Public Lands Production Research Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Corzine, Lautenberg, Durbin, and Levin to introduce the ``Anti-Terrorism Military Sniper Weapon Reclassification Act of 2003.''

This bill, identical to legislation I have introduced in the last two Congresses, will reclassify powerful fifty-caliber military sniper rifles under the National Firearms Act, thus making it much more difficult for terrorists, doomsday cults, and criminals to obtain these guns for illegitimate use.

Fifty-caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of companies and individuals, are deadly, military style assault weapons, designed for armed combat with wartime enemies. They weight up to 28 pounds and are capable of piercing light armor at more than 4 miles. The guns enable a single shooter to destroy enemy aircraft, jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations, and even communication centers. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has been spreading rapidly.

But along with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists around the world.

These weapons are deadly accurate up to 2,000 yards. This means that a shooter using a 50-caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than a mile away. In fact, according to a training manual for military and police snipers published in 1993, a bullet from this gun ``even at one and a half miles crashes into a target with more energy than Dirty Harry's famous .44 magnum at point-blank'' range.

And the gun is ``effective'' up to 7,500 yards. In other words, although it may be hard to aim at this distance, the gun will have its desired destructive effect at that distance--more than 4 miles from the target.

The weapon can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or even light armor. In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns--they are just too powerful.

Recent advances in weapons technology allow this gun to be used by civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and even aircraft--in fact, one advertisement for the gun apparently promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars worth of cartridge.''

This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover GAO investigators ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50- calibers. This gun is just too powerful.''

When I first introduced this bill, I commented that a study by the General Accounting Office revealed some eye-opening facts about how and where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug traffickers, and violent criminals.

According to a special agent at ATF's Atlanta Field Division, the Barrett .50-caliber rifle is ``a devastatingly powerful weapon against which most troops, most law enforcement and no civilians have any means of defense.'' He added that the rifle is ``a tremendous threat'' for ``those most shocking and horrifying crimes, assassinations, murders, assaults on law enforcement officers.''

In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They were also charged with plotting to assassinate the State's Governor, a U.S. Senator and Federal judges. A .50-caliber sniper rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that included three illegal machine guns.

One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns.

At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide.

Another .50-caliber sniper rifle, smuggled out of the United States, was used by the Irish Republican Army to kill a large number of British soldiers.

Even more recently we have learned that Al Qaeda has received .50- caliber sniper rifles--rifles that were manufactured right here in the United States. Nearly 2 years ago today, Essam al Ridi, a U.S. agent for Al Qaeda, testified that he acquired 25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. We have no way of knowing whether Al Qaeda has obtained more or who has supplied them with these weapons, but we can be sure that any .50-caliber weapon in the hands of Al Qaeda will almost certainly be used against Americans or American interests.

Ammunition for these guns is also readily available, even over the Internet. Bullets for these guns include ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact, and even ``armor piercing tracing'' ammunition reminiscent of the ammunition that lit up the skies over Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war.

Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to ``take down'' a helicopter. In fact, our own military helps to provide thousands of rounds of .50-caliber ammunition, by essentially giving away tons of spent cartridges, many of which are then refurbished and sold on the civilian market.

This bill will begin the process of making these guns harder to get and easier to track.

Current law classifies .50-caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many States allow possession of .50- caliber guns by those as young as 14 years old, and there is no regulation on second-hand sales.

Essentially, this bill would reclassify .50-caliber guns under the National Firearms Act, which imposes far stricter standards on powerful and destruction weapons. For instance: NFA guns may only be purchased from a licensed dealer, and not second-hand. This will prevent the sale of these guns at gun shows and in other venues that make it hard for law enforcement to track the weapons.

Second, purchasers of NFA guns must fill out license transfer applications and provide fingerprints to be processed by the FBI in detailed criminal background checks. By reclassifying the .50-caliber, Congress will be making a determination that sellers should be more careful about to whom they give these powerful, military guns.

