Railroad and Mass Transportation Public Protection Program Act

Mr. President, less than 1 year ago, we wrapped up work on the port security bill that was signed into law as the Maritime Security Act of 2002, MTSA. That act mandated and outlined changes that are needed to shore up security in our ports, and established for the first time a system to coordinate, plan and implement port security at U.S. seaports. While this was landmark legislation, much still needs to be done with respect to the implementation of the requirements mandated by this law.

I am very dissatisfied with the current Administration's disinterest in paying for port security, and would point out that we are approaching a crisis, as Federal mandates are being rolled out for security without Federal support. I have tried over and over to focus the attention of the Administration on this crucial need and pushed to no avail in the Senate to get the resources necessary to address this problem. But to date, I have gotten little support. In addition to appropriating much needed funds for port security, it has become apparent that keeping up with security needs at our ports is an ever evolving task, and that we may have to refocus our efforts and push harder to ensure that we coordinate our policies and maximize the limited resources that we have in this area.

Today, in order to keep up with these needs, I am introducing the ``Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004'', along with Senator McCain, and Senator Breaux. I am pleased to have worked on this with Senator McCain, the Chairman of our Committee, as I often remark, while he has no coastline, he has worked with those of us who do have ports to work on these crucial port security issues. I am also pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Breaux, for he has truly been one of the leading advocates of the importance of maritime shipping and the merchant marine in the U.S. Senate. He has done invaluable work for us on the Commerce Committee, and is a true expert in the field. He will be sorely missed for his expertise on all maritime issues, although I am sure, that in the future, he will still be the Captain of some small boat, yacht, or maybe even a ship.

Even though the Coast Guard, Customs and other agencies charged with the implementation of these measures have aggressively taken initial steps necessary to set up our future structure for seaport security there is still much to do, and effective action needs to occur to help coordinate and crystallize security policies and objectives. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004 would attempt to mandate a coordinated Federal approach to several areas of concern in port security. It would also attempt to set performance standards for certain areas in port security and add a few enhancements to last year's legislation. Most importantly the bill would require a user fee to be established to help pay for the port security mandates.

Specifically, this bill would impose in rem liability to secure payment of penalties and fines under the Act and to help ensure compliance with the security requirements imposed by the MTSA. The bill would also include provisions to increase security in waterside cargo areas, and ensure that cargo contents of imported marine cargo containers would be required to be cleared within 5 days of entering a U.S. port, or alternatively removed after 5 days without being cleared, to a regulated warehouse where it would be opened and reviewed to verify its contents. This would in no way change any claim to possession of the goods. Importantly, the bill would require DHS to evaluate the policies and practices of sealing empty containers. According to the Federal Maritime Commission, over 4 million containers were imported into the United States empty. At a recent hearing, a representative from the ILWU longshoremen's union pointed out that treatment of empties and the sealing practices of these containers varied from locale to locale. This bill would require an analysis of current practices at U.S. ports in order to determine what steps need to occur in order to make sure that the transport of empty containers does not present a threat of terrorism, and whether a Federal policy is justified in this area.

The bill would require the Administration to produce a coordinated plan for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating maritime intelligence information collected by Federal agencies on ships, cargo, crew members and passengers. This intelligence is used to determine which ships, cargo, or crew warrant further inspection. This section of the bill requires further development of a maritime intelligence system to collect and analyze information concerning the crew, passengers and cargoes carried on vessels operating in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. This mandate essentially restates existing law since it appears that the agencies have actually grown further apart since the passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. The provision in this bill would require a plan on how the Administration will coordinate collection and analysis of maritime information, and how agency personnel might be co-located to maximize resources and coordinate analysis. This plan must also indicate when long range vessel tracking will be integrated into this intelligence information. Additionally, the plan would require the government to analyze private sector resources to evaluate how they could be used to help monitor and differentiate legitimate moves of trade from those actions and players that are more suppositious. The Federal Government does not have a lot of experience monitoring commercial maritime activity, and I believe they will have to employ private sector expertise to assist in this endeavor.

The report shall also consider the abilities of the Department of Navy to collect and analyze commercial maritime information. The U.S. Navy probably has the most resources dedicated to the evaluation of commercial shipping activities, but are precluded from sharing this information. In light of our need for better information on commercial shipping, this policy has to be reevaluated. A maritime intelligence system needs to be set up to work together so that Federal agencies, State, local and the private sector can coordinate their law enforcement activities. Maritime intelligence on commercial ocean shipping is currently gathered by the Coast Guard, Customs, INS, and other agencies such as the Federal Maritime Commission under separate systems. Only the Coast Guard and the Navy currently work together. We lag far behind in this area, and each agency is operating independent of others. We are not getting the full picture of what is happening out there. It is crucial that we have the best information available so that we can target our relatively limited resources with maximum efficiency. Further, the information has to be disseminated in a fashion to maximize its utility, while still protecting that information which needs to be kept confidential. Collection and analysis of commercial maritime information is a key element of our port security that needs more focus and has to be addressed if we are to adequately protect our Nation.

