A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt certain rocket propellants from prohibitions under that title on explosive materials.

Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced the first part of a series of proposals to protect and strengthen our nation's health care safety net. That bill, the ``Strengthening Our States'' or SOS Act of 2003,'' seeks to protect and improve the Medicaid program--a critical component of our country's health system. To repeat the words of Diane Rowland and Jim Tallon of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, ``Medicaid is the glue that helps hold our health system together and takes on the highest-risk, sickest, and most expensive populations from private insurance and Medicare.

Like a waterfront community that seeks to set up barricades against a rising river, defending the Medicaid program from attacks, such as the idea of a block grant, is a top priority.

However, once that is assured, we must also take the next step and confront the fact that an estimated 41.2 million people, or almost 15 percent of the population, was without health insurance during the entire year of 2001, which was an increase of 1.4 million people over 2000.

Moreover, the numbers in 2002 and this year have undoubtedly worsened. A report by the National Coalition on Health Care says, ``The confluence of powerful economic forces, fueled by the terrorist attacks on September 11, have unleashed a `perfect storm' that could increase dramatically the number of uninsured in the U.S.--with as many as 6 million people in total losing their coverage in 2001 and 2002.''

The number in New Mexico are staggering. New Mexico leads or ranks second only to Texas in the percentage of its citizens who are uninsured. In fact, New Mexico is the only state in the country with less than half of its population having private health insurance coverage.

A rather shocking statistic, which also continues to worsen, is that one out of every three Hispanic citizens are uninsured. In fact, less than 43 percent of the Hispanic population now has employer-based coverage nationwide, which is in sharp comparison to the 68 percent of non-Hispanic whites who have employer-based coverage.

To address this growing crisis, I have worked closely with the American College of Physicians since last fall on the legislative proposal, which I call the ``Health Coverage, Affordability, Responsibility, and Equity Act'' or the ``HealthCARE Act of 2003.'' The proposal seeks to: First, build upon programs that currently work, including Medicaid, employer coverage, and the private market; second, provide choices for uninsured individuals, states, and small businesses while rejecting either employer or individual mandates; third, use methods that have bipartisan support by borrowing the best ideas from Democratic and Republican proposals; and, fourth, simplify rather than complicate coverage.

This is in sharp contrast, in a number of ways, to past efforts to create untried schemes or to impose mandates upon either businesses or the individual. It also seeks to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans. This has certainly not been easy to put together and nor will it be easy to pass. On the other hand, we have tried to start with the tools and principles more likely to get beyond the partisan divide.

As Julie Rovner of the National Journal recently wrote, ``If reforming the nation's healthcare system was easy, the old saw goes, it would have been done long ago. But for the moment, those who care about the issue seem to be succeeding only in butting each other's heads. Republicans keep pushing market-oriented reforms while Democrats want to expand existing public programs. And each party continues to reject the other's ideas. . . .''

The ``Health CARE Act'' seeks to break that partisan gridlock. First, it adopts and builds upon the notion of many Republicans to offer tax credits for the uninsured. As such, the bill would enact a new health insurance tax credit that is both refundable and advanceable to uninsured Americans with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level to purchase health coverage through a variety of options, including employer-coverage, State purchasing pools, or even the individual market--something pushed by a number of Republicans for many years but rejected by many Democrats.

Second, the legislation expands coverage through a State option with Federal financial support through the Medicaid program to anyone up to 100 percent of the poverty level. Medicaid has been a tried and tested program for low-income Americans over the years and is a far better and more viable option to people with incomes below the poverty level than a tax credit would be. Furthermore, few beneath the poverty level have the option of employer-coverage. Therefore, public programs, such as Medicaid, for low-income Americans makes far more sense than a tax credit.

Furthermore, through the strengthened and improved state purchasing pools provided for in the legislation, individuals and small businesses would be afforded better options to get coverage with a choice of plans that is typically not available to them with, what we believe will be, lower costs due to the ability to purchase coverage as a group.

Consequently, this approach attempts to build upon the ideas of both political parties, as it has both public program and tax credit aspects to it. Our hope is that people will see the things both parties like in it rather than focusing on what they do not like. In fact, we have also added the creation of an on-going expert health commission to make recommendations for further reforms and mid-course corrections in the future.

This bill is introduced in the spirit of compromise. To those on the right, I recognize your concern about the expansion of Medicaid as not being as market-oriented as you might prefer, but would point out that tax credits are virtually unworkable and employer-sponsored coverage often unavailable for people below the poverty level and that Medicaid is largely contracted out to private health plans--the same that many of you are enrolled in.

