Floor Statements

Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce, with Senators Alexander, Bingaman and Warner, legislation that would authorize increased funding for the Department of Energy's, DoE, Office of Science. For two decades, funding for the Office of Science has remained stagnant while the cost of conducting cutting-edge research has continued to rise. Inadequate funding levels for the Office of Science, one of our Nation's leading sources of funding for research in the physical sciences, threatens our Nation's leadership in all sciences and thus also our economic well-being and our security. In the past fifty years, roughly one-half of the Nation's economic growth has been derived from investments in science and technology.

The DoE's Office of Science portfolio is extensive. It is the chief sponsor of major research and user facilities benefitting researchers in the life sciences, physics, chemistry, environmental sciences, mathematics, computer science, and engineering. Among these disciplines, the Office of Science possesses primary responsibility for research in fusion energy physics, nuclear physics, and high energy physics. Taken together, this research supports the DoE's responsibilities for energy security and defense.

While much of this work is conducted by scientists and researchers at our world-class national labs, university-based research is greatly enhanced by DoE Office of Science funds. Over one-fifth of its budget is directed to university research, with 49 States receiving funding. This funding plays a central role in supporting significant, long-term, peer-reviewed basic research. Such on-campus research helps attract motivated students to the physical sciences. By stimulating the curiosity of talented students, and giving them a chance to engage in quality scientific work, the Office of Science expands our knowledge base while training the next generation of scientists and engineers.

The University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics shows the value that is posed by DoE's efforts to support on campus research be it through the DoE's Office of Science or other DoE programs. Since its founding in 1970, this lab has helped produce 161 Ph.D.'s. Currently 57 students are pursuing their doctorates while working at this facility. Additionally, the lab employs dozens of undergraduates and helps bring high school students to the facility each summer. By supporting nearly 2000 researchers at more than 250 universities and institutions in cutting edge research areas such as physics, nanotechnology, materials, genomics, and superconductivity, the Office of Science is able to help draw students to the sciences.

It is the creation of the next generation of scientists that will fuel our nation's economic development and staff our nation's critical DoE facilities. According to the DoE Inspector General the ``Department has been unable to recruit and retain critical scientific and technical staff in a manner sufficient to meet identified mission requirements. . . . [I]f this trend continues, the Department could face a shortage of nearly 40 percent in these classifications within five years.''

If we do not increase funding for the DoE's Office of Science: maintenance backlogs will increase even further at major DoE facilities, major construction initiatives will lapse and even fewer research grants will be funded. As a result, our Nation's leadership in overall science and technology will be threatened since the physical sciences provide much of the core knowledge and instrumentation that fuel advances in many other critical fields of knowledge.

Increasing funds for the DoE's Office of Science will support research in exciting fields such as: nanotechnology, high energy physics, genomics and supercomputing. By investing in the Office of Science, we can help scientists and engineers as they expand our knowledge of the universe and inform our interactions with it.

Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce, with Senators Alexander, Bingaman and Warner, legislation that would authorize increased funding for the Department of Energy's, DoE, Office of Science. For two decades, funding for the Office of Science has remained stagnant while the cost of conducting cutting-edge research has continued to rise. Inadequate funding levels for the Office of Science, one of our Nation's leading sources of funding for research in the physical sciences, threatens our Nation's leadership in all sciences and thus also our economic well-being and our security. In the past fifty years, roughly one-half of the Nation's economic growth has been derived from investments in science and technology.

The DoE's Office of Science portfolio is extensive. It is the chief sponsor of major research and user facilities benefitting researchers in the life sciences, physics, chemistry, environmental sciences, mathematics, computer science, and engineering. Among these disciplines, the Office of Science possesses primary responsibility for research in fusion energy physics, nuclear physics, and high energy physics. Taken together, this research supports the DoE's responsibilities for energy security and defense.

While much of this work is conducted by scientists and researchers at our world-class national labs, university-based research is greatly enhanced by DoE Office of Science funds. Over one-fifth of its budget is directed to university research, with 49 States receiving funding. This funding plays a central role in supporting significant, long-term, peer-reviewed basic research. Such on-campus research helps attract motivated students to the physical sciences. By stimulating the curiosity of talented students, and giving them a chance to engage in quality scientific work, the Office of Science expands our knowledge base while training the next generation of scientists and engineers.

The University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics shows the value that is posed by DoE's efforts to support on campus research be it through the DoE's Office of Science or other DoE programs. Since its founding in 1970, this lab has helped produce 161 Ph.D.'s. Currently 57 students are pursuing their doctorates while working at this facility. Additionally, the lab employs dozens of undergraduates and helps bring high school students to the facility each summer. By supporting nearly 2000 researchers at more than 250 universities and institutions in cutting edge research areas such as physics, nanotechnology, materials, genomics, and superconductivity, the Office of Science is able to help draw students to the sciences.

It is the creation of the next generation of scientists that will fuel our nation's economic development and staff our nation's critical DoE facilities. According to the DoE Inspector General the ``Department has been unable to recruit and retain critical scientific and technical staff in a manner sufficient to meet identified mission requirements. . . . [I]f this trend continues, the Department could face a shortage of nearly 40 percent in these classifications within five years.''

If we do not increase funding for the DoE's Office of Science: maintenance backlogs will increase even further at major DoE facilities, major construction initiatives will lapse and even fewer research grants will be funded. As a result, our Nation's leadership in overall science and technology will be threatened since the physical sciences provide much of the core knowledge and instrumentation that fuel advances in many other critical fields of knowledge.