Importantly, the bill will require the Administration to come up with cargo security plans to evaluate targeting systems to determine whether they are effective in deterring and protecting against potential acts of terrorism from cargo. In the event that targeting is inadequate protection, DHS would be required to increase the amount of cargo being non-intrusively inspected or x-rayed by two over the next year. The bill would also require the consolidation of intermodal cargo security programs that have the same security goals while establishing criteria and

performance goals for these security programs, which are currently operating completely independent of each other, and require certain other cargo security program enhancements. Voluntary cargo security programs are not the answer to the important problem of securing our Nation from terrorist attacks. Firm standards and goals must be in place to ensure that items that we know we don't want in marine containers are not actually in marine containers. The legislation will also require a report on the amount of actual inspections that are being done at foreign seaports.

While the Container Security Initiative was rolled out with great fanfare to work with foreign ports to inspect cargo before they get to U.S. ports, the question remains whether we are actually getting much bang for the buck. The fundamental question that needs to be addressed is whether foreign nations have been willing to use their security screening equipment for our benefit, and to what degree have they been willing to screen cargo for the benefit of our Nation. The legislation will require a report to determine whether this program needs adjustment, or is a cost-effective measure to ensure safe cargo movements into the U.S., and to update us on the progress in the installation of a system of radiation detection at U.S. ports.

Additionally, this legislation will redirect our efforts to help ensure that we can verify that security is in place to prevent an act of terrorism, and not place us in a position of having to rely on documentation and the attestations or documentation of third parties in order to determine whether we need to take actions to protect the public. The Administration has not even started to implement the certification program required to certify ``secure systems of transportation,'' 46 U.S.C. 70116, and they must get going on this vital initiative. Otherwise, it would only take one good liar to breach our system of defense. Although I understand we cannot inspect every piece of cargo, we have a credible system in place to actively increase cargo inspections, and implement a system that would ultimately allow us to reopen U.S. ports to commerce, in the event of an attack.

Additionally, the bill also would require a report from the Coast Guard on the benefits of utilizing joint operational centers at United States seaports to implement area security plans. This report should incorporate lessons learned from the three centers that have already been established, such as ``Operation SeaHawk'' in Charleston, SC, and consider which security programs could be effectively fused into these joint operational centers. The Commandant of the Coast Guard would be required by this bill to report on the effectiveness of these centers for port security and determine if it would be beneficial and cost effective to establish centers in additional areas that pose a significant security risk, and to utilize them to implement area security plans.

The bill will also make sure that port security grants are reviewed and approved, as was mandated under the terms of the MTSA, and all grants are subject to the review of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, the regional Maritime Administration representative, and other Transportation Security Administration security officials as well as other DHS security experts, before the grants are approved. This grant program is not open-ended, it is intended to help the private sector and State and municipal governments achieve compliance with Federally approved facility plans and area maritime security plans, and the changes to the statute will ensure that the grant program operates the way we intended it to operate.

The bill also requires the Maritime Administration and the State Department to evaluate existing foreign assistance programs to determine whether the existing aid programs can be utilized to help foreign nations achieve compliance with the international standard set for port security. The MTSA requires the Coast Guard to set up a mechanism to review the practices of foreign ports to ensure that they have implemented adequate security measures, and ultimately, they can take steps that would result in the closure of commerce from ports in non-compliance with international security standards. It is in the best interests of everyone potentially impacted by such a policy implication, if we review our foreign aid programs to determine whether aid can be used to implement the necessary security measures.

The bill also requires the Maritime Administration to work with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, and other DHS port security agencies such as TSA, Coast Guard and Customs to determine how to supplement their training programs to include a greater familiarization with commercial maritime practices. Port security law enforcement is much different in the aftermath of September 11, and officials involved in regulation and policing shipping will now have to approach it from a different perspective, and to be able to identify anomalies and irregularities, in order to best focus our limited police resources over an immense volume of trade. It is my understanding that the Maritime Administration has been utilizing resources at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and working with FLETC to formalize port security training. I think that this change will help our Federal agencies bolster their existing training programs, and achieve a greater understanding of potential security issues that could arise, and will be a healthy addition to work already done by the Maritime Administration and FLETC.

The bill rewrites the DHS mandate to conduct research and development, and would require the Science Directorate within DHS to be more accountable to Congress for those actions they are taking to develop the types of technology necessary to address security at our seaports. Importantly, the bill also requires the Coast Guard to evaluate the security risks and policies very carefully of nuclear facilities on or adjacent to navigable waterways to ensure that we have security policies in place to prevent acts of terrorism from occurring from on or under navigable waterways. Most nuclear facilities are on or adjacent to navigable waterways, and I want the Coast Guard to exercise the highest degree of security in their treatment of these facilities and the threat posed as a result of maritime commerce or the proximity to navigable waterways.