ATF reports that this background check process takes about 60 days, so prospective gun buyers will face some delay. However, legitimate purchasers of this $7,000 gun can certainly wait that long.

Clearly, placing a few more restrictions on who can get these guns and how is simply common sense. This bill will not ban the sale, use or possession of .50-caliber weapons. The .50-caliber shooting club will not face extinction, and ``legitimate'' purchasers of these guns will not lose their access--even though that, too, might be a reasonable step, since I cannot imagine a legitimate use of this gun.

I do not view the reclassification of .50-caliber weapons so much as an issue of firearm safety, but rather as a matter of national security. And I can say for a fact that I am not alone in that view.

Indeed the U.S. Air Force has studied the scenario of a potential terrorist attack with a .50-caliber weapon. According to a November 2001 article in the Air Force's official magazine, Airman, an antisniper assessment claimed that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase are as vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' because the weapons can shoot from beyond most airbase perimeters. The Air Force has addressed the issue and the effectiveness of specially trained countersnipers to respond to a .50-caliber weapon attack on aircraft, fuel tanks, control towers, and personnel.

While I am glad to know our military has given due consideration to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons, I have real concerns over the threats posed to civilian aviation.

Our Nation's airports in no way match the security measures at air force bases. These commercial facilities handle millions of passengers and tons of cargo each day and are especially vulnerable to the threats posed by .50-caliber weapons.

The threats to civilian aviation have been made abundantly clear over the last year and a half. The events of September 11 certainly showed the ability of terrorists to find loopholes in aviation security.

The recent attack on an Israeli airliner last November in Kenya serves as an example of the threat these weapons pose. Less than 4 months ago, an Israeli airliner, loaded with hundreds of innocent civilians, became the target of a terrorist attack. Two heat-seeking, Russian-made missiles known as SA-7s were launched at Arkia Flight 582 a few minutes after it took off from the Mombasa airport bound for Israel.

Fortunately, the two missiles passed by the jet, and the flight, with 271 people on board, was able to land safely in Tel Aviv a few hours later. A shoulder-fire missile launcher was found on the ground near the airport.

A previously unknown group calling itself the Army of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks, but government officials in Kenya and Israel, along with terrorism experts, said the operation was well coordinated and bore the trademarks of Al Qaeda or an affiliated group.

This type of attack, one on civilian aircraft, is exactly the sort that a .50-caliber weapon is capable of. Experts have agreed that .50- caliber weapons aimed at a plane while stationary, or

taking off or arriving could be just as disastrous as a hit from a missile launcher. Gal Luft, co-Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security has described .50-caliber weapons as ``lethal to slow moving planes.''

For further assurance of the potential destruction of these weapons, simply listen to the manufacturers themselves. According to a Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Model 82A1 .50 caliber sniper rifle brochure.

``The cost effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than 10 U.S. dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft. The compressor sections of jet engines or the transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.''

The Nordic Ammunition Company is the developer of the Raufoss multipurpose ammunition for .50-caliber weapons that combines armor- piercing, incendiary, and explosive features and was used by U.S. forces during the gulf war. According to the company, the ammunition can ignite military jet fuel and has ``the equivalent firing power of a 20-mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircrafts, light armor vehicles, ships, and light fortifications.''

The bill will simply place stricter requirements on the way in which these guns can be sold, and to whom. The measure is meant to offer a reasoned solution to making it harder for terrorists, assassins, and other criminals to obtain these powerful weapons. If we are to continue to allow private citizens to own and use guns of this caliber, range, and destructive power, we should at the very least take greater care in making sure that these guns do no fall into the wrong hands.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will allow States to finally obtain relief from the seemingly endless stream of solid waste that is flowing into States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia and many others.

My bill, ``the Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act,'' gives State and local governments the tools they need to limit garbage imports from other States and manage their own waste within their own States.

Ohio receives more than 1.5 million tons of municipal solid waste annually from other States and this number has been increasing regularly. In fact, estimates for 2001 indicate that Ohio imported almost 2 million tons of municipal solid waste, which is almost 600,000 more tons of waste than Ohio imported in 1997. While I am pleased that these shipments have been reduced since our record high of 3.7 million tons in 1989, I believe it is still entirely too high.

