Floor Statements

Mr. President, today it is my pleasure to congratulate the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn, MI for 75 years of distinguished service addressing the needs of children, seniors, and the disadvantaged throughout the Dearborn community and my home State of Michigan.

As a member of Kiwanis International, the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn is part of a larger organization that holds community service at its core. Since its founding in 1915, Kiwanis International has united individuals to respond to the changing needs of their communities. Kiwanis groups promote awareness of vital issues such as child health and development, literacy, substance abuse, and senior care. Kiwanis Clubs nationwide take practical steps to respond to these concerns through volunteer service projects and fundraising. Today, the Kiwanis family includes 500,000 members in over 80 countries.

Since 1928, the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn has taken an active role in performing community service. Through their annual ``Peanut Sale'' fundraiser, the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn has generated thousands of dollars each year for charity organizations. Recipients of the money raised at this benefit include Children's Hospital, the Salvation Army, the DeSales School for the Deaf, the Hemophilia Foundation, and the Special Olympics. This year, the club raised a record $54,000, a sum which has earned them recognition as a leader in fundraising initiatives. Furthermore, the club can be commended for donating all moneys raised to charity, due to the absence of administrative costs. The Kiwanis Club of Dearborn also produces ``Kiwani Talk,'' a television show that informs viewers of services available to the public. In the past 10 years, this program has aired 500 episodes relaying pertinent information to the community. The emergence of two additional clubs, the Outer Drive Kiwanis Club and the East Dearborn Kiwanis Club, is testament to the commitment of the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn to continued community service and the appeal of their message.

I am confident that my Senate colleagues will join me in thanking the Kiwanis Club of Dearborn for their 75 years of service dedicated to improving the lives of many in the Dearborn community. The dedication to community

service is an inspiring example of human kindness and selflessness. We wish them continued success as they work to make our communities better places to live.

Mr. President, today is a very sad day for America and for those of us who served in the United States Senate with one of its most visionary and accomplished members, a great man, a great American, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who died yesterday.

It stretches the mind just to think of all of the important positions that Pat Moynihan held, including Cabinet or sub-Cabinet posts under four Presidents: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. He served as Ambassador to India in the 1970s and then as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He came to the United States Senate in 1977 already a scholar, author and public official of great distinction and renown. In the 24 years he spent here, he only greatly expanded his enormous reputation and body of work. Pat Moynihan was a Senator's Senator. Over the years, he earned the respect of every Member of the Senate--and we all learned a great deal from him.

Pat Moynihan was a person who showed tremendous vision throughout his life. He showed foresight about the importance of a strong family and about the importance of strong communities in America. He raised the critical importance of these basic values and concerns about the deterioration of these family values, long before others. He showed great foresight about our Constitution. One of the highlights for me in my service in the Senate was joining Senator Moynihan and Senator Robert Byrd in fighting successfully against the line item veto as a violation of our Constitution. And, he showed great foresight about the world and the role of the United States in international affairs. His work at the United Nations and in the Senate, as a former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as chairman of the Finance Committee was marked by his perceptive, analytical, and worldly view on trade, foreign policy, and intelligence matters. Long before others, Senator Moynihan was speaking of the economic and ultimately military weaknesses of the Soviet Union and predicting its collapse--at a time when most of the American intelligence community was overestimating its strength.

It is virtually impossible to list all of Pat Moynihan's accomplishments in the U.S. Senate. Among the most lasting, however, will be his efforts on behalf of architectural excellence in the Nation's Capital. He was a crucial force behind the return to greatness of the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor between the U.S. Capitol and the White House, the restoration of Washington's beautiful, elegant, and historic Union Station, and the construction of the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building here on Capitol Hill.

And Pat could pack a punch, wielding his sharp sense of humor as a devastating weapon as when, in 1981, when the plastic covering used to protect the workers on the then-new Hart Senate Office Building was removed. No fan of the lack of architectural merit of the Senate's newest office building, he suggested that the plastic be immediately put back. He commented, ``Even in a democracy, there are things it is as well the people do not know about their Government.''

The author or editor of eighteen books, Senator Moynihan was at the forefront of the national debate on issues ranging from welfare reform, to tax policy to international relations. His most recent book, written in 1998, ``Secrecy: The American Experience'' expands on the report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy of which he was the Chairman. This is a fascinating and provocative review of the history of the development of secrecy in the government since World War I and argument for an ``era of openness.''

At home in New York, in a State which is known for its rough and tumble politics, he demonstrated leadership again and again, exercising the power of intellect and the ability to rise above the fray. That has been a wonderful contribution not just to New York but to all of America.

The ``Almanac of American Politics'' once noted ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan [was] the nation's best thinker among politicians since Lincoln and its best politician among thinkers since Jefferson.'' Pat made a huge contribution to this body and its reputation. I will never forgot him.

His wife, Liz, his children, grandchildren and the entire Moynihan family are in our hearts and our prayers today. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's memory will continue to serve as an inspiration to us all in the Senate family--as he was in life--to better serve the country that he loved so much.

Mr. President, last month the American Academy of Pediatrics published a survey reporting that most parents believe that their children would not touch a gun they found. Unfortunately, these beliefs are inconsistent with other studies of the way kids actually react around guns, including a July 2002 report by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation.

The American Academy of Pediatrics survey reported that an estimated one third of American homes with children contain at least one firearm and nearly half of all firearms in homes with children are not stored safely. According to the article, 87 percent of respondents predicted that their children would not handle guns they found, whereas 13 percent predicted that there was a chance their children would do so. Researchers grouped parents' responses into three categories. First, 46 percent of respondents said ``my children would not touch guns because they're too smart for that.'' Second, 35 percent said ``my children would not touch guns because I've told them not to.'' And third, 11 percent said, ``my children would probably pick up or play with guns they found, because that's just what kids do.''

However, the earlier David and Lucille Packard Foundation study demonstrated that children often do not behave as their parents might believe. In fact, according to the foundation's report, children and young people are actually likely to handle a gun if they find one.

All parents want to ensure the safety of their children. One thing the Senate can do to help is pass common sense safe storage legislation for firearms. Under Senator Durbin's Child Access Prevention Act, adults who fail to lock up loaded firearms or an unloaded firearm with ammunition could be held liable if that weapon is taken by a child and used to kill or injure him or herself or another person. The bill would also increase the penalties for selling a gun to a juvenile and create a gun safety education program that includes parent-teacher organizations, local law enforcement and community organizations. I support this bill, urge my colleagues to support it, and hope the Senate will act on it during the 108th Congress.

Mr. President, I cannot support this budget resolution. In my judgment, this budget, like the President's budget which it reflects, represents the wrong priorities. A close look reveals too many ill-advised cuts in too many critical areas in order to help pay for a tax cut which is too large, too inequitable, and which will worsen our fiscal situation without providing our economy the jump- start it needs.