To those on the left, I recognize your concerns about tax credits and the potential for adverse selection with people buying coverage through the individual market, but I say to you that these are tax credits for low-income people and that we have taken steps in the legislation to mitigate problems that the added options in the bill create with respect to adverse selection. I would add that any expansion of coverage to people without health insurance is a good thing.

The most important message that I hope this bill carries is that we must stop having the perfect be the enemy of the good. This proposal is certainly not perfect but we hope it makes a very good start.

I would like to thank the American College of Physicians, or ACP, for their outstanding leadership and help in putting this legislation together. ACP has been a long-standing advocate for expanding health coverage and has authored landmark reports on the important role that health insurance has in reducing people's morbidity and mortality. In fact, to cite the conclusion of one of those studies, ``Lack of insurance contributes to the endangerment of the health of each uninsured American as well as the collective health of the nation.''

I would also like to thank the many people at the Economic and Social Research Institute, or ERSI, on their forethought, advice, and counsel as we refined the proposal over the past number of months. Their non- partisan approach and expertise have been invaluable to making the bill a workable and well-reasoned reality.

It should also be noted that the ideas put forth in the bill are based upon much of the expert work commissioned by ESRI, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Task Force on the Future of Health Insurance, funded by the Commonwealth Fund. As a result, the work of a number of other experts is reflected in the legislation and we thank you as well.

Among the endorsing organizations for this legislation are all of the leading primary care physician groups in our country. In addition to the American College of Physicians, the bill has been endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Geriatrics Society.

As a practicing physician in New Mexico, Dr. Robert Strickland sums it up well. As he wrote in an editorial

published in the Albuquerque Journal about this legislation yesterday, ``As a New Mexico internist for 31 years, I have seen many uninsured people go without care until it is too late for me to do much to help them. The HealthCARE Act offers the potential of breaking the political gridlock that has allowed this crisis in health care to go on for far too long.''

I hope we can break the gridlock and urge my colleagues to heed the call of our nation's primary care doctors to support this legislation.

I would ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement from the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Geriatrics Society, and Families USA, and the text of the legislation printed in the Record.

There being no ojection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senators Lugar, Lincoln, Corzine, Landrieu, Breaux, Kerry, Murray, Cantwell, Clinton, and Miller. This legislation, entitled the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003,'' would significantly reduce the number of uninsured pregnant women and newborns by expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, and to newborns through the first full year of life.

Sunday is Mothers' Day. Every year, we honor our Nation's mothers and we should take the time to assess how we can do better by them, including their health and well-being.

According to a recent report by Save the Children entitled ``The State of the World's Mothers,'' the United States fares no better than 11th in the world. Why is this? According to the report, ``The United States earned its 11th place rank this year based on several factors: One of the key indicators used to calculate the well-being for mothers is lifetime risk of maternal mortality . . . Canada, Australia, and all the Western and Northern European countries in the study performed better than the United States in this indicator.''

The study adds, ``Similarly, the United States did not do as well as the top 10 countries with regard to infant mortality rates.''

In fact, the United States ranks 21st in maternal mortality and 28th in infant mortality, the worst among developed nations. We should and must do better by our Nation's mothers and infants.

Throughout our Nation's history, there has been long-standing policy linking programs for pregnant women and infants, including Medicaid, WIC, and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. CHIP, unfortunately, fails to provide coverage to pregnant women beyond the age of 18. As a result, it is more likely that newborns eligible for CHIP are not covered from the moment of birth, and therefore, often miss having comprehensive prenatal care and those first critical months of life until their CHIP application is processed.

By expanding coverage to pregnant women through CHIP, the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' recognizes the importance of prenatal care to the health and development of a child. As Dr. Alan Waxman of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine has written, ``Prenatal care is an important factor in the prevention of birth defects and the prevention of prematurity, the most common causes of infant death and disability. Babies born to women with no prenatal care or late prenatal care are nearly twice as likely to [be] low birthweight or very low birthweight as infants born to women who received early prenatal care.''

Unfortunately, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Mexico ranked worst in the Nation in the percentage of mothers receiving late or no prenatal care last year. The result is often quite costly--both in terms of the health of the mother and newborn but also in terms of the long-term expenses since the result can be chronic, lifelong health problems.

In fact, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, ``four of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to care of infants with complications (respiratory distress, prematurity, heart defects, and lack of oxygen).'' As a result, in addition to reduced infant mortality and morbidity, the provision to expand coverage to pregnant women can be cost effective.

The ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' also eliminates the unintended federal policy through CHIP that covers pregnant women only through the age of 18 and cuts off that coverage once the women turn 19 years of age. Certainly, everybody can agree that the government should not be telling women that they are more likely to receive prenatal care coverage only if they become pregnant as a teenager.