Most importantly, this bill attempts to address the fundamental issue that will face the nation as we implement the MTSA--will sufficient funding be in place to assure that our ports and agencies will robustly pursue security, or we will have to rely on sham security programs, or efforts severely restricted by funding that result in de minimus or desultory security efforts. When the Senate and House conferenced on the port security bill in the fall of 2002, the Senate conferees insisted on establishing direct funding for port security programs through a user fee, identical to the airline security fee, which would help defray the significant costs for the new port security mandates. The Administration declined to dedicate any resources for port security, and they declined to support the Senate's user fee. Unable to reach agreement with the House conferees and the Administration, I agreed to authorize just the necessary funds, but the President was required by law to report to Congress within 6 months on a funding proposal to assist States and their ports in complying with security mandates for Federal security plans. That report has never been prepared and is 9 months overdue.

When the President's budget for FY 2004 came out, after the U.S. Coast Guard had estimated that it would take $7.4 billion of funding in order to comply with the port security requirements, there was no funding for port authority compliance in that year's budget resolution. I offered an amendment to the FY 2004 Budget Resolution which was unanimously accepted to add $1 billion to help defray the first year costs of port security--ultimately it was dropped from Conference. Two weeks later, the President was presented with a direct opportunity to fund port security programs: Congressional consideration of his emergency supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the war in Iraq and bolster homeland security. Again, the Administration funding request included no funding for port authorities to help them comply with the Federal mandate, so I offered an amendment to add $1 billion to the supplemental specifically to help ports meet the new security mandates. Despite unanimous approval in

the Senate 3 weeks earlier, the amendment was opposed by the Administration and defeated on the Senate floor on a straight party line vote.

Last year, I made another effort to address the port security funding inadequacies during consideration of the FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Again, the Administration proposed no funding for port security grants in their 2004 request, so I offered an amendment to the bill to direct $300 million specifically to port security grants without increasing the overall cost of the bill. The Administration opposed the funding increase, and the amendment was defeated largely along party lines with only three Republicans supporting the amendment.

Until this year's budget the President has not requested one dime specifically for port security. He has opposed efforts to mandate the funds be raised from the users of the system, and this year's budget request is for only $46 million. Despite opposition from the White House, Congress has directed appropriations that have resulted in grants of $450 million to ports to help ensure compliance with the Federal security mandates, and so I know that this issue is an area of major concern. Ultimately, the funding issues must be addressed, and this bill proposes a user fee to pay for the costs of compliance of port security. I had considered the possibility of authorizing the Administration to either generate funds for port security via a user fee, or alternatively mandate that funds be directly transferred from funds collected by Customs duties, but because of jurisdictional issues determined not to do so. The maritime industry supports this approach, and I am not opposed to this approach, but want only to ensure, that one way or another, we have the necessary funding in place to set up the system of port security that this nation deserves. Simply put, there is just too much at stake to hope that security emerges.

This bill seeks to continue the work to correct the security and terrorism prevention needs at our maritime borders. There is much to be done and there is a continued need for government and industry cooperation. This bill works on some of that need, yet the major need is funding for port security, which I hope that we will be able to address in the Senate very soon.

I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce and send to the desk the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefits Act which I introduce on behalf of myself.

I thought I would take a moment this afternoon to outline the framework and the context of this bill because it has to do with our Armed Forces. It has to do with a very important component of our Armed Forces, which is our Guard and Reserve units, part of our total force, a very important part of that total force as I hope to outline.

This is an attempt to put before the Senate and the Congress a comprehensive bill--one that I find and I know people in Louisiana across party lines and in very energetic and enthusiastic ways support because the need is so great--to support our men and women in uniform, particularly our Guard and Reserve components.

If the war on terror is teaching us anything--and we are learning some tough lessons each and every day as we move forward through this war--we all know we cannot defend this Nation adequately without the strength provided by our National Guard and Reserves.

Since 9/11 when this country was attacked, the first time in this large measure since the attack on Pearl Harbor many years ago, over 355,000 guardsmen and reservists have been mobilized.

To give a grasp of that number, our Navy today, arguably the most powerful in the world, has 375,000 sailors. So in 2\1/2\ years, we have called up almost enough guardsmen and reservists to man every ship in the United States Navy. That is a lot of manpower and a lot of womanpower, and they deserve our very best effort. They are not just backfilling for Active Forces. They are serving on the front lines, as we have seen today how brutal those front lines can be. They are being wounded and killed just like our Active Forces. In fact, 97 of the 600 deaths in Iraq have been Guard and Reserve deaths.