Increasing funds for the DoE's Office of Science will support research in exciting fields such as: nanotechnology, high energy physics, genomics and supercomputing. By investing in the Office of Science, we can help scientists and engineers as they expand our knowledge of the universe and inform our interactions with it.

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about sentencing- related provisions included in the legislation now under consideration. The bill which the Senate passed in February of this year addressed an important issue--on which their was unanimous bipartisan agreement--of cracking down on child pornography. While I am pleased that the bill before us retains the provisions of that bill, it also proposes wholesale, and in my view unwise, changes to procedures for judicial departures from the sentencing guidelines in criminal cases.

The bill before the Senate contains a provision requiring de novo review of all sentencing departure cases appealed to the circuit courts. This provision overturns, without there having been any State debate on the issue, the interpretation of the ``due-deference'' standard for review of district court sentencing decisions contained in the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Koon v. United States. In that case, the Court said:

We agree that Congress was concerned about sentencing

disparities, but we are just as convinced that Congress did

not intend, by establishing limited appellate review, to vest

in appellate courts wide ranging authority over district

court sentencing decisions. Indeed, the text of section 3742

manifests an intent that district courts retain much of their

traditional sentencing discretion. Section 3742(e), as

enacted in 1984, provided ``[t]he court of appeals shall give

due regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge

the credibility of the witnesses, and shall accept the

findings of fact of the district court unless they are

clearly erroneous.'' In 1988, Congress amended the statute to

impose the additional requirement that courts of appeals

``give due deference to the district court's application of

the guidelines to the facts . . .

The bill also threatens to chill the use of judicial discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines by imposing burdensome reporting requirements on judges who depart. Further, it requires the Attorney General to provide both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees with a report containing information--including the identity of the district court judge--on every downward departure in any case. The Judicial Conference of the United States has said, in an April 3, 2003, letter to Senator Hatch:

We oppose the systematic dissemination outside the court

system of judge-identifying information in criminal case

files. . . . We urge Congress to meet its responsibility to

oversee the functioning of the criminal justice system

through the use of this and other information without

subjecting individual judges to the risk of unfair criticism

in isolated cases where the record may not fully reflect the

events leading up to and informing the judge's decision in a

particular case.

Surely we should hear from the Judicial Conference which has some serious concerns about the impact of this provision on judicial decisionmaking.

The bill could also have the effect of dramatically altering the composition of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Commission consists of seven members. Under current law, at least three of it members must be Federal judges selected by the President from a list of six judges submitted by the Judicial Conference. By removing the requirement that judges hold at least three of the seven seats on the Sentencing Commission, the bill threatens the integrity and future good judgement of the Commission. I do not believe that this is a wise change because judges have a unique perspective on the issue of criminal sentencing.

These are just a few among the many troublesome provisions that were inserted into a piece of legislation after its passage in the Senate had enjoyed broad bipartisan support. The Senate has not had the opportunity to consider the potential impact of these provisions through either hearings or floor debate. Mr. President, I am disappointed that they are now being considered in a conference report which we will not have opportunity to amend.

Mr. President, a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey published in November 2001 reported that almost 7 percent of State inmates and more than 9 percent of Federal inmates carried military- style semiautomatic weapons in carrying out the crime for which they were convicted. In 1997, roughly 43 percent of inmates who carried a military-style semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon fired it and more than 25 percent of them killed or injured their victim.

Military-style semiautomatic weapons are modifications of traditional semiautomatic weapons. They incorporate features intended to give users an advantage in combat situations. Such features include but are not limited to: pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors. The 1994 semiautomatic assault weapons ban prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic weapons that incorporate at least two of these military features and accept a detachable magazine. Preexisting military-style semiautomatic weapons were not banned.

The semiautomatic assault weapons ban will expire on Sept. 13, 2004. If the law is not reauthorized, the production of military-style semiautomatic weapons can legally resume. As the Bureau of Justice Statistics study illustrates, the use of military-style semiautomatic weapons is already a widely used option for many in the criminal population. Restarting production of these weapons will obviously increase their number and availability. Such an increase does not bode well for public safety.

It is critical that we reauthorize the semiautomatic assault weapons ban. We should not wait for new statistics to demonstrate that more criminals are turning to newly manufactured military-style semiautomatic weapons. Existing evidence of past behavior is clear. If we wait, more damage will already have been done. Military-style semiautomatic weapons represent a danger to the lives of police officers and the general public. For the safety of our Nation's citizens, the Congress should act this year.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Georgia be recognized and I be recognized immediately following the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, we have moved into morning business, is that correct?

I wonder if there would be any objection to adding 10 minutes to this period of time, given the number of speakers we have on the floor. I would not want to do that without the leadership knowing about it. I wonder if somebody could check to see if there would be any objection to our adding 10 minutes to this particular period.

Mr. President, one of my greatest pleasures and privileges of serving on the Armed Services Committee has been the close working contact I have had with the men and women who make up America's Armed Forces. They truly represent the best our Nation has to offer. Whenever I visit them, no matter where they are stationed or deployed, I come away proud and impressed by their courage, their professionalism and their commitment.

Across the country, Americans have rallied, volunteered, and sent donations to show their support for our military members serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This generosity of heart has been apparent in every corner of my home State of Michigan.