Because it is cheap and because it is expedient, communities in other States have simply put their garbage on trains or on trucks and shipped it to be landfilled in States like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. This is wrong and it has to stop.

Many State and local governments in importing States have worked hard to develop strategies to reduce waste and plan for future disposal needs. As Governor of Ohio, I worked aggressively to limit shipments of out-of-state waste into Ohio through voluntary cooperation of Ohio landfill operators and agreements with other States. We saw limited relief. Ohio has no assurance that our out-of-state waste numbers won't rise significantly, particularly in light of the closure of the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in 2001. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have prevented States from enacting laws to protect our natural resources from being utilized as landfill space. What has emerged is an unnatural pattern where Ohio and other States--both importing and exporting--have tried to take reasonable steps to encourage conservation and local disposal, only to be undermined by a barrage of court decisions at every turn.

Quite frankly, State and local governments' hands are tied. Lacking a specific delegation of authority from Congress, States that have acted responsibly to implement environmentally sound waste disposal plans and recycling programs are still being subjected to a flood of out-of-state waste. In Ohio, this has undermined our recycling efforts because Ohioans continue to ask why they should recycle to conserve landfill space when it is being used for other States' trash. Our citizens already have to live with the consequences of large amounts of out-of- state waste--increased noise, traffic, wear and tear on our roads and litter that is blown onto private homes, schools and businesses.

Ohio and many other States have taken comprehensive steps to protect our resources and address a significant environmental threat. However, excessive, uncontrolled waste disposal from other States has limited the ability of Ohioans to protect their environment, health and safety. I do not believe the Commerce Clause requires us to service other States at the expense of our own citizens' efforts.

A national solution is long overdue. When I became Governor of Ohio in 1991, I joined a coalition with other Midwest Governors--Governor Bayh, now Senator Bayh, of Indiana, Governor Engler of Michigan and Governor Casey, and later Governors Ridge and O'Bannon, of Pennsylvania--to try to pass effective interstate waste and flow control legislation.

In 1996, Midwest Governors were asked by Congress to reach an agreement with Governors Whitman and Pataki on interstate waste provisions. Our States quickly came to an agreement with New Jersey-- the second largest exporting State--on interstate waste provisions. We began discussions with New York, but these were put on hold indefinitely in the wake of their May, 1996 announcement to close the Fresh Kills landfill.

The bill that I am introducing today reflects the agreement that my State, along with Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania, reached with then-Governor Whitman.

For Ohio, the most important aspect of this bill is the ability for States to limit future waste flows. For instance, they would have the option to set a ``permit cap,'' which would allow a State to impose a percentage limit on the amount of out-of-state waste that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility could receive annually. Or, a State could choose a provision giving them the authority to deny a permit for a new facility if it is determined that there is not a local or in-state regional need for that facility.

These provisions provide assurances to Ohio and other States that new facilities will not be built primarily for the purpose of receiving out-of-state waste. For instance, in 1996, Ohio EPA had to issue a permit for a landfill that was bidding to take 5,000 tons of garbage a day--approximately 1.5 million tons a year--from Canada alone, which would have doubled the amount of out-of-state waste entering Ohio. Thankfully this landfill lost the Canadian bid. Ironically though, the waste company put their plans on hold to build the facility because there is not enough need for the facility in the State and they need to ensure a steady out-of-state waste flow to make the plan feasible.

In addition, this bill would ensure that landfills and incinerators could not receive trash from other States until local governments approve its receipt. States could also freeze their out-of-state waste at 1993 levels, while some States would be able to reduce these levels to 65 percent by the year 2008. This bill also allows States to reduce the amount of construction and demolition debris they receive by 50 percent in 2014 at the earliest.

States also could impose up to a $3-per-ton cost recovery surcharge on out-of-state waste. This fee would help provide States with the funding necessary to implement solid waste management programs.