Today 176,000 citizen soldiers wear the uniform full time, and that number, as I will show, is growing exponentially. By May 1, 40 percent of the

troops in Iraq will be members of the National Guard and Reserve. These are men and women who have full-time jobs, who are coaches, small business owners, policemen, firemen, State workers, and waiters and waitresses in our restaurants. They hold many jobs, but they are then called up. They take off their daily dress clothes and put on the uniform and go to the front lines to protect us.

In Louisiana, and I know this is true in Texas, thousands of men and women have been called up.

We have 3,051 reservists on active duty right now. Over 6,000 Louisiana reservists have been activated since 9/11. For many, their activation periods have unfortunately lasted, because of the demand on our troops, sometimes in excess of 18 months to 24 months. The 528th Engineering Battalion from Monroe, LA, recently deployed to Afghanistan, 500 Louisianans on their way serving already. Marine Reserve Company B of Bossier City, 150 Marines have just been put on alert for mobilization. Company B has already been mobilized before.

Last month, the Department of Defense put another 18,000 National Guardsmen on alert status, including 3,800 members from Louisiana's 256th Separate Infantry Brigade. I will be visiting their leaders on Monday, in Lafayette, LA, and be visiting with their families to talk about the separation that is going to occur and how we are doing as a nation, as a State, and as a community, to help them through this difficult time as they help, protect, and give us their very best in this war effort.

The National Guard and Reserve, as I said, make up now 45 percent of our forces. We simply cannot fight without them. Yet as I am going to explain, the benefits, their pensions, their compensation, their GI benefits, their retirement benefits, and even their burial benefits do not match with their level of service and do not match with the contribution they are, in fact, making.

I understand why because when the framework for the Guard and Reserves was initially put together, they were thought of as sort of a backup, as a filler.

They do other things as well other than, of course, fighting wars. They help our States mobilize at times of national and natural disasters. So I am clear, as are many of us, about why initially, as the Guard and Reserve was created and the framework developed, those rules and regulations were put into place back in the 1940s, in the 1960s, and in the 1970s.

In 2004, the times are different. The demands are great and they are meeting this challenge. As a Congress we need to meet them more than halfway.

Nearly 35,000 have been mobilized more than once. Imagine returning from Afghanistan, reuniting with your family, getting your business restarted, getting back into the desk you left before you went to serve, only to be told to get ready because you are leaving in another few months, get ready to ship out again.

We have a retention and recruiting crisis looming on the horizon. I would like to show the number of troops, reservists, who have been called up from 1953 through 1989, through the Berlin crisis of 1961, through the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam war, we called up a total of 199,877, about 200,000, through all of this, three times in 40 years. Since 1990, in the last 14 years, we have called up 634,984--the Persian Gulf war, the intervention in Haiti, Bosnian peacekeeping, Operation Southern Watch, the Kosovo conflict, now our ongoing war on terrorism, which has many fronts, primarily in Afghanistan and in Iraq. That is unprecedented in terms of our recent history.

The question to us should be: Are we doing what we should as we are increasing our military budget substantially? I, for one, have supported each and every increase and almost argued in many instances for more money going to our military. What portion of that increase is going to the Guard and Reserve to make sure their pensions are intact, that when they retire their compensation is fair, that their families are cared for at least at a decent and adequate level while they serve us so magnificently and so beautifully? So we can see we are calling more and more on our Guard and Reserve.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excellent article that appeared in the Washington Post in January of this year by Mr. Vernon Loeb, a very excellent staff writer.

According to this reporter:

The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday that the

205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis

in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems are

being ``masked'' temporarily because reservists are barred

from leaving the military while their units are mobilized in

Iraq.

He goes on to say:

Lieutenant General Helmly told his subordinates that he was

``really tired of going to see our reserve soldiers [and

finding] they're short such simple things as goggles. It's

about damn time you listen to your lawyers less and your

conscience more. They will probably get me in trouble. But I

told them, I want this stuff fixed.''

Not only are these men and women being called up in unprecedented numbers, not only are they being prevented from leaving, which is masking a potential readiness crisis, but they are also not being provided with some of the basic tools, equipment, and body armor that they need to protect themselves; therefore, contributing to a state of unease.

Not that these guardsmen and reservists are not patriotic, not that they would not walk across hot coals, and in many instances they do every day to protect us, but we should at least be able to take these modest steps to make sure we are strengthening them and honoring their service to us.

The operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo are ongoing, with no end in sight. We do not know if emergent threats around the world will become real and embroil us in yet other military operations, partially because our Active Forces are stretched so thin we need to call up our Guard and Reserve, and yet because of this we could face a retention crisis.