Michigan has a long tradition of giving its all in support of young Americans waging a war overseas. Over 60 years ago, Michigan's automotive factories were the heart of the ``Arsenal of Democracy'', which helped to bring an Allied victory in World War II. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said at that time, Americans at home were a crucial component of the war: ``We must apply ourselves to our task with the same resolution, the same sense of urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and sacrifice'' as those serving on the front lines.

And Michiganders have always stepped up to that challenge, giving of their time, their resources, their energy, and their love in support of our troops. Since the war in Iraq began, in countless ways, Michiganders have sought to express their thanks to our service members.

There are currently over 3,400 Michiganders from National Guard and Reserve units who have been activated, in addition to many active duty service members for Michigan serving in support of ongoing military operations. In February, I traveled to Kuwait, Qatar, and other places in the region and had the honor of meeting with a group of about 20 Marines from Michigan at Camp Commando. These dedicated, professional men and women were highly motivated, well prepared, and their morale was high. They are remarkable representatives of America and the values we stand for.

To show our gratitude for their work, thousands have rallied across Michigan in support of the troops. At the Capitol in Lansing, at Centennial Park in Holland, at Calder Plaza in Grand Rapids, at Veterans Memorial Park in Ann Arbor, and St. Mary's Park in Monroe-- among many other locales--groups have gathered to voice support for the troops and wish them a quick, safe return home.

In Jackson, people lined the streets for a parade to send off members of a local Army Reserve unit mobilized to active duty. A parade was held in Houghton, where uniformed men and women displayed their colors for the troops, and a similar event in support of the service members is planned in Cheboygan. Bowen Holliday Post 35 of the American Legion in Traverse City is giving out Blue Star Service Banners to military families as a visual reminder of sons and daughters serving the country.

And Rudyard, Michigan--a town of 1,315 in the Upper Peninsula--has seen more than ten percent of its population mobilized on active military duty.

Although the Defense Department prohibits sending care packages to ``any servicemember'' due to security concerns and transportation constraints, Michigan residents have found many ways to provide service people with a piece of home.

Girl Scouts in the Upper Peninsula are conducting a campaign called ``Cookies From Home.'' The scouts are collecting donations from U.P. residents, and the money will be used to buy boxes of Girl Scout cookies which they will send to the troops. Last year, Girl Scouts in the Upper Peninsula sent 2,076 boxes of cookies to Bosnia and Saudi Arabia as part of the campaign.

Students at Ishpeming High School in the U.P. have started a letter writing campaign to Ishpeming graduates who are now serving in the military overseas. The Gogebic County Sheriff's Department is participating in Operation Adopt-A-Family, which is intended to help people who need assistance as the result of the deployment of a spouse or parent. Many groups--including the Milan Area Chamber of Commerce-- have ``adopted'' soldiers, sending them correspondence, thoughts and prayers. Two Jackson, Michigan, men have teamed up to write ``Heroes Piano,'' a song supporting the troops.

A group of Wayne schoolchildren is showing their support by making a special video in appreciation of U.S. service members. Similarly, but on a larger scale, the ABC television station in Detroit is traveling around town with a camera for a project called ``To Our Troops,'' in which they provide residents with an opportunity to send a message directly to the men and women in the battlefield.

Unfortunately, war is a dangerous business and it grieves me to report that four Michigan service members have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country in Operation Iraqi Freedom: Marine Major Kevin G. Nave of Union Lake, Army Sergeant Todd J. Robbins of Pentwater, Army Sergeant Michael F. Pedersen of Flint, and Private First Class Brandon Sloan of Fraser. I want to close my remarks this morning by paying tribute to their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families as they cope with their loss. They should know that a grateful Nation will never forget their loved one and the sacrifice they have made.

On behalf of all of the people of Michigan, I say thank you to all the men and women of our armed forces who are carrying out the dangerous mission of disarming Saddam Hussein and his regime. May God speed you home.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, over the past 450 years, more than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments, and as a result they can wreak havoc on native species. Invasive species threaten to biological diversity. Some experts consider invasive species and the ecological damage they cause to be a greater environmental threat worldwide than chemical pollutants. Estimates of the annual economic damage caused nationwide by these species go as high as $137 billion.

In my home State of Michigan, there is a disaster unfolding which could dramatically increase this cost. For the past few years, scientists have been concerned with the unusually high number of dead and dying Ash trees in the metro-Detroit area. Late last summer, scientists determined that the problem is caused by a beetle which came into the country from Asia: the Emerald Ash Borer. This beetle is indigenous to Asia and has been found in China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Mongolia and Eastern Russia.

Like other invasive species, the Emerald Ash Borer is destroying native species. While scientists believe that the insect came into the country as little as five years ago, it has already left millions of trees in the Detroit area dead or dying. Since there is no economically feasible manner to treat trees, there is concern that all of the Ash trees in the Detroit area will be dead within 5 years.

In order to stop the spread of the Ash Borer, last summer the Michigan Department of Agriculture imposed a quarantine to stop Ash trees, logs and firewood as well as Ash tree nursery stock from being removed from Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw or Livingston countries in Southeastern Michigan. Later in the fall, Monroe country was added. The Michigan Department of Agriculture is currently working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the creation of a program to potentially eradicate the Emerald Ash Borer, yet funds from USDA, for a comprehensive effort, have yet to be provided.