The proposed budget cuts in education are particularly troubling. While I am pleased that the Senate passed an amendment I introduced that increased education funding by over $2 billion by proposing to close down two egregious tax haven loopholes, that increase doesn't come close to making up for the shortfalls.

Other priorities are similarly underfunded. The transportation request is less than what was allotted in 2002 and 2003. This year Congress plans to reauthorize TEA-21, the highway reauthorization bill, yet the budget resolution as proposed would limit our ability to increase the program to meet our Nation's transportation needs. The budget would provide inadequate funding for State sewer and water programs, and would cut funding to the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Pprogram, which has helped fund more than 3,300 police officers in Michigan. The proposal provides no funding for the community access program, which improves health care coordination for the uninsured, or for extending unemployment benefits for those whose benefits have expired, even though the number of unemployed in our country has increased by about 40 percent since January 2001.

While I am pleased that we were able to reduce the President's fiscally irresponsible tax cut proposal, the tax cut package in the existing budget resolution is still too large, and likely will increase in conference committee with the President's party in charge of both Houses.

In January 2001, the Office of Management and Budget was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now we are back into a huge deficit ditch and will be for the foreseeable future. In fact, the President's proposed budget and tax cuts would lead to more than a trillion dollars in deficits over the next 5 years, including record deficits of over $300 billion this year and next. The right type of tax cuts could stimulate the economy by being effective in the short term and going to working families and small businesses that will spend the money now instead of mainly going to the wealthiest among us who don't need tax cuts. But tax cuts that drastically worsen our long-term fiscal situation, that won't help out in the short term, and that would require cuts to many other priorities are not what our economy needs.

Surely, simple equity as well as economic stimulus needs suggest that if we are going to have tax cuts they should be broad-based tax cuts, providing, for instance, every working family of four with an immediate tax cut of $1,200. And we should also extend unemployment benefits for those whose benefits have expired and weren't previously extended, provide short-term incentives for businesses to invest immediately, and provide some assistance to our struggling States for education, homeland security, Medicaid, and highway and other infrastructure improvements.

These measures would be better for our economy today, our fiscal situation in future years, and the many other challenges that lay ahead. They also

would address today's problems today without passing the bills onto future generations.

In addition, the Senate is asked by the majority to pass a budget without including any estimated costs of the war in Iraq and its aftermath, even though such estimates exist. Yesterday the President sent a $75 billion funding request regarding Iraq to Congress in the form of an emergency supplemental. That request is not included in the current 2004 budget resolution before us. There is no reason that the costs of the war and its aftermath after September 30, 2003, should be omitted. While there is no question that we will fully fund our troops, we are asked to approve massive tax cuts and huge deficits while totally ignoring the large additional expenditures which will be required by the war in Iraq. In my view, it is both reckless and irresponsible to intentionally keep those costs out of this budget resolution.

This budget emphasizes the wrong priorities, burrows us deeper into the deficit ditch, continues our reliance on the Social Security surplus, and fails to provide the stimulus needed to improve our sputtering economy. I cannot support it.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 372, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, while young men and women are putting their lives on the line for us, for our country, some corporations are stiffing our country, renouncing their citizenship, going through phony reincorporations in Bermuda. There are other tax haven countries, so- called inverting themselves in order to avoid taxes. This is one of the most egregious of all of the tax haven abuses that we know about--just a shell headquarters being opened, but all of the benefits of living in America continue.

These corporations continue to use our roads, use our law enforcement, use our education system, and so forth.

It is unfair to the taxpayers who are left holding the bag. It is unfair to U.S. competitors. It is something we ought to end. I hope we will end it today with the adoption of this amendment, particularly at a time when young American men and women are giving their all for us.

It is time for Congress to get serious about closing tax haven loopholes. This amendment is aimed at closing two of those loopholes that would raise $4.7 billion over 10 years. It proposes that we take half of that $4.7 billion to reduce the deficit over 10 years and half to increase funding over 10 years for the following education initiatives: one, special education; two, after-school programs; and three, school construction and modernization grants.

First, we need to stop corporate inversions, and do it in a way that will not permit those that started the inversion pretense to enjoy billions in future tax benefits that will continue to disadvantage their U.S. competitors. The companies targeted by this measure are those which have, in essence, pretended to move their headquarters to a tax haven when, in reality, their primary offices and production or service facilities remain right here in the United States. By opening shell headquarters in a tax haven, companies that got their start in this country, do most of their work here, and benefit from U.S. roads, banks, patents, computers, law enforcement, fair trade laws, its educated workforce, and much more, avoid contributing their fair share to pay for those benefits. A bill I have introduced along with Senators Reid, Durbin, and Kennedy is designed to stop this abusive practice. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed an almost identical bill and estimated that it would raise $4 billion over 10 years.

Second, we need to close the Bermuda reinsurance tax loophole. Utilizing the U.S. tax code, a number of Bermuda-based property and casualty insurance companies are placing American-owned property and casualty insurance companies at a severe competitive disadvantage by ducking U.S. taxes that U.S. insurers are required to pay. Through reinsurance agreements

with their subsidiaries, Bermuda insurance companies operating in the United States are using their U.S. subsidiaries to send U.S. insurance premiums out of this country and into Bermuda, where interest can be earned on the premiums tax-free. By sending the premiums offshore, the U.S. subsidiary of the Bermuda parent is able to reduce the amount of its income in the United states and, accordingly, reduce its U.S. taxes. Comparable U.S.-owned insurance companies cannot operate in the same way and, as a result, operate on an uneven playing field. Legislation has been developed to correct this inequity and level the playing field for U.S. property and casualty insurers. The Joint Committee on Taxation last year estimated the bill seeking to close this tax haven loophole would produce about $700 million over ten years.

These are not the only tax haven abuses we need to address; there are others. We need to eliminate tax breaks for U.S. taxpayers that do business in uncooperative tax havens that fail, in the judgment of the U.S. government, to provide information needed in U.S. tax enforcement efforts. Since the 9/11 tragedy, the importance of financial transparency and cooperative information exchange among international law enforcement agencies has increased, not only to fight money laundering and other crimes, but also to understand financial transactions that my involve tax evasion or other illegal conduct. But a handful of tax haven jurisdictions continue to employ secrecy laws that impede U.S. tax enforcement or provide lackadaisical or ineffective responses to U.S. requests for information needed in criminal and civil tax matters. Legislation has been developed that would restrict the tax benefits that a U.S. taxpayer could claim from business transacted in one of these uncooperative jurisdictions. This legislation would produce not only new tax revenues, but also a powerful incentive for the targeted jurisdictions to reform their abusive policies. The funds that would be raised by such a provision are not included in the $4.7 billion at issue in this amendment due to our inability to obtain a timely revenue estimate, but this tax haven issue--and others like it--need to be addressed.