Unfortunately, efforts to place reasonable restrictions on out-of- state waste shipments have been perceived by some as an attempt to ban all out-of-state trash. On the contrary, I am not asking for outright authority for States to prohibit all out-of-state waste, nor am I seeking to prohibit

waste from any one State. I am merely asking for reasonable tools that will enable State and local governments to act responsibly to manage their own waste and limit unreasonable waste imports from other States. Such measures would give substantial authority to limit imports and plan facilities around each States' needs.

I believe the time is right to consider and pass an effective interstate waste bill. The bill I am introducing today is a consensus of importing and exporting States--States that have willingly come forward to offer a reasonable solution.

Congress must act this year to give citizens in Ohio and other affected States the relief they need from the truckloads of waste that daily pass through their communities. We have waited too long for a solution. Congress must act now to prevent this problem from spreading further to our neighbors out West and to help our neighbors in the East better manage the trash they generate.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to address the threat of bioterrorist attacks on American agriculture by introducing the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, ASPA, and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act, ASAA.

Thomas Jefferson described the four pillars of American prosperity as agriculture, manufacturing, commerce and navigation. Two hundred years later, our government is working to protect and defend all critical sectors of our society. But are we doing enough to protect American agriculture from either deliberate or naturally occurring disease outbreaks?

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson stated in September 2002 that the administration has not paid enough attention to protecting agriculture while Secretary of Agriculture Ann Venneman stated that agricultural biosecurity is her highest priority.

What is at risk when I speak of ``agricultural security?'' Quite simply, a threat to agriculture is a threat to the Nation. My legislation will assist efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to ensure the first pillar of American prosperity.

Agriculture terrorism can impact the safety of our food supply and public health. A large scale agricultural disaster, much like risks to our information and communication systems, also would undermine American economic security. Agricultural activity accounts for approximately 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Based on the economic damage caused by the 2001 foot and mouth disease, FMD, epidemic in Great Britain, a single outbreak of FMD could cost the U.S. economy over $10 billion.

Every State has its own agricultural strengths and economy. My State of Hawaii generates more than $1.9 billion in agricultural sales. The agriculture sector employs, either directly or indirectly, 38,000 people in Hawaii. The State's crops range from sugarcane and pineapple to coffee and macadamia nuts. However, Hawaii also has to $28 million milk industry and nearly $25 million worth of cattle and hogs. When the additional losses in tourism and travel are considered, we can see the economic impact on Hawaii or any State from an agricultural disease emergency would be devastating.

Pests and diseases are difficult to control when they are introduced accidentally. According to a National Academy of Sciences study on agricultural security, a deliberate infestation demands even more precautions and research and development.

The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act give Federal and State partners responsible for responding to threats against our agriculture the tools they need to operate efficiently and effectively. Moreover, my legislation amends the Homeland Security Act to give agriculture security the attention it deserves as a component of our critical infrastructure.

An agricultural disease outbreak, whether of natural or deliberate origin, will require coordinated efforts by the USDA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and DHS, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, HHS, Defense, Transportation, and Justice. USDA is the lead agency in responding to agricultural emergencies and has created a homeland defense council and increased border inspection and research activities. These are promising steps. I am happy to see that the USDA and FEMA are in the process of drafting a national response plan for emerging agriculture diseases. My legislation will compliment these efforts and encourage coordination and preparedness on the Federal, State, regional, and local level.

The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act will enhance agricultural biosecurity through strengthened interagency and international coordination. The Act will establish senior level liaisons in DHS and HHS to coordinate with USDA on agriculture disease emergency management and response. My legislation also tasks DHS and USDA to work with the Department of Transportation to address one of the largest risk factors in controlling the spread of a plant or animal disease--the movement of animals, plants, and people between and around farms.

Agricultural disease outbreaks will continue to be rare occurrences in the United States. However, high-risk animal and plant diseases are endemic in some part of the world. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act will help train American veterinarians and emergency responders, and provide much needed help overseas, through bilateral mutual aid agreements. The

Act also directs the Department of Justice and USDA to take a long- overdue look at local and State laws that may impede or contradict response plans for an agricultural disease emergency.