This bipartisan legislation has previously received or has added endorsements from the following organizations: the March of Dimes, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the What to Expect Foundation, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the Federation of American Health Systems, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, Premier, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities USA, Family Voices, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Health Law Program, the National Association of Social Workers, Every Child By Two, the United Cerebral Palsy Associations, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and Families USA.

This legislation is a reintroduction of a bill that was introduced in 2001. Throughout that year, the Administration made numerous statements in support of the passage of this type of legislation, but unfortunately, reversed course in October 2002 after publishing a regulation allowing states to redefine a ``child'' as an ``unborn child'' and to provide prenatal care through CHIP in that manner. In a letter to Senator Nickles dated October 8, 2002, Secretary Thompson argued, ``I believe the regulation is a more effective and comprehensive solution to this issue.''

While a number of senators strongly disagreed with Secretary Thompson's assertion and sent him letters to that effect on October 10, 2002, and on October 23, 2002, we felt it was important to get the testimony of our Nation's medical experts on the health and well-being of both pregnant women and newborns. We called for a hearing in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on October 24, 2002. Witnesses included representatives from the March of Dimes, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the What to Expect Foundation. They were asked to compare the regulation to the legislation and I will let their testimony speak for itself.

Dr. Nancy Green testified on behalf of the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. She said:

We support giving states the flexibility they need to cover

income-eligible pregnant women age 19 and older, and to

automatically enroll infants born to SCHIP-eligible mothers.

By establishing a uniform eligibility threshold for coverage

for pregnant women and infants, states will be able to

improve maternal health, eliminate waiting periods for

infants and streamline administration of publicly supported

health programs. Currently, according to the Department of

Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

Services and the National Governors' Association, 36 states

and the District of Columbia have income eligibility

thresholds that are more restrictive for women than for their

newborns. Encouraging states to eliminate this disparity by

allowing them to establish a uniform eligibility threshold

for pregnant women and their infants should be a national

policy priority.

Dr. Green adds:

Specifically, we are deeply concerned that final regulation

fails to provide to the mother the standard scope of

maternity care services recommended by the American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American

Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Of particular concern, the

regulation explicitly states that postpartum care is not

covered and, therefore, federal reimbursement will not be

available for these services. In addition, because of the

contentious collateral issues raised by this regulation

groups like the March of Dimes will find it even more

difficult to work in the states to generate support for

legislation to extend coverage to uninsured pregnant women.

Dr. Laura Riley testified on behalf of ACOG. In her testimony, she stated:

ACOG is very concerned that mothers will not have access to

postpartum services under the regulation. The rule clearly

states that ``. . . care after delivery, such as postpartum

services could not be covered as part of the Title XXI State

Plan . . . because they are not services for an eligible

child.''

On the importance of postpartum care, Dr. Riley adds:

When new mothers develop postpartum complications, quick

access to their physicians is absolutely critical. Postpartum

care is especially important for women who have preexisting

medical conditions, and for those whose medical conditions

were induced by their pregnancies, such as gestational

diabetes or hypertension, and for whom it is necessary to

ensure that their conditions are stabilized and treated.

As a result, Dr. Riley concludes:

Limiting coverage to the fetus instead of the mother omits

a critical component of postpartum care that physicians

regard as essential for the health of the mother and the

child. Covering the fetus as opposed to the mother also

raises questions of whether certain services will be

available during pregnancy and labor if the condition is one

that more directly affects the woman. The best way to address

this coverage issue is to pass S. 724, supported by Senators

Bond, Bingaman and Lincoln and many others, and which

provides a full range of medical services during and after

pregnancy directly to the pregnant woman.

Dr. Richard Bucciarelli testified on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He said:

Recently, the Administration published a final rule

expanding SCHIP cover unborn children. The Academy is

concerned that, as written, this regulation falls dangerously

short of the clinical standards of care outlined in our

guidelines, which describe the importance of covering all

stages of a birth--pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care.

It is important to note that the regulation subtracts the time that an ``unborn child'' is covered from the period of continuously eligibility after birth. Consequently, children would be denied insurance coverage at very critical points during the first full year of life. As such, Dr. Bucciarelli expressed support for the legislation over the regulation because it, in his words:

. . . takes an important step to decrease the number of

uninsured children by providing 12 months of continuous

eligibility for those children born. . . . This legislation

ensures that children born to women enrolled in Medicaid or

SCHIP are immediately enrolled in the program for which they

are eligible. Additionally, this provision prevents newborns

eligible for SCHIP from being subject to enrollment waiting

periods, ensuring that infants receive appropriate health

care in their first year of life.