We should use half of the $4.7 billion that would be raised by closing the inversion and Bermuda reinsurance loopholes to reduce the deficit and increase our commitment to education, which has been underfunded in this budget resolution. The budget resolution proposes funding that is almost $10 billion below the 2004 amount authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act, and includes funding levels that will reduce funding for after school centers and eliminate over 40 education programs, including programs relating to rural education, school counselors and teaching standards. It also would provide no funds for school modernization and construction grants and reduced funding for Teacher Quality State Grants, resulting in fewer teachers receiving the high-quality training they need.

This amendment would increase education funding by over $2 billion over ten years, and proposes that the funds be evenly divided between special education programs, afterschool programs and school construction and modernization.

The increased funding for special education will help to ensure that more students with disabilities get the public education they deserve, and that school districts will have additional funds to provide needed services without dipping even further into their general education budgets. School superintendents, school board members, teachers and parents in my state of Michigan and all across America have attested to the fact that the shortfall in federal support has placed a severe strain on local education budgets. It is clear that additional resources are necessary to help provide a quality education to all special needs children.

Additional funds are also necessary to support after-school programs. The development of our nation's children does not start and end in our nation's classrooms. It is important to give all children safe, enriching environments in which they can spend their time when the school day ends. Juvenile crime hits its peak after children leave school and before their parents arrive home. Between 5 and 15 million children have nowhere to go after school. Research indicates that between the hours of 3 and 7 p.m., children are more likely to engage in at-risk behavior, including abusing drugs or alcohol or engaging in sexual activity, or become the victims of crime. 21st Century Community Learning Centers provide after school educational, recreational, cultural, health and social services to youth in many communities. The additional funds in this amendment will help to ensure that we do not leave these children behind when the school day ends.

We also are faced with startling statistics about the state of America's public school facilities. Record enrollments and growing communities are causing severe overcrowding in many public schools. The average public school facility in America is over 40 years old. Approximately 46 percent of all public schools lack the electrical and communication wiring necessary to utilize today's computer systems and to prepare our children for today's technologically-based society. Recent surveys by the General Accounting Office and the National Council for Education Statistics, NCES, have placed cost estimates of school construction needs between $112 billion to $127 billion. Sixty to 70 percent of Michigan's schools reported having six or more insufficient technology elements. In this Congress and the last I supported grants and school bond tax provisions for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of school facilities. The additional funds this amendment provides will help to ensure that no student is denied access to the Internet because a school does not have the physical infrastructure to use computers or other technology.

Support for this amendment indicates support for three things-- closing two egregious tax haven loopholes, increasing funding for education, and paying down the deficit. I urge my colleagues' support.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be listed as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. President, while I oppose the level and distribution of funding in this amendment, it is no worse than what is in the current budget resolution, and it proposes a tax cut plan which is superior to the one before us. While it is a better alternative if it is substituted for the resolution before us, I would vote against it on final passage because it still underfunds too many of our nation's priorities.

Mr. President, the amendment Senator Hatch and I have offered, which the Senate has adopted, is a life-saving amendment. It will help to mend broken lives and shattered families that are living with the scourge of drug addiction and are struggling to rid themselves of this dreadful disease. Our sense of the Senate amendment supports $20 million in fiscal year 2004 for drug treatment programs that utilize a newly FDA approved substance called buprenorphine, which blocks the craving for heroin.

The costs of substance abuse treatment are minimal when compared to the resulting savings. According to a national study of treatment programs that are funded by HHS's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, the average savings per individual in the year after treatment was approximately $9,200--more than three times the average cost of one treatment period. Another study by the RAND Corporation found that treatment is 10 times more cost effective than interdiction in reducing societal costs of certain illegal drugs.

The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has estimated that 57 percent of those who need drug treatment do not receive it, despite its proven cost effectiveness over criminal justice approaches in reducing drug abuse and related social costs. Another ONDCP study, released in January of 2002, found that illegal drugs drain $160 billion a year from the American economy; and that the majority of these costs, $98.5 billion, stem from lost productivity due to drug- related illnesses and deaths, as well as incarcerations and work hours missed by victims of crime. The report also found that illegal drug use cost the health-care industry $12.9 billion in 1998. The $20 million assumed in our amendment pales in comparison to these sums, yet this modest funding will reap huge benefits in lowering illicit drug use, by providing funding for up to 60 new drug treatment projects, utilizing new FDA approved substances that block the craving of heroin.

Again, I am pleased that the Senate has adopted our much-needed amendment. It has the potential of opening the door to tens of thousands of individuals who seek to rid themselves of their addiction to heroin, through the use of the anti-addiction medication called buprenorphine, which was approved last year by the Food and Drug Administration.

I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues Ms. Shikha Hamilton, a board member of the Million Mom March from my home State of Michigan. Ms. Hamilton visited my office last month with her fellow board members to report on their successes and to urge us to pass sensible gun safety legislation to stem the tide of gun violence that plagues many of our communities.

Ms. Hamilton currently serves as the president of the MMM Chapter in Detroit. A rash of gun violence in Detroit over the last year has claimed the lives of 26 children; these incidents highlight the challenge gun violence poses for communities in protecting families. Ms. Hamilton is one person who has stepped up and met that challenge. She has helped form a coalition with other Detroit violence prevention groups, organized a huge march on Belle Isle, and helped create public service announcements to air on local radio stations. Ms. Hamilton is a leader in her community and I commend her for her work.

As Detroit chapter president, Ms. Hamilton testified in support of a local ordinance prohibiting weapons in public buildings. It unanimously passed the Detroit City Council on November 13, 2002. Her chapter also persuaded the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News to close the ``newspaper loophole.'' The newspapers agreed to stop the placement of gun sales in the classified ads, one way criminals had been gaining access to guns without background checks. In addition to all of this, Ms. Hamilton is a full-time attorney, wife and the mother of a 4-year- old daughter.

In the meeting with my staff, Ms. Hamilton and her MMM colleagues mentioned several pieces of gun safety legislation that are critical if we are to reduce gun violence. Among the most important is legislation closing the gun show loophole. In 1994, Congress passed the Brady Law, which requires federal firearm licensees to perform criminal background checks on gun buyers. However, a loophole in this law allows unlicensed private gun sellers to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting a background check.

The Gun Show Background Check Act would close this loophole in the law by extending the Brady law background check requirement to all sellers of firearms including those at gun shows. I cosponsored this bill because I believe it is critical that we do all we can to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists. Study after study has demonstrated that the Brady law has been successful in making it more difficult for criminals to gain access to firearms, and by closing the gun show loophole, Congress would again demonstrate its commitment to public safety. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. Hamilton is doing her best to reduce gun violence in her community. We should do our best to pass sensible laws to make her job easier.