The presence of this beetle has been allegedly reported in other parts of Michigan, and the beetle has recently been positively identified in Toledo, Ohio and Windsor, Ontario. Ohio, Indiana and the Province of Ontario, Canada, are very concerned about the spread of this pest, and the web-sites of their respective Departments of Agriculture have contained warnings about the beetle. Now, with the presence of the beetle in Toledo and Windsor, those fears have increased.

One proposal for stopping the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer would be to create a ``fire break'' by removing trees in a ring around the affected area. Since scientists believe that this beetle can only fly three miles, such an approach, which is already underway in the area surrounding Windsor, Canada, could be successful. However, doing so would be expensive and money is desperately needed not only for beetle eradication and tree removal but also for research.

While the effects of the Ash Borer on Southeast Michigan have already been devastating, the potential results of the beetle's spreading could be catastrophic. As one of the most popular urban trees, Ash trees are found across much of the country. This invasive pest has the potential to be as destructive as the historic Dutch Elm Disease. The sad irony is that Ash trees were planted in place of many of the Elm trees that our State and Nation lost years ago. Should the Ash Borer spread continue, the Forest Service estimates that the potential impact could affect ``up to 2 percent of total leaf area and could impose a value loss between $20-60 billion.'' This number is arrived at without including the cost of replanting deforested areas.

This devastation has already crossed state borders and will cross more unless dealt with. State and local governments cannot be expected to deal with

it. They also face budget shortfalls that are necessitating drastic cuts in basic services because of declining revenue, increasing demands and extensive budget constraints. They are having trouble funding existing obligations to schools and police forces even without having to pay to address the new multi-State threat posed by the Emerald Ash Borer. I have received letters from cities in Michigan, civic organizations and from the Southeast Michigan Council of Government, or SEMCOG, which represents 151 local governments in the region all asking that the Federal Government take an active role in stopping the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer. Without such active and timely support, coordination and funding from USDA, it is unlikely that this problem can be adequately addressed.

SEMCOG has stated that ``the Emerald Ash Borer is decimating the Ash tree population in a 2000 square mile core area within the counties of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Livingston and Washtenaw.'' Michigan State Senator Raymond Basham and State Representative Glenn Anderson have written to me about this problem. In his letter to me, Representative Anderson said that ``Michigan is facing another round of budget cuts at the local levels and local communities simply will not be able to afford the added burden of removing and replacing these trees.'' Adding to this burden is the fact that local governments are required to remove these trees from rights of ways and government properties because dead trees create significant public health risks and liability issues for property and personal damage.

Governor Granholm has worked hard to support cooperative efforts that are underway between the State of Michigan and United States Departments of Agriculture. In meetings with her, she has said that USDA funding is essential to address this problem.

If the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer is not arrested, it will cost billions of dollars to pay for the removal of dead Ash trees and the replanting of new trees. The costs associated with the loss of the Ash tree are not merely financial in nature. Habitat will be destroyed, scenic vistas will be denuded and residential streets that were once tree-lined will no longer have needed shade.

It is critical that we address the Emerald Ash Borer before it is able to spread across a greater area. It is essential that the United States Department of Agriculture complete its efforts to provide much- needed emergency funding to address the Emerald Ash Borer. The Michigan delegation has written twice to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman about this matter. In these letters, the Michigan delegation has stated that without ``swift and sure action, the entire ash tree population will be lost. To avoid this tragedy, we asked that USDA provide funds to ``determine the problem's extent,'' and ``for combating and eradicating this invasive species.''

It is imperative that the USDA provide $17 million in Fiscal Year 2003 emergency funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation to combat the Emerald Ash Borer and that the Office of Management and Budget approve these funds as expeditiously as possible. Additionally, USDA should provide research monies that would enable USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service and the Forest Service's North Central Research Station to work with Michigan State University, Michigan Technological University and other world-class schools of forestry to fund vital research into this problem. The beetle's larvae hatch in the Spring, and while it may not be possible to kill this year's hatch of beetles, time remains of the esssence if the Emerald Ash Borer is to be eradicated. Addressing the matter now will be costly, but delays in addressing the matter will only increase the costs and diminish the likelihood of success.

The Emerald Ash Borer's spread can be halted, but action must be taken quickly. It is for that reason that I urge Secretary Veneman to immediately provide the emergency and research funds that will be a vital component of any effort to address the problems created by this persistent pest.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I congratulate Senators Santorum and Lieberman and everybody else who has had a voice and hand in shaping and crafting the CARE legislation before us. It makes a significant contribution to the strength of volunteer organizations and charitable organizations. It is a very significant contribution to that wonderful cause and to this wonderful land of ours. I commend them.

I would like to take a moment here to highlight a provision in the managers' amendment to strengthen the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to detect, investigate, and punish violations of Federal securities law. This provision has been added to the CARE Act, because we have had the support and we have been able to utilize the efforts of the managers of this bill, Senators Grassley and Baucus, and of the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senators Shelby and Sarbanes. This is an effort that Senator Bill Nelson and I and others have been involved in for some time. Now it will come to fruition, at least in the Senate, tomorrow when we adopt this legislation, including the managers' amendment.

I also thank the Securities and Exchange Commission for its assistance in crafting this legislation and for the agency's support of our efforts to enact it into law. Senator Bill Nelson and I and others have been working on this addition to the SEC enforcement powers for a long time. We are very grateful to all those who have worked with us, including Senators Corzine and Biden who cosponsored the SEC Civil Enforcement Act, S. 183, which we introduced earlier this year--in January--which is identical to the language which is in the managers' amendment.

