only need to remember the litany of terrorist bombings from the first attack on the World Trade Centers to Beirut in 1982, the East Africa embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, and Oklahoma City, among others, to understand the importance of the ATF's expertise in explosives and firearms on the war on terrorism. Indeed, in the last 20 years, the vast majority of terrorist attacks with Americans as targets have used explosives or firearms. Any effort to strengthen our homeland security that does not take note of this fact is a half measure.

   This bill understands ATF's importance in the war on terrorism by moving it to the Department of Justice where it can coordinate its efforts more easily with the FBI, DEA, and the other premier Federal law enforcement agencies. In addition, the bill authorizes the ATF for the first time as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATFE, and refocuses its mission. It will no longer be responsible for collecting alcohol and tobacco fees, but instead will focus entirely on the criminal enforcement of the explosives, firearms, arson, and tobacco and alcohol smuggling laws.

   The amendment makes clear that along with the transfer of enforcement of the explosives, firearms, and arson laws, the new ATFE will have jurisdiction over the criminal statutes in title 18 of the United States Code as they relate to tobacco or alcohol laws. These few criminal statutes are the extent of ATFE's jurisdiction over alcohol and tobacco. All alcohol and tobacco revenue collection and related regulatory functions performed by the current ATF will remain under the jurisdiction of the Tax and Trade Bureau of the Treasury Department.

   The renaming of the Bureau is more than simply symbolic. The addition of the ``E'' to the name of the Bureau demonstrates the importance of explosives in their mission. To coordinate better law enforcement training in explosives, we created the Explosives Training and Research Facility at Fort AP Hill, VA, where Federal, State and local law enforcement agents from around the country will be trained to investigate bombings.

   We trust that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury will make ATFE's transition as efficient as possible. Moving a large law enforcement agency is not easily done. For that reason, the Homeland Security bill permits a sufficient time frame for the transitions to occur both to the new Department of Homeland Security as well as the ATFE's transition to the Department of Justice. It is our intent that the ATFE be permitted as much time to complete its transition as the other bureaus and agencies being shifted to the Department of Homeland Security.

   At the Department of Justice, the ATFE will have primary responsibility for the enforcement of the firearm, arson and explosives laws as well as criminal alcohol and tobacco laws. In that role, the ATFE will be able to work cooperatively with the FBI and the DEA in enforcing the criminal law while at the same time taking the lead when the case under investigation is primarily within their jurisdiction. According to recent news reports, the FBI and the ATF do not always have the best of relations. In fact, despite a long-standing memorandum of understanding between the two agencies allocating responsibilities, there is still a fair amount of competition between the two when it comes to areas where their respective jurisdiction overlaps. Now, with the ATFE working under the same leadership as the FBI, the Attorney General will be able to sort out these differences and maximize the cooperation between the two agencies. More cooperation will lead to a better focus on the war on terrorism.

   The establishment of the ATFE at the Department of Justice gives the Government a dynamic weapon in the war on terrorism and in the every day battle against violent crime involving explosives, firearms and arson. We look forward to the ATFE joining the Department of Justice and its other law enforcement agencies. We also look forward to the ATFE maximizing its capabilities in enforcing the explosives, firearms, and arson laws and fighting the war on terrorism.

   In addition to transferring ATF to the Department of Justice, this measure contains a subtitle that modifies our explosives laws. This provision is an amended version of S. 1956, the Safe Explosives Act, which was introduced earlier this year by Sen. ORRIN HATCH and me and H.R. 4864, the Anti-Terrorism Explosives Act, which was introduced earlier this year by Chairman SENSENBRENNER.

   The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the measure this summer. I want to explain some of the provisions in this title of the bill and provide a more detailed section by section analysis of it.

   Following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we have had a growing sense that Congress needs to close numerous gaps in Federal law to help prevent future disasters. The current explosives laws are effective, but the Safe Explosives Act closes some loopholes and significantly improves its administration.

   The Safe Explosives Act effects two major changes in our explosives laws: first, it creates a systematic method of enforcing our laws regarding who can and cannot purchase and possess explosives; and second, it makes some commonsense additions to the list of people who are barred from purchasing and possessing explosives.

   Creating a systematic method for enforcing our laws makes sense in the current environment. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that in some States it is easier to get enough explosives to take down a house than it is to buy a gun, get a driver's license, or even obtain a fishing license. Currently, it is too easy for would-be terrorists and criminals to obtain explosive materials. Although permits are required for interstate purchases of explosives, there are no current uniform national limitations on the purchase of explosives within a single state by a resident of that State. As a result, a patchwork quilt of State regulations covers the intrastate purchase of explosive materials. In some States, anyone can walk into a hardware store and buy plastique explosives or a box of dynamite. No background check is conducted, and no effort is made to check whether the purchaser knows how to properly use this deadly material. In at least 16 States, there are little to no restrictions on the intrastate purchase of explosives.