The Agricultural Security Assistance Act will assist States and communities preparing for and responding to threats to the Nation's agriculture. Rapid detection and swift response is imperative to contain the spread of any disease, and my bill will help remove delays and impediments for local and state officials responding to outbreaks.

The bill directs USDA to work with each State to develop and implement response plans. My legislation establishes grant programs for communities and states to incorporate modeling and geographic information systems into planning and response activities totaling over $15 million. This funding also will help animal health professionals participate in community emergency planning activities and assist farmers and ranchers strengthen the biosecurity measures on their own property.

In most cases of a suspected or actual agricultural disease outbreak, initial response will come from the impacted community and State. Federal resources, coordinated by USDA, will augment State capabilities. Federal assistance and guidance also is needed long before an outbreak occurs. My legislation will increase Federal, State, and local abilities to develop resources and response mechanisms to contain and eradicate agricultural diseases when they are discovered on U.S. soil.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill I had introduced during the 107th Congress, which will provide for the use and distribution of judgment funds awarded to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation in northeast Montana.

In 1987, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation brought suit against the United States to recover interest earned on their trust funds while those funds were in Special Deposit and IMPL-Agency accounts. The case was filed in the U.S. Claims court, and docketed as No. 773-87-L.

After the court ruled that the United States was liable to the Fort Peck Tribes and individual Indians for interest on those funds, the tribes and the United States reached an agreement for settling the claims in the case, for the sum of $4,522,551.84. The court approved the settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement further provided that the judgment be divided between the Fort Peck Tribes and those individual Indians who are found to be eligible to share in the judgment. On January 31, 2001, the court approved a stipulation between the parties that defined the procedures by which the Fort Peck Tribes' and individual Indians' respective shares in the judgment would be determined and distributed to them.

Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation in the case, on February 14, 2001, a portion of the tribe's share of the judgment was deposited into an account in Treasury for the use of the Fort Peck Tribes. As provided by the court-approved stipulation, those funds are to be available for immediate use by the tribe pursuant to a plan adopted under the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, 25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. The court-approved stipulation further recognized that the tribe will most likely receive additional payments from this settlement once the work identifying all individuals eligible to share in the judgment is complete and the pro rata shares are finally computed. Those funds, too, are to be available for use by the tribe in accord with a plan adopted under the Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act.

As required by the stipulation and the Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, the tribe developed a plan for the use of the tribe's share of the settlement. Under the plan, the Tribe's share of the judgment will be used for tribal health, education, housing, and social services programs.

The tribe submitted its plan to the Department of the Interior for review and approval. Public hearings were held during which the views and recommendations of tribal members were heard regarding the plan. The tribe has been advised that the Department of Interior has no objection to the tribe's plan and can approve it. However, although the plan was developed and public hearing held during 2001, the Interior Department did not complete its review of the plan, nor submit the approved plan to Congress within the 1-year deadline imposed by the Tribal Judgment Fund Use or Distribution Act. As a result, in order for the Fort Peck Tribe to make use of the judgment awarded to the tribe, it is necessary for Congress to formally adopt legislation approving the tribe's plan. The proposed bill language, would serve this purpose.

This judgment is based on money that rightfully belongs to the Fort Peck tribes and should be moved expeditiously through Congress. I look forward to working with the Committee on Indian Affairs to move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 11, 2003, at 3 p.m., in closed session to receive a classified briefing regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom ``Lessons Learned''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on United States-China relations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the senate and Thursday, September 11, 2003, for a hearing on the Department of Veterans Affairs' Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select

Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 11 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommitee on Public Lands and forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider S. 432, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct and support research into alternative treatments for timber produced from public lands and lands withdrawn from the public domain for the National Forest System and for other purposes; S. 511, which would provide permanent funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program, and for other purposes; S. 849, which would provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, and S. 1582, which would amend the Valles Caldera Preservation Trust Act.