If the Senator from Virginia will yield, I want to add a similar thought. I wish all of our troops could see the two of you standing together here. I had no doubt we would unite in support of our troops when the time came, and that is exactly what is happening. This picture is a very eloquent statement about the unity of the Congress once we are committed to combat.

Mr. President, I yield as much time as Senator Reid needs.

Before the Senator from Nevada leaves, I add my thanks to him not just for his very kind words but, as Senator Warner said, for his absolutely invaluable leadership on this floor year after year. We were able to get a bill passed last year, in good measure, because of his ability to get us to the point where we could resolve differences among Members to get to votes. One particular instance that I hope the Senator will always be remembered for--at least he will in our minds, I know--is his leadership to make sure that the veterans who are disabled are able to get a disability pension, particularly if they are severely disabled, at the same time they get a retirement benefit.

The absurd result that we had veterans who were severely disabled who lost their disability benefit at the same time their pension became available to them was wrong. It was corrected by this Senate, in large measure because of the leadership of Senator Reid. That is one of the many monuments to his leadership that hopefully will be remembered.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. President, last month a number of us were fortunate enough to visit our troops in Kuwait, Qatar, and other places in the area. As Senator Warner said, he, Senator Roberts, Senator Rockefeller, and I had that opportunity. What an extraordinarily dedicated, and motivated professional group of men and women they are; what representatives of America and the values that we stand for they are; how well trained and equipped they are; how extraordinarily high their morale was and is; and how determined this Congress is, I know now, to give them our total support.

In the course of that visit, I met with a group of about 20 Marines from Michigan at Camp Commando. One young Marine asked me what was going on back home with the antiwar demonstrations. I could tell by the demeanor of the other Marines, both men and women, that this was a matter on the minds of a number of them.

I told them that those demonstrating back home were carrying out and exercising a right which is something we all cherish. As a matter of fact, they were exercising the very freedoms that our Armed Forces have protected throughout our history. I told them we had a vigorous debate in the Senate last fall about the wisdom of initiating an attack against Saddam Hussein if we were unable to persuade the world community, acting through the United Nations, to authorize and support such an attack. I told them that, in the end, a majority of both Houses of the Congress voted to authorize the President to use military force with or without that explicit authority of the United Nations.

I told them that our democracy functions through debate and decision, and that the decision to give the President this authority was democratically arrived at. Finally and most importantly, I told these Marines I was confident that, after the debate in Congress about the wisdom of instituting an attack without the support of the world community through the United Nations, if hostilities should start, those who have such different views will come together and will rally behind them and give them the full support hey deserve.

My prediction that we would come together if hostilities ever began, despite differences over the wisdom of the policy of proceeding without U.N. authority, has now come true.

We stand here together, shoulder to shoulder, whichever side of that particular issue we voted on, to support the men and women who are now in harm's way. We saw just a very visual and visible example of that a few minutes ago when the majority and Democratic leaders literally stood shoulder to shoulder here in the well of the Senate as they both presented a resolution of support of our troops and then indicated they were going to work hard for its passage.

The visit we had was quite an extraordinary visit. The men and women we visited understood fully what we were telling them about the nobility of this system of government of ours and how they represented that nobility by putting their lives on the line. I am pleased to have helped draft this resolution. I am pleased to add my voice and my vote to it.

The hostilities have begun. The democratic debate has occurred. The men and women of our Armed Forces have the unified support of the Nation they love and for which they willingly serve and for which they risk their all. To them I can only say they are in the prayers of every American and that we all hope for a speedy conclusion to this war with the minimal number of casualties and that they return home to their loved ones as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

I similarly indicate Senator Bingaman and then Senator Bill Nelson would be recognized on this side.

I yield 3 minutes to Senator Bingaman.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Bill Nelson.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield, just for a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator has concluded, Senator Kennedy then be recognized for 6 minutes.

Let me add my thanks also to Senator Nelson of Florida for the incredible tenacity he has shown supporting Captain Speicher.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Will the Senator from Virginia--has the Senator been yielded to already?

Will the Senator from Texas yield for an inquiry?

On my time. I have the following Senators on our side who are here and indicated they wish to speak: Senator Dorgan, Senator Dayton, Senator Reed who is in the cloakroom, Senator Boxer, Senator Baucus, Senator Byrd. So there is no way we are going to be able to complete even the people who are here, much less additional people who wish to speak and who come to the floor, and still have a vote on this resolution immediately after the three votes that are currently scheduled.

So I join my good friend from Virginia in asking the leadership as to how they wish us to address this problem at this time.

I have 19 minutes left before 4 o'clock--how many minutes?

Seventeen minutes. If I talk longer, it will be 16 minutes. I have 17 minutes before the first vote begins, but there is no time set on the resolution itself we are debating; am I correct?

If the leadership can give us guidance in how they want to handle this.

Mr. President, I will read the list of Senators on this side so that everyone will know who will be speaking before the vote on the resolution under the unanimous consent that was just adopted, and then who would come afterwards with their statements on the resolution being put in the Record before that: Senator Dorgan would be recognized for 5 minutes, Senator Dayton for 5 minutes, Senator Jack Reed for 5 minutes, Senator Boxer for 6 minutes, Senator Baucus for 7 minutes, Senator Byrd for 15 minutes. If my math is correct, all of those could be accommodated prior to the vote at 5.

I notice the Parliamentarian has been adding up those numbers, and I am wondering if my math is correct.

After the vote, if my math is correct, Senator Landrieu and Senator Biden would then be recognized on this side, and any other Democrats who wish to speak can come after the resolution, after those two Senators.

Is the Senator correct that all of those I named up to Senator Byrd could be accommodated with the times indicated prior to the vote at 5?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Dayton.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Reed.

Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator 15 additional seconds.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to Senator Baucus.

If the Senator from New Mexico would yield for a request, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from New Mexico has completed, Senator Byrd then be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, Senator Byrd graciously agreed to yield 2 of his 15 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota. It will be very clear to the body as to why that was such an important and gracious act on the part of Senator Byrd.

Mr. President, I can think of no one in this body who is more appropriate to bring this debate to a close, or near to a close, than Senator Johnson of South Dakota whose son is serving with such honor and distinction and who brings such pride to his family. I thank the Senator for sharing with us the emotions I know he feels at this very moment as a father.

Mr. President, I yield 13 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

How much time remains?

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

How much time remains?

I yield 1 minute to Senator Landrieu and 1 minute to Senator Stabenow.

Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

The men and women we have now placed in harm's way are carrying the prayers of every single Member of this body and every single man, woman, and child in this Nation. They are carrying on in the greatest traditions of the American military. We thank them.

May I make a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor, and every Member of the Senate who chooses to, who wants their name added, be allowed to do so, and even though it comes after the vote, that it appear that it occurred before the vote.

Mr. President, I am introducing today along with Senators Collins, Jeffords and others the Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003. As a resident of Michigan I am familiar with the obstacles facing local communities in their attempts to return brownfields sites to productive economic uses. As co-chair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force I understand the national economic importance of these efforts.