The SEC Chairman, Bill Donaldson, is very supportive of our SEC enforcement legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the SEC Chairman supporting this provision and describing it as one that will ``significantly supplement and strengthen the Commission's ongoing enforcement efforts'' be printed in the Record at this time.

Madam President, here is a description of what the Levin- Nelson provision would do.

First, the provision will grant the SEC administrative authority to impose civil monetary fines on any person who violates Federal securities laws. Under current law, only broker-dealers, investment advisers, and certain other persons are now subject to administrative fines by the SEC. Our legislation will allow the SEC to impose administrative fines on anyone who violates Federal securities law, including, for example, corporate officers, directors, auditors, lawyers, or publicly traded companies, none of whom are now subject to being fined by the SEC in administrative proceedings. These fines, of course, would be subject to judicial review, as are all SEC administrative determinations.

Last year, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I then chaired, conducted an extensive investigation into the collapse of Enron. As a result of that investigation, the Subcommittee determined that Enron's board of directors and officers and certain major financial institutions assisted Enron in carrying out deceptive accounting transactions and other abuses that misled investors and analysts about the company's finances.

The Subcommittee's last Enron hearing in December also highlighted the fact that the SEC is in need of additional tools to deal with the individuals and entities that participated in Enron's deceptive accounting or tax strategies. Our legislation would give to the SEC new authority to impose an administrative fine on anyone who violates the Federal security laws--not just broker-dealers or investment advisers, but also corporate directors or officers, employees, bankers, lawyers, auditors, law firms, accounting firms, corporations, financial institutions, partnerships, and trusts.

Second, the provision will significantly increase the maximum civil administrative fine that the SEC is able to impose on persons who violate Federal securities laws. The civil administrative fines that the SEC is currently authorized to impose have statutory maximums that, depending upon the nature of the securities law violation, range from a maximum of $6,500 to a maximum of $600,000 per violation. Again, the particular amount depends upon the nature of the violation. In a day and age when some CEOs make $100 million in a single year, and a company like Enron can report gross revenues of $100 billion in a single year, a civil fine with a maximum of $6,500 is laughable. Here is what one SEC staff stated about the current maximums in a document dated June 2002, and this explains why the agency is supporting our legislation:

The current maximum penalty amounts may not have the

desired deterrent effect on an individual or corporate

violator. For example, an individual who commits a negligent

act is subject to a maximum penalty of $6,500 per violation.

This amount is so trivial it cannot possibly have a deterrent

effect on the violator.

Our provision would increase the civil fine maximums from a range of a maximum of $6,500 to a maximum of $600,000 per violation, depending on the nature of the securities law violation, to a range that goes from a maximum of $100,000 to a maximum of $2 million per violation. At a time when we are seeing corporate restatements and misconduct involving billions of dollars, these larger fines are critical if the fines are to have an effective deterrent or punitive impact on wrongdoers.

Third, the Levin-Nelson provision would grant the SEC new administrative authority, when the SEC has opened an official SEC investigation, to subpoena financial records from a financial institution without having to notify the subject that such a records request has been made, thereby bringing the SEC's subpoena authority into alignment with the subpoena authority of Federal banking agencies like the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. This authority would allow the SEC to trace funds, evaluate financial transactions, and analyze financial relationships without having to alert the subject of an investigation to the SEC's inquiry. Under current law, the SEC either has to give the subject advance notice of the subpoena or spend precious time seeking to obtain a court order to delay notification.

Cases we are seeing today involve allegations of persons using offshore accounts to move millions of dollars or engage in complex transactions that materially affect the financial statements and tax returns of publicly traded companies in the United States. The SEC must be able to look at financial records quickly without giving the subject of the inquiry an opportunity to move funds, change accounts, or further muddy the investigative waters.

This authority is particularly important in light of the Patriot Act of 2001, which for the first time requires securities firms to detect and report possible money laundering through U.S. securities accounts. The SEC cannot be expected to effectively monitor these anti-money laundering efforts or act quickly to trace possible terrorist financing or other suspicious financial conduct if, as is the case now, the SEC must provide advance notice to investigative subjects or obtain court orders granting delayed notification. No Federal banking agency operates under these types of constraints in its anti-money laundering efforts, and there is no reason why the SEC should. Our provision would modernize the SEC's oversight authority and bring it into alignment with the Federal banking agencies.

Last year, the Sarbanes-Oxley law strengthened law enforcement and stiffened penalties for Federal securities crimes. By enacting the Levin-Nelson provision this year, Congress would help put some teeth into SEC enforcement on the civil side. We originally offered this legislation as an amendment to the Senate bill that resulted in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but were unable to obtain a vote before time ran out. That is why we are back.

Investor confidence in U.S. capital markets has not been fully restored, and Congress needs to provide strong leadership to assure U.S. investors that their interests are protected. A vigorous SEC that can act quickly to impose civil fines on those who violate Federal securities laws can help restore investor confidence in the effectiveness of U.S. securities laws and capital markets. In addition, since many securities violations warrant civil rather than criminal treatment, strengthening the SEC's civil enforcement authority would help streamline the available civil enforcement options and give the SEC better tools to fashion appropriate civil penalties.

Again, I thank my colleagues for supporting this provision.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the former Chairman of the SEC, Harvey Pitt, dated August 30, 2002, also endorsing this legislation be printed in the Record at this time.