As I said, the deployments are lengthy, the benefits and legal protections are not sufficient in many instances, and the equipment is lacking. So let us hope we can take steps through this legislation and others to fix this situation.

I hope the bill I offer today and sponsor today--and I look forward to many cosponsors joining on this bill--will improve the Guard and Reserve benefits, and legal protections. As I said, we are calling it the 21st Century Citizen Soldier Benefit Act.

We have had two major changes or improvements to the Guard and Reserve framework, one in 1940 and one in 1994. It is time, 10 years later, this year, 2004, with the unprecedented nature of their service, to step up this framework of support for our Guard and Reserve. It is time for Congress, in my opinion, to take a comprehensive look at the benefits and protections afforded to the members of the Guard and Reserve.

We have not done so since 1994. It is time that we do this. My bill does it in several ways.

First, we call for equal benefits for equal service in the area of burial benefits, for activated Guard and Reserve should be the same as Active Duty. Guardsmen and Reservists cannot be buried in national cemeteries unless they are killed in action. Think about that. A man or a woman serves not just for 6 months, but maybe 2 years, comes home, is called back to go again, dodges the bullets, gets past the landmines, perhaps is seriously injured but escapes unscathed and comes home after serving valiantly, and then is denied burial benefits because they were not ``killed in action.'' I think because of what they have done, it is time for us to give them the right opportunities for burial in our national cemeteries if they are serving the time that our Active Duty serve, with all the dignity that they would deserve in such a situation.

The bill does not authorize every member of the Guard and Reserve to these burial rights, but it is inconceivable why someone who fought overseas for our Nation cannot be buried with his or her comrades simply because one soldier was in the Reserve and one soldier was active--fighting side by side, same foxhole, same patrol, same landmine but yet not the same burial ground.

No. 2, we hope in this bill that guardsmen and reservists activated for 2 years should have active duty GI bill benefits--the GI bill, which is probably one of the best pieces of legislation this Congress has ever passed, it is referred to hundreds of time in speeches on and off the floor, and is one of the bills Americans generally know about, quote, and can say what it does. It has enabled millions of American troops to enroll in college when they returned from World War II. The GI bill created a bedrock of middle-class Americans. It was one of the cornerstones that helped us build the middle class, and it ushered in 50 years of unprecedented economic growth. Why? Because when people get good training and good education, their earning potential goes up and the contribution they can make to their community rises in a significant way.

Today, members of the Active-Duty Forces receive more in GI benefits than the Guard and Reserve personnel, and if the Guard and Reserve personnel weren't contributing in equal ways to our active duty, I would not be here arguing for them, but they are contributing in equal ways, putting their lives in danger. Our bill will allow them to participate more equally in the GI benefits.

The third part of this bill would seek to create parity between Reserve components and Active Duty in terms of their retirement age. Right now, Active Duty can leave the military once they serve 20 years. We think that is a great benefit. It is one of the attractions to the military service. Many of our military men and women serve honorably for 20 years and then retire to go off and have yet a second and third career, as lifespans continue to increase. We are proud of that. We believe and know they contribute in many ways even past their service.

But Guard and Reserve today cannot collect retirement until 60 years of age. This bill would reduce it to 55 years and end what is an unjust situation and help them. Hopefully it will address part of this retention issue by making these benefits more generous.

The fourth and I think one of the most important issues this bill seeks to address is ending the pay gap faced by guardsmen and reservists. Mr. President, I don't know if in Texas you have had a lot of people complain to you about this, but I sure have had people in Louisiana come up and say to me, Senator, I can't possibly understand how we would ask someone to put on their uniform, go to Iraq, and take a 40-percent, 30-percent, or 20-percent cut in pay, to put their life on the line while we enjoy all the benefits staying home here in a safe place here on the homefront. It is not that we have not had challenges right here on the homefront, but not to the same degree and intensity as we are finding on the front lines of the battlefield.

Yet the fact is, because there is no tax credit in our law right now and because it is not mandatory for employers--or the Federal Government, I might add, which is something Senator Durbin and I have worked very hard on together--to maintain their salaries at the level before they leave, some of these guardsmen and reservists are actually taking a 30-percent or 40-percent cut in pay to serve us and to keep us safe. That means while they are making the sacrifice on the battlefield, which many of these men and women are willing to make, we are asking their spouses and their children to give up the car, sell the house, give up their college fund, and it is simply not fair in a country that has the resources we have. In this Congress we want to give tax credits to everybody in the world for everything under the sun. I don't know how we can't find the few hundreds of millions of dollars that it would take to give this tax credit to allow people to serve in the Guard and Reserve and just maintain their salary level while they serve so it doesn't put their families in jeopardy.