Brownfields are abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is hindered by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our nation's landscape, inhibiting economic development and posing a threat to human health and the environment. Undeveloped, or underdeveloped, brownfields sites blight communities forcing development onto greenfields where they exacerbate the problems associated with urban sprawl. If brownfields were instead redeveloped they could offer new opportunities for business, housing and open space.

Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, clean-up the environment, maximize use of existing infrastructure, create jobs and relieve development pressure on our urban fringe and farmlands. My

home state of Michigan is a national leader in brownfields redevelopment. For example, the City of Traverse City managed to leverage $662,000 of government brownfields funding to turn a former gas station and junk yard site into a $20 million private investment in a retail, office and parking facility called Radio Center. The City of Ludington used brownfields funding to spur the development of a multi- use retail/office/condominium complex adjacent to a marina. These are only two examples of the many successful efforts by local communities to leverage Federal, State and local money to harness the resources and expertise of the private sector in economic development efforts. The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003 would open up the possibilities of redevelopment to numerous other communities nationwide.

The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act expands the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration, EDA, initiatives to assist communities with brownfields redevelopment. The bill authorizes $60 million annually for five years for brownfields redevelopment. Grant money will be used for purposes including collaborative economic development planning, eco-industrial development and revolving loan funds. By encouraging development in existing communities the brownfields program will strengthen local economies, preserve precious resources and make best use of existing infrastructure. This bill for the first time would provide specific authority and funding to the EDA for these initiatives. The new projects authorized by the bill would complement the existing and successful brownfields efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that redevelopment of all of the brownfields nationwide could generate more than 550,000 additional jobs that would benefit our many economically struggling communities. Cities and States could see as much as $2.4 billion in new tax revenues. The Economic Development Administration has helped distressed communities attract investment, create jobs and strengthen their economies for the last forty years. This bill will build on EDA's success in helping localities improve their infrastructure and help them redevelop their brownfields sites. Communities nationwide have expressed interest in brownfields redevelopment but lack the financial resources necessary to accomplish their goals. This bill is an excellent example of how the Federal Government can be supportive of local economic development projects. The Brownfield Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003 advances the goals of the smart growth movement by helping create healthier communities and strengthens the economy through federally supportive, locally driven initiatives.

Many organizations support these bills, including the American Institute of Architects, American Planning Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, Enterprise Institute, National Business Incubation Association, National Association of Counties, National Association of Regional Councils, National League of Cities, US Conference of Mayors, National Congress for Community Economic Development, Smart Growth America and others. I ask unanimous consent to have letters endorsing this bill printed, the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing today along with Senators Collins, Jeffords and others the Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003. As a resident of Michigan I am familiar with the obstacles facing local communities in their attempts to return brownfields sites to productive economic uses. As co-chair of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force I understand the national economic importance of these efforts.

Brownfields are abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is hindered by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our nation's landscape, inhibiting economic development and posing a threat to human health and the environment. Undeveloped, or underdeveloped, brownfields sites blight communities forcing development onto greenfields where they exacerbate the problems associated with urban sprawl. If brownfields were instead redeveloped they could offer new opportunities for business, housing and open space.

Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, clean-up the environment, maximize use of existing infrastructure, create jobs and relieve development pressure on our urban fringe and farmlands. My

home state of Michigan is a national leader in brownfields redevelopment. For example, the City of Traverse City managed to leverage $662,000 of government brownfields funding to turn a former gas station and junk yard site into a $20 million private investment in a retail, office and parking facility called Radio Center. The City of Ludington used brownfields funding to spur the development of a multi- use retail/office/condominium complex adjacent to a marina. These are only two examples of the many successful efforts by local communities to leverage Federal, State and local money to harness the resources and expertise of the private sector in economic development efforts. The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003 would open up the possibilities of redevelopment to numerous other communities nationwide.

The Brownfields Redevelopment Assistance Act expands the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration, EDA, initiatives to assist communities with brownfields redevelopment. The bill authorizes $60 million annually for five years for brownfields redevelopment. Grant money will be used for purposes including collaborative economic development planning, eco-industrial development and revolving loan funds. By encouraging development in existing communities the brownfields program will strengthen local economies, preserve precious resources and make best use of existing infrastructure. This bill for the first time would provide specific authority and funding to the EDA for these initiatives. The new projects authorized by the bill would complement the existing and successful brownfields efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that redevelopment of all of the brownfields nationwide could generate more than 550,000 additional jobs that would benefit our many economically struggling communities. Cities and States could see as much as $2.4 billion in new tax revenues. The Economic Development Administration has helped distressed communities attract investment, create jobs and strengthen their economies for the last forty years. This bill will build on EDA's success in helping localities improve their infrastructure and help them redevelop their brownfields sites. Communities nationwide have expressed interest in brownfields redevelopment but lack the financial resources necessary to accomplish their goals. This bill is an excellent example of how the Federal Government can be supportive of local economic development projects. The Brownfield Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2003 advances the goals of the smart growth movement by helping create healthier communities and strengthens the economy through federally supportive, locally driven initiatives.

Many organizations support these bills, including the American Institute of Architects, American Planning Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, Enterprise Institute, National Business Incubation Association, National Association of Counties, National Association of Regional Councils, National League of Cities, US Conference of Mayors, National Congress for Community Economic Development, Smart Growth America and others. I ask unanimous consent to have letters endorsing this bill printed, the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the current situation in Iraq.

There has been a broad consensus that Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant and that the world is a more dangerous place if he has weapons of mass destruction. There has also been consensus that he has not complied with his obligations under the U.N. ceasefire resolution at the end of the Gulf War and the numerous resolutions that followed, which called for him to disarm, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction. And

there has been consensus that the U.N. should enforce its resolutions more forcefully than it had in recent years. This led to passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 which resulted in the resumption of weapons inspections by the U.N.

Now there is division at the U.N.

Many members of the United Nations want to complete the inspections and keep Saddam contained and in a box until those inspections are completed. Just a few days ago, the President said he would call for a vote at the U.N. Security Council to authorize the use of force so that every member nation could state its position. The President has now apparently reversed himself in the face of a likely rejection by the Security Council.

The issue, until yesterday, was whether to proceed militarily without the support of the world community as expressed by the Security Council or, alternatively, to give the inspectors the months they said they need to complete their work, the position which many members of the Security Council apparently favor.

The President has apparently chosen the former course. I have felt that course was unwise for a number of reasons. By failing to rally the Security Council to a common view, we have lost the best chance to force Saddam Hussein to capitulate because it is likely that only if Saddam Hussein sees a united world at the other end of the barrel will he see no potential to turn the tide to his favor. A world solidly against him would be a world that an anti-U.S. propaganda machine would have great trouble stirring up. Just as in the gulf war, Saddam was unable to score any propaganda points when 28 nations, including a number of Muslim nations, provided military forces against him.