And finally, Lisa Bernstein testified as Executive Director of The What to Expect Foundation, which takes its name from the bestselling What to Expect pregnancy and parenting series that has helped over 20 million families from pregnancy through their child's toddler years. Ms. Bernstein also supported the legislation as a far superior option over the regulation and make this simple but eloquent point:

. . . only a healthy parent can provide a healthy future

for a healthy child.

The testimony of these experts speak for themselves and I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a series of letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation similar to measures I have introduced in previous Congresses that will help protect our Nation's natural resources and improve the visitor experience in our national parks and other public lands. The Transit in Parks Act, or ``TRIP,'' establishes a new Federal transit grant initiative to support the development of alternative transportation services for our national parks, wildlife refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Akaka, Alexander, Baucus, Corzine, Dodd, Graham, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Levin, Reid, Schumer, Stabenow, and Wyden, who are cosponsors of this legislation.

I want to underscore again today some of the principal arguments I have made in past years as to why this legislation is urgently needed. Memorial Day weekend, the opening of the summer travel season, is just weeks away. Millions of visitors will soon head to our national parks to enjoy the incredible natural heritage with which our Nation was endowed. But too many of them will spend hours looking for parking, or staring at the bumper of the car in front of them.

Clearly, the world has changed significantly since the national parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, when visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. At that time, travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was long, difficult, and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our Nation's great natural wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the national park lands to millions of Americans.

Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars have resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has almost five million visitors a year. As many as 6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,400 parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot.

In 1975, the total number of visitors to America's national parks was 190 million. By 2002, that number had risen to 277 million annual visitors--almost equal to one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This dramatic increase in visitation has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other parks: Yosemite, which has more than four million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than three million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent harm to our nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage.

Visitor access to the parks is vital not only to the parks themselves, but to the economic health of their gateway communities. For example, visitors to Yosemite infuse $3 billion a year into the local economy of the surrounding area. At Yellowstone, tourists spend $725 million annually in adjacent communities. Wildlife-related tourism generates an estimated $60 billion a year nationwide. If the parks are forced to close their gates to visitors due to congestion, the economic vitality of the surrounding region would be jeopardized.

The challenge for park management has always been twofold: to conserve and protect the nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. Until now, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads, primarily for private automobile access. The TRIP legislation recognizes that we need to do more than simply

build roads; we must invest in alternative transportation solutions before our national parks are damaged beyond repair.

In developing solutions to the parks' transportation needs, this legislation builds upon the 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, in which the two Departments agreed to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around national parks. The findings in the MOU are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind.

In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or scenic areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas.

On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed.

In addition, the TRIP legislation is designed to implement the recommendations from a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in public lands that I was able to include in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, as section 3039. The Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study confirmed what those of us who have visited our national parks already know: there is a significant and well-documented need for alternative transportation solutions in the national parks to prevent lasting damage to these incomparable natural treasures.

The study examined over two hundred sites, and identified needs for alternative transportation services at two-thirds of those sites. The study found that implementation of such services can help achieve a number of desirable outcomes: ``Relieve traffic congestion and parking shortages; enhance visitor mobility and accessibility; preserve sensitive natural, cultural, and historic resources; provide improved interpretation, education and visitor information services; reduce pollution; and improve economic development opportunities for gateway communities.''

In fact, the study concluded that ``the provision of transit in federally-managed lands can have national economic implications as well as significant economic benefits for local areas surrounding the sites.'' The study determined that funding transit needs would support thousands of jobs around the country, while also providing a direct benefit to the economy of gateway communities by ``expand[ing] the number of visits to the site and expand[ing] the amount of visitor spending in the surrounding communities.''

The study identified ``lack of a dedicated funding source for developing, implementing, and operating and maintaining transit systems'' as a key barrier to implementation of alternative transportation in and around federally-managed lands. The Transit in Parks Act will go far toward helping parks and their gateway communities overcome this barrier. This new Federal transit grant program will provide funding to the Federal land management agencies that manage the 388 various sites within the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands, including National Forest System lands, and to their State and local partners.

The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources and wildlife habitats, to prevent or mitigate adverse impact on those resources and habitats, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. The program will provide capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. The Secretary of Transportation may make funds available for operations as well. The bill authorizes $90 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2009, consistent with the level of need identified in the study. It is anticipated that other resources--both public and private--will be available to augment these amounts.

The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement in the 1997 MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The bill further provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. The projects eligible for funding would be developed through the transportation planning process and prioritized for funding by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation. It is anticipated that the Secretary of the Interior would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major national parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this section, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional public transit system. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance.

In addition, I firmly believe that this program will create new opportunities for the Federal land management agencies to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the TEA-21 planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands.

The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks-- quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities.