Madam President, I thank the managers and all the other persons who worked with us to get this legislation included in the managers' amendment and, hopefully, passed tomorrow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sleeping Bear Dunes expansion bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sleeping Bear Dunes expansion bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week the Detroit Police Department destroyed 5,037 guns by taking them to the Rouge Steel Company in Dearborn, MI, and melting them into recycled steel. Two dump trucks traveled under guard to deliver the weapons, which apparently included AK 47s, sawed off shotguns, Uzis and machine guns, from police headquarters to the steel plant. At the plant, steelworkers melted the firearms by pouring 2,600 degree molten steel over them.

Detroit Police Chief Jerry Oliver said that taking these guns out of circulation will save lives. That is good news. Last year alone, 26 children lost their lives in incidents of gun violence in Detroit. The Detroit Police Department has been working hard to reduce gun violence in the city. And every gun that's taken off the street helps make this job a little bit easier.

The fight to reduce gun violence must be waged on many fronts. We need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, prevent children from gaining access to firearms, and give law enforcement the resources they need to thoroughly investigate gun-related crimes. At the same time, we have to vigorously prosecute criminals who commit gun-related crimes.

We in the Senate should take up and pass common sense gun safety legislation. And we need to provide adequate resources to police departments. Unfortunately, we are fighting an uphill battle. Common sense gun safety legislation is blocked by the National Rifle Association and its allies. The President's budget proposes massive cuts to COPs and other critical law enforcement programs. And Attorney General Ashcroft, while indicating the Bush Administration's support for the current ban on assault weapons, recently refused to support reauthorization of the ban.

Melting those guns in Dearborn last week was a welcome event for all of us who care about reducing gun violence. But it would surely have been better if those guns had never made it onto the street in the first place. Absent adequate funding for police departments and the passage of common sense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I fear that truckloads of guns will remain on our streets, in the hands of criminals, threatening our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to restore funding for COPs, close the gun show loophole, and reauthorize the assault weapons ban this year.

I am pleased that this supplemental appropriations bill contains language proposed by Senator Stabenow and myself that will increase security inspections of trucks hauling municipal solid waste into Michigan from Canada. At a time when we are increasing security measures at all levels to protect our citizens, it doesn't make sense to allow 130 to 140 truckloads of waste cross into Michigan every day from Canada without inspection.

On January 1, 2003, the city of Toronto began shipping all of its municipal solid waste 1.1 million tons--to Michigan's landfills. As a result, thousands of truckloads of waste cross the Blue Water Bridge and the Ambassador Bridge and travel through the busiest parts of Metro Detroit without inspection.

Even though Customs recently issued a memo announcing that it would increase security measures for municipal solid waste trucks, citing security concerns related to September 11, it reversed that decision on February 7, 2003, the same day that the Homeland Security national threat level was raised to level orange. Therefore, these trucks will continue to be treated as a low-risk commodity, which will allows these trucks carrying tons of municipal solid waste to cross the Michigan- Canadian border with minimal scrutiny.

Our amendment, that has been included in this bill, will ensure that these trucks are inspected before they cross the Ambassador and Blue Water Bridges. Further, the amendment provides that the Blue Water Bridge will receive radiation detection equipment by May 1, 2003.

We cannot take the chance that harmful materials will be transported into Michigan on one of these trucks. Our amendment will help to prevent that scenario by ensuring the inspection of these municipal solid waste trucks at the border.

Mr. President, today it is my great pleasure to congratulate the University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy for 125 years of excellence in education. On April 4, 2003, faculty, students, and members of the community will gather to commemorate not only U of D Jesuit's achievements in education, but also its commitment to the community of Detroit.

For 125 years, the University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy has provided expanding educational opportunities to a wide array of students across the Detroit metropolitan area. Since its founding in 1877, U of D Jesuit has continually increased its academic offerings to students. The school added an academy serving seventh and eighth grade students in 1973 and is now known as one of Michigan's premier private college preparatory schools.

In 1977, U of D Jesuit made the critical decision to remain in Detroit. Despite pressure from teachers and alumni to move the school out of the city, the Jesuits in Rome urged the school to remain in Detroit to continue pursuing their mission of justice in education. Since then, U of D Jesuit has strived to offer its students a rich multicultural environment while also providing a challenging and meaningful educational experience. The diversity that now exists within the school is both an incredible asset and an essential component of its character.

Today, U of D Jesuit offers its students excellent educational opportunities while teaching them the importance of diversity and commitment to their community. The student body at U of D Jesuit draws from nearly 70 different communities in the Detroit metropolitan area. Students come from a variety of religious and cultural backgrounds, yet they all share the common goal of improving their school and community. The University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy truly demonstrates an unwavering commitment to shaping young men into ``Men for Others.''

I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the Senate in offering my deepest congratulations to the University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy as they celebrate 125 years of commitment to the Detroit area and excellence in education. I wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, McConnell and Schumer in introducing the Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2003, a bill that would provide private security firms an opportunity to have national criminal history information searches undertaken to determine whether or not employees or applicants for employment pose a threat to the facilities and persons they are supposed to protect. There would be no expense to the government and the searches would require the consent of the employee or applicant for employment.

Large numbers of critical non-governmental facilities from power plants to schools to hospitals are protected by private security firms and their civilian security officers. Keeping these facilities secure from terrorism or other forms of violent attack is critical to our national security. Yet currently most private security employers cannot request timely national criminal background check information on the very people they need to hire to protect these key facilities. This legislation seeks to correct that. This bill would authorize private security firms to request Federal background checks on current or prospective employees through the appropriate state agencies, thereby permitting relevant criminal history information to be considered in the licensing and employment of private security officers.

The Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI maintains complete criminal history records for both Federal and State crimes on individuals with criminal records in the United States. Searches are most effectively conducted using fingerprints to ensure efficiency and accuracy. We have already passed legislation specifically permitting other industries--for instance, the banking, nursing home, and child care industries--to check their prospective employees against the FBI's comprehensive records. Many of the reasons that supported passage of those laws, particularly the desire to ensure that those who provide certain important services have a background commensurate with their responsibilities, support passage of this bill as well.

This legislation will enhance our Nation's security. As an adjunct to our Nation's law enforcement officers, private security guards are responsible for the protection of numerous critical components of our Nation's infrastructure, including power generation facilities, hazardous materials manufacturing facilities, water supply and delivery facilities, oil and gas refineries, and food processing plants. The approximately 13,000 private security companies in the United States employ about 1.5 million persons nationwide. Given the critical nature of the facilities private security officers are hired to protect, it is imperative that we provide sufficient access to information that might disclose who is unsuitable for protecting these resources.

Currently we do not. Relying upon a Federal bill passed in the early 1970's, 37 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation authorizing State agencies to request both State and Federal criminal history record searches. Despite this authorization, security firms report that searches of both State and Federal databases for private security officers are the exception rather than the rule. That is because only 20 States plus the District of Columbia regularly access the Federal database for private security officers, and only two-- California and Illinois--do so in a way that ensures a timely response. In many jurisdictions with authorizing statutes, reviews of the Federal database are conducted sporadically, if at all. Indeed, in approximately 17 of the 37 States with authorizing statutes, typically only State databases are searched for private security officers. An additional 13 States have not even passed legislation authorizing any form of Federal criminal background check. What that means is that in approximately 30 States neither the State agencies nor the private security employers typically have any access to any Federal criminal database information. In these 30 States, an employment applicant in one State could have a serious criminal conviction in another State and still be permitted to perform sensitive security work. The state reviewing the applicant would have no idea a conviction in another State existed without access to the Federal database.

Further, even in those few States that actually conduct Federal records searches, the Federal searches conducted on new employees often take 90 to 120 days, if not longer. While checks are pending, security guards frequently are provided temporary licenses. This 90 to 120 day period is more than enough time for a guard with a temporary license to perpetrate dangerous acts. In light of our urgent need to strengthen the security of our homeland, this lack of timely access to criminal history information is unacceptable. An article that appeared earlier this year in USA Today entitled ``Private Security Guards Are Homeland's Weak Link'' got it right when it said, ``more often than not, private security guards who protect millions of lives and billions of dollars in real estate offer a false sense of security.'' We need to act in order to make it easier for States and employers to gain timely access to this crucial criminal history information.

This bill strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of all parties involved.

First, the bill permits private security employers to request a prompt search of the FBI criminal history database for prospective or existing employees. Requests must be made by the employers through their state's identification bureau or similar state agency designated by the Attorney General. Employers will not be granted direct access to the FBI records. Instead, states will serve as intermediaries between employers and the FBI to: 1. ensure that employment suitability determinations are made pursuant to applicable State law; 2. prevent disclosure of the raw FBI criminal history information to the employers and the public; and 3. minimize the FBI's administrative burden of having to respond to background check requests from countless different sources. The program will not cost the Federal Government anything. The legislation allows the FBI, and states if they so choose, to charge reasonable fees to security firms to recover their costs of carrying out this act.

Second, the bill protects employee and prospective employee privacy. Before an FBI background check can be conducted, the employee or applicant for employment must grant an employer written consent to request the FBI database search. In addition, the criminal history reports received by the States will not be disseminated to employers. Instead, in States that have standards regulating private security guard employment, designated State agencies will simply be required to use the information provided by the FBI in applying their State standards. For those States that have no standards, the States will be instructed to inform requesting employers whether or not employees or applicants have been convicted of either: 1. a felony; 2. a violent misdemeanor within the past ten years; or 3. a crime of dishonesty within the past ten years. Thus, in these situations, only the fact that a particular conviction exists or not will be provided by States to employers, and the privacy of the records themselves will be maintained. All information provided to employers pursuant to this act must be provided to the employees or prospective employees. Furthermore, the bill establishes strong criminal penalties for those who might falsely certify they are authorized security firms or otherwise use information obtained pursuant to this act beyond the act's intended purposes.

Third, the bill protects States' interests. The bill does not impose an unfunded mandate on the states. It reserves the right of States to charge reasonable fees to employers for their costs in administering this act. Moreover, if a State wishes to opt out of this statutory regime, it may do so at any time.

This legislation is long overdue. It strikes the right balance between the need for States and employers to gain access to this critical information and the privacy rights of current and prospective security guards. We have

worked with the FBI to expedite the administrative process, and it will cost the Federal Government nothing. There is no undue burden being placed on our States. Most importantly, passage of this act will plug a hole in our homeland defense. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Alexander, Lieberman, McConnell and Schumer in introducing the Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2003, a bill that would provide private security firms an opportunity to have national criminal history information searches undertaken to determine whether or not employees or applicants for employment pose a threat to the facilities and persons they are supposed to protect. There would be no expense to the government and the searches would require the consent of the employee or applicant for employment.