Another reason I have felt that proceeding without the U.N. would be unwise is we would lose some support in the region, with the resulting loss of staging areas and overflight rights, as is apparently the case in Turkey, which, in turn, could increase the length of the war and the number of casualties.

There are also serious long-term risks in proceeding without support of the world community as expressed through the U.N. Such an attack on Iraq would be viewed by much of the world as an attack by the West against an Islamic nation, rather than of the world against Saddam. We would fuel the anti-Americanism that is already so prevalent, and stoke the terrorism which is already our No. 1 threat.

Admiral Lowell Jacoby, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February:

Much of the world is increasingly apprehensive about U.S.

power and influence. Many are concerned about the expansion,

consolidation, and dominance of American values, ideals,

culture, and institutions. Reactions to this sensitivity to

growing ``Americanization'' can range from mild ``chafing''

on the part of our friends and allies, to fear and violent

rejection on the part of our adversaries. We should consider

that these perceptions mixed with angst over perceived ``U.S.

unilateralism'' will give rise to significant anti-American

behavior.

I have also felt that proceeding without the U.N. would make it less likely that other nations will join us in the difficult tasks of providing stability in reconstructing Iraq in the aftermath of the conflict. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said the following:

If they [the members of the U.N. Security Council] cannot

agree on a common position and if some of them launch action

without the support of the [Security] Council, the legitimacy

of this action will be widely questioned and it will not

obtain the political support required to ensure its success

in the long term, once the military phase is over.

The European Union's External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, likewise pointed out recently that ``if it comes to war, it will be very much easier'' to make a case for other countries to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq ``if there is no dispute about the legitimacy of the military action that has taken place.''

Further, and of great significance, President Bush's principal basis for launching a military action is Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and other U.N. resolutions. But how is it credible to invoke the Security Council's resolutions as a basis for our action and then ignore that same Security Council if it does not agree with us on the wisdom of military action at this time and does not give us the resolution we want?

Stressing the importance of a U.N. authorization does not give the U.N. a veto over American action. Nobody has a veto over America's foreign policy or decisionmaking. The decision is America's and America's alone. The issue is not whether we need the U.N.'s permission to use force; we don't. The issue is whether it would be wise to have the U.N.'s support and whether we will be more secure from terrorists and other threats if we initiate a military action against Iraq without the support of the world community. If there were an imminent threat against us, we would not--and should not--hesitate to use force. But attacking in the absence of an immediate threat is a very different scenario with very different risks.

The President has said that the U.N. will become irrelevant if it does not authorize member states to use military force at this time against Iraq. But the Security Council's decision in this matter, whichever way it would have gone, would have been highly relevant.

If the Security Council authorized force by member states, that would be relevant as a statement of the world community against Saddam. But if the Security Council rejected authorizing force at this time, as they apparently would have, it would still be relevant because our use of military force in the face of such a Security Council rejection could have a worldwide negative political impact with great peril to us.

The issue is not whether we will prevail militarily without the U.N.'s support; we will. The issue is whether our long-term security would be enhanced in that circumstance or whether chaos and instability in the Middle East, following our unilateral action, will be deep and long and more costly, and whether the level of terrorism against us in the world will rise to a higher point than it otherwise would.

The U.N. too often has been seen by the administration as an obstacle to overcome instead of an opportunity to rally the world. And the administration has also weakened its case at the U.N. in a number of ways.

It has used divisive rhetoric and denigrating attitude towards the views of other nations whose support we seek. Countries have been told ``you are either with us or against us.'' The U.N. has been told that while we welcome U.N. endorsement, we can do just fine without you. U.N. inspectors were called ``so-called'' inspectors. And before U.N. inspections even began, they were called useless. Germany and France were sneered at as being part of ``old Europe.'' This kind of rhetoric alienates our friends and fuels the inflammatory propaganda of our enemies. Divisive and dismissive rhetoric is no way to rally the Security Council. It comes across as bullying and domineering.

The White House spokesmen have also spun facts in a transparent way, contradicting themselves from day to day. The refusal of Iraq to assure the safety of U-2 surveillance planes was at first called a serious breach of resolution 1441. When agreement was reached between U.N. inspectors and Iraq to fly the planes shortly thereafter, the White House spokesman said the agreement was no big deal. Similarly, when the inspectors determined that Iraqi missiles violated U.N. resolutions limiting their range, the White House pointed to the violation as significant evidence of noncompliance. When, soon thereafter, Iraq agreed to destroy those missiles, with U.N. inspectors looking on, the White House spokesman said that action was evidence of the Iraqis' deception. That kind of spinning and reversal of field by White House spokesmen has not helped our credibility or our cause.

We will prevail militarily in Iraq on our own, albeit with increased risk, but it will be more difficult to win the larger war on terrorism without the world community in our corner. We need the eyes and the ears and the intelligence of the people of the world if we are going to detect and ferret out, deter, and destroy those who care nothing for international law and do not even accept the rules of war.

Historically, America has been strongest when we found common cause with other nations in pursuit of common goals. The path to a safer world and a more secure America has

rarely come from a go-it-alone approach. Thomas Friedman wrote recently in the New York Times:

[I]f Mr. Bush acts unilaterally, I fear America will not

only lose the chance of building a more decent Iraq, but

something more important--America's efficacy as the strategic

and moral leader of the free world.

If war against Iraq comes, far better it be seen as the decision of the world community, not just a U.S.-British decision.

The President said accurately on January 3 that Saddam Hussein has no respect for the Security Council and does not care about the opinion of mankind. But surely we should.

President Bush has now decided to end the diplomatic effort. Those of us who have questioned the administration's approach, including this Senator, will now be rallying behind the men and women of our armed forces to give them the full support they deserve, as it seems certain we will soon be at war.

Last October a majority of both Houses of Congress voted to authorize the President to use military force with or without the authority of the United Nations. While I disagreed with that decision and offered an alternative, the overriding fact is that this democracy functions through debate and decision. The decision to give the President wide authority was democratically arrived at.

The courageous men and women whom we send into harm's way are not just carrying out their orders with bravery and the highest form of professionalism. They are also implementing the outcome of the democratic debate which this Nation protects and honors. Those men and women should know that they have the full support and the fervent prayers of all of the American people as they carry out their missions.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my recent remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Boston World Affairs Council, along with two of my opening statements at recent Armed Services Committee hearings, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, nearly three decades ago, a small provision was included in the Trade Act of 1974. While relatively small in number of words, this provision, known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment, helped open up an entire society.

Three decades ago, during the height of the Soviet Union's power, Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson and Representative Charles Vanik introduced legislation that exposed the repressive tactics of the Soviet Union. By focusing attention on the emigration restrictions that the Soviet Union placed on its Jewish citizens, the Jackson-Vanik amendment reiterated American concern about the wide-scale human rights abuses occurring in the Soviet Union. In the process, the Jackson-Vanik amendment played a vital role in changing Soviet society.