As we begin a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and Federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is strongly supported by the National Parks Conservation Association, Environmental Defense, the American Public Transportation Association, Community Transportation Association, Amalgamated Transit Union, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, America Bikes and others, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support be printed in the Record, along with the USA Today article, ``Save Parks: Park Cars.''

I believe that we have a clear choice before us: we can turn paradise into a parking lot--or we can invest in alternatives. I urge my colleagues to support the Transit in Parks Act to ensure that our Nation's natural treasures will be preserved for many generations to come.

Madam President, I come to you today on behalf of students and 4-H members and Scouts around the world. Start counting backwards from 10 to zero: 10, 9, 8, 7--and depending on the context, people will instantly be reminded of their youth, sitting in front of a dimly lit television, watching a rocket take flight as we began the study of space flight and space travel. We were much younger then and all around me kids from all over the State and all around the country were excited and fascinated by the new age of rocketry and, later, space travel.

When Russia launched its Sputnik, it created a sensation, and their success, spurred on by the climate of the cold war, challenged us in the United States to reach for the skies.

Wyoming isn't called the Pioneer State for nothing, and so my classmates and I were determined we would do everything we could to learn about this new branch of science and involve ourselves in the race for space. It was not too long after that President John F. Kennedy issued a challenge to the Nation to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth.

What seemed to be against all the odds soon became reality when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, taking a small step for man and a giant leap for mankind.

Even today, those of us who saw those events firsthand on the television will never forget what a miracle it was. It fired our imaginations as it taught the Nation a powerful lesson: If we can make this impossible dream come true for the Nation, of what more are we capable if we dare to try? Perhaps that lesson is what made our Nation what it is today and why we have continued to defy the odds of what is possible for us as a nation, and even for each of us as individuals.

Then came September 11 and we, as a nation, faced another challenge. The call for increased security that resulted from those cowardly and cruel attacks has had some unforeseen consequences, however.

One of them was brought to my attention when a constituent called to share his concern regarding the future of his favorite hobby, model rocketry. He said some of the restrictions of the Homeland Security Act could make it more difficult, if not impossible, for him and his fellow enthusiasts to purchase fuel for their model rockets.

As I looked into his problem, I was surprised to see that the use of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, better known as APCP, had caught the eye of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Although it had been regulated in the past by its placement on the explosives list, the ATF had considered consumer rocket motors as propellant-activated devices and exempt from any ATF permit requirements.

Then, in 1997, the ATF decided to regulate rocket motors that contained more than 62.5 grams of APCP. Those that contained less than that amount were still exempt, but those that contained more would not be available for interstate purchase and transport without a permit.

Since many rocket enthusiasts travel from State to State to participate in their events, this provision could have made for a lot of needless redtape. To avoid it, many of those participating in this hobby carried their rocket bodies to the events and purchased the rocket motors from vendors at the local launch. With a little ingenuity and cooperation from local vendors, most rocketeers legally avoided the need to purchase and obtain permits.

Now the provisions of the Homeland Security Act have created a new problem. Under the new law, a permit will be required for all rocket motors containing more than 62.5 grams of APCP, whether or not the motor is used in or out of State. And that begins on May 24 of this year--a problem rapidly approaching. The new law creates a problem where there was none before and imposes a solution that will only create unnecessary hardship for those who are studying about rockets or pursuing a hobby as a model rocket enthusiast.

According to the U.S. Product Safety Commission, a rocket motor with less than 62.5 grams of APCP can be used by minors without adult supervision. That is the U.S. Product Safety Commission: 62.5 grams or less can be used by minors without adult supervision. It could not be very bad. Now a rocket with any more than that requires adult supervision and a permit. Such an arbitrary limit makes no sense when it means a 62-gram rocket can be used by your children out playing in a field with their friends, while another gram of fuel puts it in a category that requires adult supervision, Federal intervention, attention, inspection, and expensive, cumbersome permits.

The permit that is required costs $100, and it requires the submission of fingerprints, a photograph, and a background check. Although the homeland security bill tried to introduce a limited permit that could be obtained for $25 and a background check, the newly designed permit is restricted to intrastate use and purchase only and would not have any use for rocketeers who travel to events in other States.

My concern about the impact of these regulations, and the process necessary to obtain permits, and the bureaucracy that would be necessary to do that, and to fulfill the requirements for background checks is that it will certainly slow the participation of our young adults in studying rockets and pursuing their dreams of space travel.