Large numbers of critical non-governmental facilities from power plants to schools to hospitals are protected by private security firms and their civilian security officers. Keeping these facilities secure from terrorism or other forms of violent attack is critical to our national security. Yet currently most private security employers cannot request timely national criminal background check information on the very people they need to hire to protect these key facilities. This legislation seeks to correct that. This bill would authorize private security firms to request Federal background checks on current or prospective employees through the appropriate state agencies, thereby permitting relevant criminal history information to be considered in the licensing and employment of private security officers.

The Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI maintains complete criminal history records for both Federal and State crimes on individuals with criminal records in the United States. Searches are most effectively conducted using fingerprints to ensure efficiency and accuracy. We have already passed legislation specifically permitting other industries--for instance, the banking, nursing home, and child care industries--to check their prospective employees against the FBI's comprehensive records. Many of the reasons that supported passage of those laws, particularly the desire to ensure that those who provide certain important services have a background commensurate with their responsibilities, support passage of this bill as well.

This legislation will enhance our Nation's security. As an adjunct to our Nation's law enforcement officers, private security guards are responsible for the protection of numerous critical components of our Nation's infrastructure, including power generation facilities, hazardous materials manufacturing facilities, water supply and delivery facilities, oil and gas refineries, and food processing plants. The approximately 13,000 private security companies in the United States employ about 1.5 million persons nationwide. Given the critical nature of the facilities private security officers are hired to protect, it is imperative that we provide sufficient access to information that might disclose who is unsuitable for protecting these resources.

Currently we do not. Relying upon a Federal bill passed in the early 1970's, 37 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation authorizing State agencies to request both State and Federal criminal history record searches. Despite this authorization, security firms report that searches of both State and Federal databases for private security officers are the exception rather than the rule. That is because only 20 States plus the District of Columbia regularly access the Federal database for private security officers, and only two-- California and Illinois--do so in a way that ensures a timely response. In many jurisdictions with authorizing statutes, reviews of the Federal database are conducted sporadically, if at all. Indeed, in approximately 17 of the 37 States with authorizing statutes, typically only State databases are searched for private security officers. An additional 13 States have not even passed legislation authorizing any form of Federal criminal background check. What that means is that in approximately 30 States neither the State agencies nor the private security employers typically have any access to any Federal criminal database information. In these 30 States, an employment applicant in one State could have a serious criminal conviction in another State and still be permitted to perform sensitive security work. The state reviewing the applicant would have no idea a conviction in another State existed without access to the Federal database.

Further, even in those few States that actually conduct Federal records searches, the Federal searches conducted on new employees often take 90 to 120 days, if not longer. While checks are pending, security guards frequently are provided temporary licenses. This 90 to 120 day period is more than enough time for a guard with a temporary license to perpetrate dangerous acts. In light of our urgent need to strengthen the security of our homeland, this lack of timely access to criminal history information is unacceptable. An article that appeared earlier this year in USA Today entitled ``Private Security Guards Are Homeland's Weak Link'' got it right when it said, ``more often than not, private security guards who protect millions of lives and billions of dollars in real estate offer a false sense of security.'' We need to act in order to make it easier for States and employers to gain timely access to this crucial criminal history information.

This bill strikes the appropriate balance between the interests of all parties involved.

First, the bill permits private security employers to request a prompt search of the FBI criminal history database for prospective or existing employees. Requests must be made by the employers through their state's identification bureau or similar state agency designated by the Attorney General. Employers will not be granted direct access to the FBI records. Instead, states will serve as intermediaries between employers and the FBI to: 1. ensure that employment suitability determinations are made pursuant to applicable State law; 2. prevent disclosure of the raw FBI criminal history information to the employers and the public; and 3. minimize the FBI's administrative burden of having to respond to background check requests from countless different sources. The program will not cost the Federal Government anything. The legislation allows the FBI, and states if they so choose, to charge reasonable fees to security firms to recover their costs of carrying out this act.

Second, the bill protects employee and prospective employee privacy. Before an FBI background check can be conducted, the employee or applicant for employment must grant an employer written consent to request the FBI database search. In addition, the criminal history reports received by the States will not be disseminated to employers. Instead, in States that have standards regulating private security guard employment, designated State agencies will simply be required to use the information provided by the FBI in applying their State standards. For those States that have no standards, the States will be instructed to inform requesting employers whether or not employees or applicants have been convicted of either: 1. a felony; 2. a violent misdemeanor within the past ten years; or 3. a crime of dishonesty within the past ten years. Thus, in these situations, only the fact that a particular conviction exists or not will be provided by States to employers, and the privacy of the records themselves will be maintained. All information provided to employers pursuant to this act must be provided to the employees or prospective employees. Furthermore, the bill establishes strong criminal penalties for those who might falsely certify they are authorized security firms or otherwise use information obtained pursuant to this act beyond the act's intended purposes.

Third, the bill protects States' interests. The bill does not impose an unfunded mandate on the states. It reserves the right of States to charge reasonable fees to employers for their costs in administering this act. Moreover, if a State wishes to opt out of this statutory regime, it may do so at any time.

This legislation is long overdue. It strikes the right balance between the need for States and employers to gain access to this critical information and the privacy rights of current and prospective security guards. We have

worked with the FBI to expedite the administrative process, and it will cost the Federal Government nothing. There is no undue burden being placed on our States. Most importantly, passage of this act will plug a hole in our homeland defense. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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