Now, as the cold war recedes further into the past, it is time for Russia to be ``graduated'' from Jackson-Vanik. Because of the persistence of the Jackson-Vanik requirements, the administration must report semi-annually on the Russian Federation's compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements. This reporting requirement is a source of much frustration and embarrassment to our Russian friends, a fact that is made clear to me whenever I meet with individuals or groups from Russia.

Russia has made great progress in reforming itself. Since 1994, consecutive administrations have noted that the Russian Federation has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In this time, the United States has signed a bilateral trade agreement with Russia, and the Bush Administration according to its website ``has begun consultations with Congress and interested groups on the possibility of graduating Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.'' Graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik at this time will improve our relations with Russia while enabling us to reflect upon the courage of Soviet Jewry and the success of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mr. Leonid Nevzlin, former President of the Russian Jewish Congress and a current member of the Russian Senate, be printed in the Record following my statement.

This letter states that ``there should be no doubt that the Jewish community believes the Jackson-Vanik requirements have been met in terms of immigration and freedom of movement in today's Russia.''

This bill, which Senator Baucus is introducing and which I am pleased to co-sponsor, would enhance relations between the United States and Russia. While recognizing the advances made by Russia, the legislation also ensures that Congress can continue to play a meaningful role in addressing trade disputes with Russia and in setting the terms of World Trade Organization, WTO, accession for Russia.

While this legislation grants Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, to the Russian Federation, it does not abrogate the rights of Congress to comment on Russia's accession to the WTO nor does it remain silent about the need for continued progress by the Russian Federation with regard to human rights matters.

The Jackson-Vanik amendment was but one part of the Trade Act of 1974 that addressed trade with nonmarket economies. Recognizing the trade policy aspects of ``graduating'' a country from Jackson-Vanik, Congress has traditionally granted PNTR to a country subject to Jackson-Vanik only at the time of its accession to the WTO. This practice has given Congress the ability to voice its approval for the terms by which a nation accedes to the WTO. The terms for Russia's WTO accession are still being discussed, and even though this legislation would provide PNTR for Russia before those terms are final it also provides Congress with the means to comment on those terms and voice its approval or disapproval for them.

This legislation addresses the concerns of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment while preserving Congress' ability to play a key role in discussions about Russia's accession to the WTO. In a piece encouraging the ending of Jackson-Vanik's applicability for Russia, the Israel Policy Forum stated that: ``things change. Old empires disappear. Old enemies become new friends. History's challenge is to anticipate its direction and move along with it.''

This legislation recognizes the profound changes wrought by the Jackson-Vanik Amendment while acknowledging our need to move forward as we continue to engage with Russia on matters of human rights and trade.

Exhibit 1

June 27, 2002.

Hon. Carl Levin,

United States Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Levin: I am pleased we had an opportunity to

meet when I was in Washington, DC last week. Your long-

standing interest to promoting closer working relationships

between the U.S. Senate and the Russian parliament is much

appreciated.

As promised, I am sending a copy of my letter, as president

of the Russian Jewish Congress, to Presidents Bush and Putin

expressing support for repeal of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment.

I prepared the letter some time ago and it is surprising that

more people in the U.S. Senate were unaware that it had been

sent. There should be no doubt that the Jewish community

believes the Jackson-Vanik requirements have been met in

terms of immigration and freedom of movement in today's

Russia.

I have also taken note of your concerns about the sale of

dual use technology to Iran and Iraq. In this regard, as you

recall I proposed in our meeting that our two chambers

establish a framework to assess how we can both develop

greater cooperation on matters of mutual concern. I am very

pleased that both you and Chairman Biden encouraged me to

develop such a framework and look forward to working with

both of you to see that this is accomplished.

On another matter, I know of your interest in reducing

America's dependence on oil shipments from Middle East

countries and though you would like to know that Russian oil

company YUKOS, will be delivering the first load of Russian

oil to Houston, Texas soon. I am confident that Russia could

be a reliable supplier and would welcome the opportunity to

work with you and others in Congress on initiatives that

would encourage this development.

It is my hope to build a closer working relationship with

select members of the U.S. Senate in order to take a fresh

approach to a new set of challenges that beset both our

countries.

In recognition of the upcoming celebration of America's

Independence Day on July 4, I extend my best wishes to you,

as representative of the people, for your country's

remarkable achievement.

Sincerely,

Leonid Nevzlin,

Senator, Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Foreign

Affairs, Council of Federation of Russian Parliament.

Mr. President, in 1994 President Clinton signed into law a ban on the production of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The 1994 law banned a list of 19 specific weapons as well as a number of other weapons incorporating certain design characteristics. This law is scheduled to sunset on September 13, 2004.

Last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated the Bush administration's support for the current ban on assault weapons, but refused to support reauthorization of the ban. I believe we should not only reauthorize this bill, but strengthen it. I hope the Bush Administration will support reauthorization.

According to National Institute for Justice statistics cited by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the assault weapons ban has successfully reduced the use of assault weapons in crime. According to the report, crime gun traces for assault weapons declined by 20 percent the first year after the ban took effect from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Comparatively, trace requests on all crime guns decreased by only 11 percent over the same period of time.

Even with the success of the ban, assault weapons still pose a threat to community safety. In 1994, every major national law enforcement organization, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, and the Major City Police Chiefs Association, supported the Federal assault weapons ban. I expect that law enforcement will again support this important piece of gun and community safety legislation.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the President to support the reauthorization of this important bill.

Mr. President, today it is my great pleasure to recognize Project Rehab for 35 years of dedicated service promoting personal and community health throughout my home State of Michigan.

Since 1968, Project Rehab has functioned as a community-based outreach to people experiencing behavioral and mental health problems. Project in Rehabilitation began as the joint effort of Dr. William Kooistra and Dr. Chet Maternowski to offer counseling and treatment to heroin addicts in Grand Rapids, MI. Through their valuable service, Drs. Kooistra and Maternowski promoted awareness of drug addiction

in a community that was not then equipped to address this problem. Overcoming sometimes harsh criticism, they succeeded in establishing their organization as a place of hope for those needing drug abuse treatment.

Over the years, Project Rehab has grown to fit the changing needs of its clients. While maintaining a strong emphasis on treating addiction and substance abuse, Project Rehab now offers a broad range of services, including work-release programs for prisoners, employee counseling, and educational programs to encourage behavioral and mental health.

Today, Project Rehab serves 5,000 clients annually in cities across Michigan. Through its educational services, Project Rehab educates more than 9,000 students, warning them of the dangers posed by drug and alcohol use. Within its field, Project Rehab is recognized as an innovative force, bringing unique treatment to individuals in need. As one of the largest and longest running substance abuse programs in Michigan, I commend Project Rehab for improving the lives of many in Michigan and setting an example for other programs around the country.