I am going to go visit our troops in Lafayette on Monday. I know the community comes together. I know the women, many of them, join together for bake sales and help out and pay each other's car payments. Sometimes the community pulls together to pay the mortgage on the house. I think that is wonderful and it is the good old American spirit. But I don't know if it is necessary, not when we are giving out tax credits to companies that are taking jobs overseas, not when we are giving out tax credits to people who make millions and are not putting on the uniform. The least we can do is help our businesses to write off what they would have as a voluntary compensation package to maintain this salary level for the men and women serving overseas to minimize the sacrifice made by their families here at home. It would also require the Federal Government to step up to the plate

and, as one of the largest employers in the Nation, to make sure those salaries are compensated.

Let me share stories, one or two, from these families. There was an April 22, 2003 article from USA Today that I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

It starts:

Drastic pay cuts. Bankruptcy. Foreclosed homes. They aren't

exactly the kind of challenges that members of America's

military reserves signed up for when they volunteered to

serve their country. But for many, the biggest threat to the

home front isn't Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. It's the

bill collector.

And that is a shame. I think the two enemies mentioned before the bill collector are people we need to actually be focusing our attention on, bringing them to justice in one case and finding them in the other. I don't think our troops need to be worried about bill collectors back home, but that is the position we have them in because we have not acted, will not act, refuse to act in the face of giving everybody else tax credits, but we can't seem to find room in the budget for these 634,000 of our bravest.

I want to say for the record, in Louisiana, Janet Wright's husband Russell is in the Marine Reserves. He made $60,000 a year. Russell was activated. He will only make $30,000. Mrs. Wright says she started putting water in her children's cereal and hopes her daughter can be quickly potty trained to save on diapers. Mrs. Wright has to count every penny.

This family is from Hammond, LA. I just don't think this is right. I think we can do something about it, and this bill attempts to do that. A 50-percent tax credit to those employers to continue to pay their salaries to fill this pay gap is part of this bill.

One other point of the bill, and then a short conclusion. We put a cap on interest rates. Many of us have loans out for a variety of different purposes--automobiles, perhaps some business loans that have been made for our businesses, obviously mortgages. We put in an interest rate cap so when you are deployed, you don't have to pay more than a 6-percent rate. When rates were 20 percent and 25 percent, that made a lot of sense and it was a great benefit. But as rates are relatively low today, this bill would make a modest change to either have it at 6 percent or prime plus 1. Again, it is not a huge amount of money, but it could potentially save a family a few hundred dollars a year. It is the least we can do as part of trying to help them make ends meet while their primary breadwinner in most cases is the one deployed.

As Congress works to best give our military the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century, we must reinforce and increase the benefits and protections for our Reserves. We have asked so much of them, and they have met every challenge with excellence. As we saw unfolding on our television screens yesterday and today, we couldn't ask them to do more. The least we can do is to look at the package of benefits,

upgrade it where we can, make sacrifices in other areas of our budget, and fund them first. They are the ones who are protecting us at this time. When we can provide greater legal protections to ease the stress on the homefront, we must, when and where we can. Failure to act will just exacerbate retention challenges. It will undermine our efforts to succeed in our war on terror.

I introduce this bill today. I hope we can have a speedy hearing.

I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill so we can have a great bipartisan effort. There are many other things we can so the Guard and Reserve really know we appreciate them, because we just do not take pictures with them but we actually put them in our budget.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in recent weeks, consumers all across the Nation have watched gas prices rise, seemingly without any end in sight. On March 24, U.S. gasoline prices reached a record high average of $ 1.74 a gallon. And, if consumers weren't paying enough already, just yesterday the OPEC nations decided to cut production by a million barrels a day, an action sure to drive prices even higher. Such blatantly anti-competitive action by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated. It is for this reason that I rise today, with my colleagues Senators DeWine, Specter, Leahy, Feingold, Schumer, Coleman and Grassley, to reintroduce the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act'' ( ``NOPEC"). This legislation is identical to our NOPEC bill introduced in the last two Congresses, a bill which passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously in 2000.

Real people suffer real consequences every day in our nation because of OPEC's actions. Rising gas prices are a silent tax that takes hard- earned money away from Americans every time they visit the gas pump. Higher oil prices drive up the cost of transportation, harming thousands of companies throughout the economy from trucking to aviation. And those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods. Higher oil prices mean higher heating oil and electricity costs. Anyone who has gone through a Midwest winter or a deep South summer can tell you about the tremendous personal costs associated with higher home heating or cooling bills.

We have all heard many explanations offered for rising energy prices. Some say that the oil companies are gouging consumers. Some blame disruptions in supply. Others point to the EPA requirement mandating use of a new and more expensive type of ``reformulated'' gas in the Midwest or other ``boutique'' fuels around the country. Some even claim that refiners and distributors have illegally fixed prices. On this issue, Senator DeWine and I have asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate these allegations. As a result of our inquiries, the FTC has put a task force in place to find out if those allegations were true. While we continue to urge the FTC to be vigilant, the FTC has to date found no evidence of illegal domestic price fixing as a cause of higher gas prices.