As I learned from my own experience--and I was one of those rocket people back at the time of Sputnik--the study of rockets had a ripple effect throughout my own education. It taught me a lot about math, when we had to calculate the amount of fuel we needed and the rate at which the rocket would travel at speed-calculating heights, figuring trajectories, figuring the amount of Gs that would be on a passenger. It taught us about the study of weather, as we would examine reports about our own launch date and temperature and cloud cover that would affect our ability to observe the

launch, and weather balloons for measuring the winds aloft, to better tell where it would go, and to make the calculations about how high we were able to fly on any particular day.

We invented much. When I started doing rockets, there were not the model rockets available at the hobby shops. We had to have the motors turned out at the local shop, after we designed them for the proper characteristics. It led to a lot of invention.

It also expanded our horizons, as our experiences with rockets translated to our own lives. My friends and I often thought, if we could master the skies and heavens with our rockets, what more would we be able to do in our daily lives? It is an answer we are still developing as we each pursue paths in life--some very far away from rockets.

As we grow older, we all want to make sure our children and our grandchildren have it better than we did. This is one area in which they will not have it better than we did--in fact, may not have it at all--if we fail to act. If we fail to come up with a reasonable compromise on this issue, we will have failed to fuel the dreams of the next generation in a vital field of science by our shortsighted efforts to regulate the fuel of the rockets.

Our children will not be the only ones affected by this provision, however. The impact of this regulation will also be felt by the trucking industry which was recently told that it would be liable for the prevention of the possession of explosives by prohibited persons who are their employees. As some shippers do not currently do extensive background checks on their employees, they have decided to stop shipping the motors, including these rocket motors, at all.

Although some companies will continue to ship rocket motors, they will charge very high hazardous material fees that would hit the consumers in the pocketbook. Small businesses will be hit hard by the fees which will have to be paid by the consumer, and even larger and more successful businesses will be unable to avoid the one-two punch of the permit process and the higher transportation and delivery fees.

Even small businesses in other countries will feel the pinch. I was surprised to receive a call from the president of the United Kingdom's largest model rocket group. He thanked me for my interest in the issue because the U.S. ships most of the model rockets used in the United Kingdom. The supply of model rocket motors in other countries is limited, and their hobby is intricately linked with ours.

To remedy these problems, I introduced S. 724 last week. My bill provides an exemption for permit requirements for the purchase and transport of rocket motors, including those with more than 62.5 grams of APCP.

In section 845 of the Federal explosives law, my bill provides an exemption from explosives permit requirements for the components of rocket motors. This exemption is similar to the exemption in the same section enjoyed by antique firearms users for black powder, as black powder also makes the explosives list. The limit there is 50 pounds; quite a bit different than 62.5 grams.

The current language has been tightened up from the original draft to ensure that the exemption is only provided for valid uses. The language specifies that the exemption only applies to nondetonable rocket propellant--a very important word. There are some high-energy APCP composites that have additional chemicals in their composition that make them detonate instead of burning at a moderate rate. These are not used in amateur or sport rocketry and are not exempt under my language.

The APCP my bill refers to, which is found in model rockets, burns but does not explode. In addition, the language in my bill does not exempt rockets that carry various components of weaponry.

On the transportation issue, it appears that some companies are only shipping those articles that are specifically mentioned as exempt from explosives requirements under section 845. My bill provides the exemption for rocket motor components under this section, giving shippers a clear exemption to resume shipping rocket motors.

I have been joined by Senators Bennett, Inhofe, Coleman, Crapo, Burns, Allard, and Santorum in introducing this bill.

Some of my other colleagues have expressed concern that this legislation goes too far. They have questioned me about the possibility of individuals stockpiling APCP to build a bomb.

First, I would contend that the ATF does not appear concerned about this possibility. Under their proposed 62.5-gram exemption, an individual would be able to buy as many rocket motors as they wanted that were under 62.5 grams.

A rocket motor is fairly simple. I ask unanimous consent to show a three-dimensional object on the floor.

I have one of those 62.5 gram rocket motors here. This is what is allowed to be bought in as much quantity as you want. But a quarter of an inch bigger than this and you can't have it without $100 and a special permit. It is very simple, the fuel with the hole through the center. When you buy them, the APCP comes in this chunk that is removable from the rest of the rocket motor parts.

If the ATF considers APCP a dangerous explosive, then their 62.5 gram exemption itself is dangerous. The ATF is basically saying it is OK to buy as many sticks of dynamite as you want, but we won't let you have a whole box. I reiterate that rocket motors compare more to flares than to dynamite. Hundreds of hours are spent constructing these rockets.

A lot of work goes into the rocket body. Nobody wants to blow theirs apart. So they are a safe form of fuel.