   By addressing the intrastate sale and possession of explosives, the Safe Explosives Act would help close one such loophole that allows potential terrorists and criminals easy access to explosive materials. Let me elaborate. As I said, under current law anyone who is involved in interstate shipment, purchase, or possession of explosives must have a Federal permit. This legislation creates the same requirement for intrastate purchases. It calls for two types of permits for these intrastate purchasers: user permits and limited user permits. The user permit lasts for 3 years and allows unlimited explosives purchases. The limited user permit also expires after 3 years, but only allows

[Page: S11393]  GPO's PDF

   In addition to closing the intrastate loophole, this measure expands slightly the class of people who are barred from purchasing or possessing explosives. Current federal law prohibits certain categories of people from purchasing and possessing explosives. However, some important categories, such as people in the United States on a tourist visa, are not included in current federal explosives law. The committee feels that in addition to being barred from obtaining a firearm, these people should also be prohibited from purchasing and possessing explosive materials.

   Overall, this measure strikes a reasonable balance between stopping dangerous people from getting explosives and helping legitimate users obtain and possess explosives. Most large commercial users already have explosives permits because they engage in interstate explosives transport. These users would not be significantly affected by our legislation. The low-volume users will be able to quickly and cheaply get a limited permit. And high-volume intrastate purchasers who are running businesses that require explosives should easily be able to get an unlimited user permit. Also, the measure will not affect those who use black or smokeless powder for recreation, as the legislation does not change current regulations on those particular materials.

   Our goal is simple. We must take all possible steps to keep deadly explosives out of the hands of dangerous individuals seeking to threaten our livelihood and security. The Safe Explosives Act is critical legislation, supported by the administration. It is designed solely to the interest of public safety. It will significantly enhance our efforts to limit the proliferation of explosives to would be terrorists and criminals. It will close a loophole that could potentially cause mass destruction of property and life.

   Let me thank the many people who assisted us in drafting these provisions. Senators HATCH and LEAHY and Chairman SENSENBRENNER were vital, as were Senators BAUCUS and GRASSLEY. The staff and leadership of the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice and the ATF were invaluable. We all worked together cooperatively and in close collaboration, and I believe that the finished product reflects the professionalism and dedication of the staff of those agencies. They are all to be congratulated.

   I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the measure be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Section-by-Section Analysis of Title XI, Subtitle C

   Section 1121--Short title

   The short title of this bill is the ``Safe Explosives Act.''

   Section 1122--Permits for purchasers of explosives

   First, the following terms referenced in the bill are defined: permittee, alien, and responsible person.

   Second, this section would require all purchasers of explosives to obtain a permit from the Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), a process that includes a background check, thereby reducing the availability of explosives to terrorists, felons, and others prohibited by law from possessing explosives. Although permits are now required for interstate purchases, there are no current Federal limitations on the purchase of explosives within a single state by a resident of that state.

   The new permit requirement would significantly enhance the government's ability to prevent the misuse and unsafe storage of explosives. As part of the permit application and renewal process, ATF would conduct background checks on all individuals wishing to acquire or possess explosives materials. Applicants would also be required to submit photographs and fingerprints along with their applications, to ensure that a thorough background check can be completed. Fingerprints are not necessary to conduct a background check, however it significantly reduces the work and amount of time for the positive identification of applicants, and therefore will greatly reduce the application turnaround time and workload for ATF.

   In the case of a corporation, partnership or association, the applicant would be required to submit fingerprints and photographs of responsible persons, meaning those individuals who possess the power to direct the management and policies of the corporation, partnership or association pertaining to explosive materials. Consistent with ATF's current policy, this section does not require corporate applicants for explosives licenses to list every single corporate director or officer as a ``responsible person'' on its application for a license or permit. Those officials within the corporation who have no power to direct the management and policies of the applicant with respect to explosive materials need not be listed on the application. For example, in a large corporation that uses explosives in just one of many business activities, there may be many corporate officials who have no responsibilities or authority in connection with the explosives aspects of the company's business. These officials would not be listed as ``responsible persons'' on the application, and would not need to submit fingerprints or photographs to ATF. Furthermore, if corporate bylaws provide that certain high-level corporate officials do not have the power or authority to direct the management and policies of the corporation with respect to explosive materials, then such officials will not be considered to be responsible persons.

   We encourage the Secretary to strive for balanced enforcement. In so doing, the Secretary should avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on applicants for explosives licenses and permits. There is no reason to require background checks for corporate officials who have no responsibilities or authority in connection with the explosives aspect of a company's business. By the same token, companies have an obligation to be forthright with the ATF, and we expect them to err on the side of overinclusiveness in deciding who may be a responsible person.

   This section will also require applicants to list the names of all employees who will have possession of the explosive materials, so that the ATF can verify that these individuals are not prohibited from receiving or possessing explosives. In order to prevent an overload of employee background checks all at once for the ATF, current licenses and permits will remain valid until that license or permit is revoked, expires, or until a timely application for renewal is acted upon. Under current law, it is too easy for would-be terrorists and criminals to obtain access to explosive materials by obtaining jobs (such as driving trucks) with explosives licensees. These expanded requirements would also apply to entities seeking to obtain a license to sell explosives.