But one cause of these escalating prices is indisputable: the price fixing conspiracy of the OPEC nations. For years, this conspiracy has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in government has yet tried to take any action. NOPEC will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. It will authorize the Attorney General or FTC to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. Our bill will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``Sovereign Immunity'' or ``Act of State'' to escape the reach of American justice.

The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle.

Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our authorities to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of price increases.

There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law overseas. Our government has not hesitated to do so when faced with clear evidence of anti-competitive conduct that harms American consumers. A few years ago, for example, the Justice Department secured record fines totaling $725 million against German and Swiss companies engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to raise and fix the price of vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. Their behavior harmed consumers by raising the prices consumers paid for vitamins every day and plainly needed to be addressed. As this and other cases show, the mere fact that the conspirators are foreign nations is no basis to shield them from violating these most basic standards of fair economic behavior.

Even under current law, there is no doubt that the actions of the international oil cartel would be in gross violation of antitrust law if engaged in by private companies. If OPEC were a group of international private companies rather than foreign governments, their actions would be nothing more than an illegal price fixing scheme. But OPEC members have used the shield of ``sovereign immunity'' to escape accountability for their price-fixing. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, though, already recognizes that the ``commercial'' activity of nations is not protected by sovereign immunity. And it is hard to imagine an activity that is more obviously commercial than selling oil for profit, as the OPEC nations do. Our legislation will correct one erroneous twenty-year-old lower federal court decision and establish that sovereign immunity doctrine will not divest a U.S. court from jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit alleging that members of the oil cartel are violating antitrust law.

In the last few weeks, I have grown more certain than ever that this legislation is necessary. Between OPEC's decision yesterday to cut oil production and the FTC's conclusion for the last several years that there is no illegal conduct by domestic companies responsible for rising gas prices, I am convinced that we need to take action, and take action now, before the damage spreads too far.

For these reasons, I urge that my colleagues support this bill so that our nation will finally have an effective means to combat this selfish conspiracy of oil-rich nations.

Mr. President, I wish to talk this afternoon about a bill that my colleagues, Senator Kohl, Senator Grassley, Senator Feingold, Senator Specter, Senator Schumer, Senator Leahy, Senator Coleman, and I are introducing, which is called the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2004. We are introducing this bill to address the longstanding problem of foreign governments acting in the commercial arena to fix, allocate, and establish production and price levels of petroleum products.

Every consumer in America knows that gasoline prices have reached record highs over the last couple of weeks. The national average has reached a new record high for self-serve unleaded gas. That is approximately $1.80 per gallon. But over the last week in my home State of Ohio gas prices have been even higher. In Marietta, gas was $1.84; in Cleveland, $1.86; in Columbus, it topped out at $1.88 in some stations. Many analysts predict that prices could get as high as $2 per gallon, or higher, by the summer.

This is of particular interest to me because Ohio and the Midwestern States always seem to be hit especially hard by gas prices spikes. These spikes are acutely painful to persons who commute long distances and to those who live on fixed incomes such as the elderly.

What is the cause? Certainly there are many causes, but as we might expect, there are a number of factors at play. But there is surprising agreement among industry experts about the primary cause of high gas prices and that is the increase in imported crude oil prices.

We also know the biggest factor in setting crude oil prices is OPEC. The unacceptably high price of imported crude oil is a direct result of collusive agreements among OPEC nations to maintain the price of oil.

Despite the fact that gasoline prices are going through the roof, OPEC members met yesterday in Austria and decided to cut the output of oil even further. We have been through this process more than enough to know what that means for the American consumer. When demand is high and supplies are cut, that obviously means higher prices. That is exactly what OPEC did to us yesterday. It ripped off American consumers by raising gas prices even more.

this is an outrage. In fact, OPEC is probably the most notorious example of an illegal cartel in the world today, even at a time when it is widely understood that such conduct is counterproductive and ill- suited for our global economy. Supreme Court Justice Scalia in a recent case described collusion among competitors as ``the supreme evil of antitrust.'' Nation after nation has adopted antitrust enforcement principles that recognize the illegality of price fixing and output restrictions among competitors. In 1998, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, then composed of twenty-nine member nations, issued a formal recommendation denouncing price fixing. OPEC's continued actions, in ongoing defiance of American and international antitrust principles, should not be tolerated.

Until now, however, OPEC has effectively received special treatment under U.S. antitrust laws--despite the fact that oil is a commodity that touches the lives of nearly every American consumer. It is time that we take steps to assure that oil is subject to the principles of the free market. The bill that we are introducing today would do just that and help in the fight to lower gas prices.