Simply put, my legislation is designed to allow another generation to experience the thrills and excitement of model rocketry. It is being introduced to correct a change in the law that Congress never intended. When we voted to take action to prevent the actions of terrorists, we never intended to prevent our children from pursuing projects in science class, hobbyists from pursuing their hobbies, and our families from engaging in father-son or mother-daughter or any mixture of projects that promote learning and the pursuit of the frontiers of space. If you have never been to a rocketry event or seen a rocket launch in person, I urge you to do so if the opportunity ever presents itself. If you have gone to one of those events, you will remember how it left you looking towards the heavens, mindful of your dreams, and feeling encouraged to pursue them.

That is not a bad gift to give our children and theirs. It is extensive throughout the world, I can tell, from the calls I have gotten about this since I got involved in it.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort which will have a great impact on our lives in the years to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Chuck Schumer, Lincoln Chafee, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Jack Reed, Frank Lautenberg, Jim Jeffords, and Edward Kennedy that would permanently reauthorize the assault weapons ban and close the clip-importation loophole.

Military-style assault weapons simply have no place on America's streets. But if Congress fails to act, the current ban will expire next year. This would be a terrible mistake.

This is why Congress must reauthorize the ban and close the high- capacity

clip importation loophole so that we can help keep America's streets safe from the violence produced by assault weapons.

Almost 10 years ago on July 1, 1993 Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-9 assault pistols.

Within minutes, he had murdered eight people, and six others were wounded. This tragedy shook San Francisco and the entire nation.

We saw with absolute clarity the destruction that could be inflicted with these military-style assault weapons.

Navegar's advertising for the TEC-9 touted the gun as being for `paramilitary' use and `resistant to fingerprints,' with a `military non-glare finish,' a `military blowback system,' and `combat-type' sights.

Guns like these are the weapons of choice to commit crimes. They are the weapons of choice for drive-by shooters, criminals going into a major criminal event, and malcontents who are seeking to do the maximum damage possible in the shortest amount of time.

That's what makes them so dangerous because they have light triggers, you can spray fire them, you can hold them with two hands, and you don't really need to aim.

They are not weapons of choice for hunting or defensive purposes.

In the aftermath of 101 California and countless other shootings, I decided to do something that no one had succeeded in doing before: to ban the manufacture and importation of military style assault weapons.

I authored the bill in the Senate, and Senator Schumer authored it in the House of Representatives.

I remember all the late night calls I got and all the friends who took me aside and said to me: ``Don't do it. The gunners are too powerful. You'll never ever win.''

Well, we did win. We passed the first-ever ban on assault weapons, and since September 13, 1994, it has been illegal to manufacture and import military-style assault weapons.

The hope of the bill has been to drive down the supply of these weapons and make them more expensive to obtain.

And in the years following the enactment of the ban, crimes using assault weapons were reduced dramatically.

In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes; By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent--a dramatic drop; and by November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent.

These are dramatic results, which show that the Assault Weapons ban has worked. We have had trouble getting updated statistics from this Justice Department, but it is clear that after we banned these guns, criminals used them less frequently in crime.

Unfortunately, to get the bill passed in 1994, we had to agree to a ten-year sunset in the bill--and this is why we are here today. If we do not re-authorize the 1994 assault weapons ban this Congress, it will expire on September 13, 2004.

That means that at the end of next year, manufacturers could once again begin making AK-47s, TEC-9s, and other banned guns that have but one purpose--to kill other human beings.

We are here today because we believe that this would be a terrible mistake--with deadly consequences for thousands of Americans each year.

So today we will introduce legislation to do two simple things. First, the legislation would reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban by striking the sunset date from the original law. This would ban the manufacture of 19 types of common military style assault weapons--for all time.

It would ban an additional group of these assault weapons that have been banned by characteristic for 8 years.

It would protect some 670 hunting and other recreational rifles for use by law-abiding citizens.

And it would preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi- automatic assault weapons--helping to prevent instances when law enforcement agents are outgunned by perpetrators.

We certainly would like a stronger bill that would tighten the ban-- based on our 10 years of experience of what the gun companies have done to get around the bill.

But unfortunately there is not the support for that right now. If the support becomes evident, then we may amend the bill at a later date.

Second, the legislation would close a loophole in the 1994 law, which prohibits the domestic manufacture of high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue sending them to this country by the millions.

A measure that would have closed this loophole passed the House and Senate in 1999 by wide margins, but got bottled up in a larger conference due to an unrelated provision.

The result: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has approved the importation of almost 50 million high capacity ammunition magazines from some 50 countries since 1994.

It is these large clips, drums, and strips that allow lone gunmen, or small groups of teenagers, to inflict so much damage in such a small amount of time.

We must close this loophole now.

The good news: President Bush has indicated that he supports each of these provisions. During the 2000 Presidential Campaign, President Bush indicated that he supported both reauthorization of the assault weapons ban and closing the clip importation loophole.