   It is the Committee's intention that ATF should work closely with the regulated industry to develop guidance as to which employees are considered to be in ``possession'' of explosive materials in the course of their employment. Applicants for explosives licenses or permits are not required to list every single employee of the business. Instead they are only required to list employees who are expected to possess explosive materials as part of their duties.

   In developing these standards, ATF should be guided by the case law interpreting the term ``possession'' under the Gun Control Act of 1968, GCA, as amended. It is well established that possession under the GCA may be demonstrated through either actual or constructive possession. Actual possession exists when a person is in immediate possession or control of an object, and includes instances where a person knowingly has direct physical control over the object at a given time. Thus, employees who physically handle explosive materials would clearly be in possession of those materials. This would include, among others, employees who handle explosive materials, as defined by the law as part of a production process; employees who handle explosive materials in order to ship, transport, or sell them; and employees who actually use the explosive materials. All of these employees, as well as any other employees who actually possess explosive materials as part of their duties, must be listed on the application for a license or permit.

   Where direct physical contact is lacking, a person may nonetheless have constructive possession where he or she knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over the explosives, either directly or through others. Accordingly, this section would require applicants for licenses or permits to list all employees who will have constructive possession of explosive materials as part of their duties. For example, an employee who drives a truck with an explosives load is in constructive possession of the explosives even though he may not physically handle them. This individual has dominion and control over the explosives while he transports them; furthermore, he could easily divert them from their intended destination. Such an individual should be subject to the background check requirements of the amended law. Similarly, a supervisor at a construction site who keeps the keys for the building in which the explosives are stored, and directs the use of explosives by other employees, would be in constructive possession of those explosives.

   Finally, this section recognizes the distinction between small individual users of explosives and large commercial users by creating

[Page: S11394]  GPO's PDF

user permits and limited user permits. The user permit lasts for 3 years and allows unlimited explosives purchases. The limited user permit also expires after 3 years, but only allows

[Page: S11393]  GPO's PDF

   In addition to closing the intrastate loophole, this measure expands slightly the class of people who are barred from purchasing or possessing explosives. Current federal law prohibits certain categories of people from purchasing and possessing explosives. However, some important categories, such as people in the United States on a tourist visa, are not included in current federal explosives law. The committee feels that in addition to being barred from obtaining a firearm, these people should also be prohibited from purchasing and possessing explosive materials.

   Overall, this measure strikes a reasonable balance between stopping dangerous people from getting explosives and helping legitimate users obtain and possess explosives. Most large commercial users already have explosives permits because they engage in interstate explosives transport. These users would not be significantly affected by our legislation. The low-volume users will be able to quickly and cheaply get a limited permit. And high-volume intrastate purchasers who are running businesses that require explosives should easily be able to get an unlimited user permit. Also, the measure will not affect those who use black or smokeless powder for recreation, as the legislation does not change current regulations on those particular materials.

   Our goal is simple. We must take all possible steps to keep deadly explosives out of the hands of dangerous individuals seeking to threaten our livelihood and security. The Safe Explosives Act is critical legislation, supported by the administration. It is designed solely to the interest of public safety. It will significantly enhance our efforts to limit the proliferation of explosives to would be terrorists and criminals. It will close a loophole that could potentially cause mass destruction of property and life.

   Let me thank the many people who assisted us in drafting these provisions. Senators HATCH and LEAHY and Chairman SENSENBRENNER were vital, as were Senators BAUCUS and GRASSLEY. The staff and leadership of the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice and the ATF were invaluable. We all worked together cooperatively and in close collaboration, and I believe that the finished product reflects the professionalism and dedication of the staff of those agencies. They are all to be congratulated.

   I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the measure be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Section-by-Section Analysis of Title XI, Subtitle C

   Section 1121--Short title

   The short title of this bill is the ``Safe Explosives Act.''

   Section 1122--Permits for purchasers of explosives

   First, the following terms referenced in the bill are defined: permittee, alien, and responsible person.

   Second, this section would require all purchasers of explosives to obtain a permit from the Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), a process that includes a background check, thereby reducing the availability of explosives to terrorists, felons, and others prohibited by law from possessing explosives. Although permits are now required for interstate purchases, there are no current Federal limitations on the purchase of explosives within a single state by a resident of that state.

   The new permit requirement would significantly enhance the government's ability to prevent the misuse and unsafe storage of explosives. As part of the permit application and renewal process, ATF would conduct background checks on all individuals wishing to acquire or possess explosives materials. Applicants would also be required to submit photographs and fingerprints along with their applications, to ensure that a thorough background check can be completed. Fingerprints are not necessary to conduct a background check, however it significantly reduces the work and amount of time for the positive identification