Senator Kohl and I have introduced this bill twice before--in 2000 and 2001. It is an idea whose time has come. The purpose of our NOPEC bill is simple--it would treat OPEC like any other cartel. If OPEC were a group of private companies colluding on prices, the executives could be prosecuted and sent to jail, and the firms would pay millions of dollars in fines or maybe even billions in fines. Unfortunately, however, for years enforcement has been constrained by two related court opinions.

In 1979, a Federal District Court found that OPEC's price-setting decisions were ``governmental'' acts and accordingly that they were given sovereignty status and protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Subsequently, in 1981, a Federal Court of Appeals declined to consider the appeal of that antitrust case based on the so- called ``act of state'' doctrine.

NOPEC would effectively reverse these decisions by making it clear that OPEC's activities are not protected by sovereign immunity and that the Federal courts should not decline to hear such a case based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. As a result, under NOPEC, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission could bring a legal antitrust enforcement action against foreign states engaging in the restraint of trade regarding oil and other petroleum products. Simply put, NOPEC assures that our U.S. antitrust agencies have jurisdiction and authority to bring such cases.

We don't intend to give up the fight for lower gasoline prices. Today, I want the members of OPEC to hear a message loud and clear--we won't quit fighting for American consumers. When OPEC wants to do business with America, it must abide by our antitrust laws.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and colleague Senator Mikulski to introduce today the Environmental Enforcement and Security Act (EESA) of 2004. This bill will increase substantially enforcement of our Nation's environmental laws, increase environmentally related homeland security, and further protect our Nation's water supply from terrorist attack.

Our families and environment deserve communities free from intentional violators of environmental laws and terrorists who would attack our drinking water supplies.

With this dramatic new commitment to environmental enforcement and drinking water security, we will tell those who would intentionally harm us that we are coming after them.

The environment and health of our communities need vigorous prosecution of intentional violations of our Nation's environmental laws. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Criminal Enforcement program investigates the most significant and egregious violators of environmental laws that pose a significant threat to human health and the environment. However, the number of EPA Criminal Enforcement Special Agents has remained constant for the last several years.

In addition, in our post-9/11 world, EPA Special Agents are needed for homeland security duties to detect, investigate and respond to terrorist threats involving chemical or biological hazards.

EPA Special Agents support the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. EPA Special Agents are members of FBI Counter-Terrorism Response Teams and Evidence Response Teams.

However, with this new post-9/11 need to respond to the threat of terrorism, some are concerned that environmental violations may not be receiving the attention they deserve. A recent report by the EPA Inspector General, an internal review by the EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program, and various media accounts tell how EPA needs more resources to meet both its environmental and homeland security duties.

Our bill responds to these calls with a dramatic new commitment to EPA's enforcement program. My bill will put 50 new EPA Criminal Enforcement Special Agents on the environmental beat. EESA will also provide for 80 Special Agents to support homeland security duties.

With our bill, we will no longer need to make a choice between protecting our homeland and protecting our environment.

With out bill, those who would intentionally hurt our families and communities through environmental harm will know that we are sending the manpower and resources needed to come after them.

We are also sending local communities new funding to protect our drinking water supplies. Every family and every business needs clean and safe drinking water. Every mother needs to know that when she turns on the tap in her kitchen sink, clean and safe water will come out.

That is why our bill devotes $100 million for additional drinking water security protections. EESA will send grant funds directly to water systems to protect against terrorist attack with fencing, intruder detection, access control and water monitoring. The need is great, but the federal government will attempt to do its share.

Our bill will also enhance EPA's ability to protect the environment and human health in several other ways. EESA will double the number of enforcement trainers and triple EPA's enforcement training budget. EESA funds will train Federal, State and local inspectors, law enforcement agents and prosecutors with the training they need to pursue environmental violations.

Our bill will also improve the environment by doubling compliance assistance funds to fill gaps in enforcement coverage, reach regulated facilities not visited by inspectors, and help the regulated community, especially small businesses, to understand EPA's complex and extensive regulatory requirements.

Our bill will also make EPA's enforcement actions more efficient and targeted by fully funding a strategic enforcement targeting program. EESA will enhance EPA's ability to target its enforcement actions to where the environment needs them most. Strategic targeting will also improve EPA's ability to identify and respond to increased noncompliance with environmental laws.

Our Nation's environmental laws exist to protect our families, our communities and our natural resources. Those who would intentionally violate our environmental laws deserve the full force of the government to stop them.

Our families and communities also deserve our most vigorous efforts to protect them from the specter of terror. Chemical and biological threats represent one of the most sinister means for men to terrorize each other.

We will send our homeland security agencies the environmental expertise and personnel they need to confront these threats.

We will also send our local communities new help for additional drinking water security protections.

Our environment deserves no less, our families deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support passage and funding of the Environmental Enforcement and Security Act of 2004.