And just a few weeks ago, President Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated his support for reauthorizing the ban when he said: ``The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.''

It is therefore our hope that the President will work with us to see this bill passed. We welcome the President's support and look forward to working with him to gain swift passage of this legislation.

One of the best examples of the damage that assault weapons can inflict is the massacre in Littleton, Colorado.

On April 24, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used a TEC DC-9 semi-automatic pistol to attack the students and teachers of Columbine High School.

They used this weapon to take the lives of 13 innocents, 12 students and 1 teacher, and injured dozens more mothers, fathers, sons and daughters.

I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment protects military assault weapons. The Constitution is not an umbrella for mayhem. The Bill of Rights is not a guarantor of violence.

Congress has passed this legislation once--it is time to pass the assault weapons ban again.

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

Mr. President, today my colleagues and I introduce the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative. This bill outlines an important initiative that would give our northern border States and counties financial assistance in prosecuting criminal and immigration-related cases that arise because of proximity to the border. I thank my fellow northern border Senators and cosponsors, Senators Crapo, Murry, Murkowski, Leahy, Clinton and Schumer for joining with me to introduce and work to pass this important legislation.

This initiative is modeled on a successful program already in place for southern border States. The Southern Border Prosecution Initiative allows States and counties to apply for reimbursement of costs incurred in any federally initiated or declined-referred criminal case. The program is targeted at immigration-related cases, but is not limited only to cases involving immigration charges. Cases arising out of immigration issues but ranging from a misdemeanor property charge to a felony drug conviction are eligible for reimbursement under the southern border program. The program proposed in the legislation introduced today would be operated in the same way.

Federal agencies--such as the Border Patrol and INS--have ongoing efforts to police the Nation's borders, resulting in hundreds of arrests each year. For many reasons, some of those cases are not pursued by Federal law enforcement authorities and instead are handed off to State or county officials for further prosecution. Instead of asking States to absorb those costs--likely at the expense of other important local law enforcement initiatives--the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative allows States and counties to receive compensation for pursuing these immigration-related cases.

The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative would be administered by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. States and counties would be able to apply for reimbursement during an annual application period, with no limit on the number of cases submitted. Under the act, funds distribution is not based on the size or population of a northern border State, but upon the number of eligible cases submitted by each jurisdiction. It is possible for reimbursement to equal 100 percent of costs, though money is distributed on a pro rata basis if applications exceed available revenues. Each of the 14 States along the northern border would be eligible for the reimbursement program: Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Last year, $40 million was provided to southern border States Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, offsetting the costs of prosecuting immigration-related cases. For 2002, $50 million was allocated to the program. My legislation simply authorizes $28 million for Fiscal Year 2004 be made available to northern border states for the same purpose.

In the years leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, activity along the northern border had shifted primarily from a focus on immigration issues to those related to

trade and commerce. However, homeland security has grown into a paramount concern in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks, and our States and local governments are increasingly bearing an unfair financial burden in protecting and patrolling our national borders. There are hundreds of crossings along the 4,000 mile long northern border between the United States and Canada, and though improvements have been made to tighten security, the northern border has yet to receive the resources it needs to adequately enforce our Nation's immigration laws and border restrictions.

The need for greater enforcement efforts along the northern border became glaringly evident in 1998 when Ahmed Ressam, a terrorist trained at one of Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan, was arrested shortly after crossing the Canadian border into Washington State. Explosives and other bomb-making materials were found in the trunk of Ressam's car. This frightening incident made clear the vulnerabilities we face along the porous northern border, vulnerabilities that became even more concerning after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

In the last two years, the Senate has taken steps to improve northern border security. I have worked with Senators from the 14 States that comprise the northern border--including my colleagues who join me as cosponsors on this legislation today--and we have successfully devoted more resources to northern border security efforts. The 2001 Department of Defense Appropriation's bill included $55.8 million for 500 additional Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors along the northern border--a 105 percent increase in staffing levels. That legislation also provided $23.9 million to transfer 100 border patrol agents and hire 100 new agents. Working to protect our northern border has been a bipartisan effort, enjoying cooperation from senators across the aisle and across the country. Now it is time to take another step toward greater border and national security and approve the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative.

The costs of homeland security are increasingly being borne by States and local governments, an issue that this legislation tackles head-on. Without giving States and counties the necessary resources to pay for cases initiated by Federal authorities, other important local law enforcement initiatives will undoubtedly be shortchanged. States and the Federal Government must work together if our borders are to be truly safe. The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative is a mechanism by which all of the resources of the criminal justice system--local, State, and Federal--can work in harmony.