I know that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in congratulating Project Rehab for their committed work and for the hope they have given to many.

Mr. President, today I join with Senators Leahy, Byrd, Jeffords, and Lieberman to introduce the Restore Freedom of Information Act, Restore FOIA, that will provide the public with access to information, while at the same time ensuring that information voluntarily submitted to the government by companies is not improperly disclosed. In order to ensure public access and limit improper disclosure, we need to reexamine some aspects of the Homeland Security Act, HSA, which was rushed through Congress last year, dropping several carefully-crafted, bipartisan measures which had been adopted by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, along the way. Dropping those measures left ambiguities in the law that need to be clarified, and today's bill is an attempt to make those clarifications and address certain problems that could otherwise result.

The issue this bill addresses is public access to information in the possession of the Homeland Security Department. Although some seem to want to shroud all homeland security efforts in secrecy, as Judge Damon Keith, writing for the U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals, recently warned ``Democracies die behind closed doors.'' The principles of open government and the public's right to know are cornerstones of our democracy. We cannot sacrifice those principles in the name of protecting them.

One of the reasons that I voted against the Homeland Security Act last year was because the final bill dropped a bipartisan provision, passed by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, clarifying how the new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should comply with the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. The final bill substituted a poorly drafted provision that could inappropriately close the door on persons seeking unclassified information from the Department related to critical infrastructure.

What is critical infrastructure? Critical infrastructure is the backbone that holds our country together and

makes it work--our roads, computer grids, telephones, pipelines, water treatment plants, utilities, and other facilities essential to a fully functioning Nation. It so happens that, in the United States, much of our critical infrastructure is controlled by private entities, often privately owned or publicly traded corporations. To strengthen existing protections for these facilities, the Federal Government asked the companies that own them to submit unclassified information about their facilities to assist the government in evaluating them, identifying possible problems, and designing stronger protections from terrorist attack, natural disasters, or other threats to homeland security.

Some companies asked to voluntarily submit this information feared that it might be improperly disclosed, and sought a new exemption from the Federal Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, to prohibit disclosure of so-called ``critical infrastructure information.'' Reporters, public interest groups, and others feared that, if this FOIA exemption were granted, companies could send important environmental and safety information to DHS under the general heading of ``critical infrastructure information'' and thereby put this information out of the public's reach. To bring these sides together, last July, Senators Bennett, Leahy and I worked out a bipartisan FOIA compromise that codified existing case law with regard to companies voluntarily submitting information. At the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up of the homeland security legislation, Senator Bennett said that the Administration supported our compromise, but the language was ultimately dropped from the final Homeland Security Act. As a result, the media, public interest groups, and others continue to fear that companies may be hiding important health and safety information that has long been public and should be public behind the mask of ``critical infrastructure.''

To rectify this situation, today we are introducing a bill that would change the existing HSA language in several important ways. First, our bill defines the key term, ``critical infrastructure,'' in a more focused way than the overly broad language in the HSA. To do that, our bill draws from language in existing case law, that has already been tested by the courts. The existing HSA language, it interpreted broadly, could expand the prohibition on disclosing critical infrastructure information to include virtually every aspect of a company's operations, denying public access to a great deal of health and safety information that the public has a right to know. If this expansive interpretation was not the intent of the bill's drafters, then they should be willing to accept our court-tested language.

A second important change that our bill would make in the existing HSA involves the issue of civil immunity for companies that violate the law. As currently worded, the HSA seems to suggest that companies which voluntarily submit to DHS critical infrastructure information indicating that the company is in violation of public health or safety regulations may gain protection from legal action in court to halt or penalize this wrongdoing, even if the information shows that the company is acting negligently. For example, the current HSA provisions could lead to the disturbing situation where DHS learns, through a critical infrastructure submission, that a company is leaking polluted sludge into a nearby waterway in violation of environmental restrictions, but is barred from going to court to stop the pollution because the law appears to prohibit the agency's use of the critical infrastructure information in a civil action. Our bill would eliminate the possibility that the HSA would provide companies with civil immunity under these circumstances.

A third key problem with the existing HSA language is that it includes a provision that could send a Federal whistleblower who discloses critical infrastructure information, even to an appropriate authority, to prison. The language is clear that if a DHS employee discloses unclassified critical infrastructure information, even when acting as a whistleblower who reveals the information to Congress in an act of conscience or patriotism, that whistleblower could wind up in jail. My colleague, Senator Leahy, describes a whistleblower who works at the FAA who blew the whistle on government collusion to coverup failures by airlines to meet tests on airline preparedness. That whistleblower could have ended up in jail had he blown the whistle under today's law. A year in jail is quite a deterrent for a Federal employee who is thinking about blowing the whistle, and we have never before threatened Federal whistleblowers with jail terms. It is a bad idea, and it is counterproductive to homeland safety.

There are other troubling provisions in the current HSA law as well, equally detrimental to the public's right to know. For example, the HSA exempts all communication of critical infrastructure information from the open meeting and other sunshine requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and places critical infrastructure information outside restrictions on ex parte contacts. The HSA also pre-empts state and local sunshine laws, an undue intrusion on the power of the States. The bill we are introducing today would strike all of these unnecessary provisions, and create in their stead a narrow FOIA exemption that balances the prohibition against improper disclosures of critical infrastructure information with the public's right to know.

Finally, I would like to include in the Record two examples of situations that could occur under the language in the HSA but would not occur under our bill. These disturbing examples were provided by Dr. Rena Steinzor, Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, on behalf of the center for Progressive Regulation.

Case Study Number 1 is the following:

A large Midwest utility decides to replace an old coal burning electric generation unit with a new one. The new unit, much larger than the first, will produce significantly greater air pollution emissions. The company could mitigate these increases by installing additional pollution control equipment, but decides it does not wish to incur the expense. It begins construction and simultaneously reports its plans to the DHS as ``critical infrastructure information,'' so Federal security experts will know about its increased capacity to generate electricity.

A Department of Homeland Security employee, visiting the plant to consult on government purchases of power during emergency situations, notices readings on internal gauges reflecting the dramatically increased emissions. She telephones EPA to report the situation. EPA issues a Notice of Violation to the company, and threatens to bring an action for civil penalties, but is instructed to desist by DHS officials who inform EPA that the HSA prohibits disclosing the information provided to the agency in court and that DHS wants to list the company as an emergency supplier capable of providing expanded electricity production in an upcoming report to Congress. EPA drops its enforcement action, and the DHS employee not only loses her job but also is prosecuted criminally.

Case Study Number 2 is the following:

Lobbyists representing companies that provide goods and services to the Department of Homeland Security routinely submit materials describing their companies' products in glowing terms. They arrange repeated trips for government purchasing agents to exotic locations under the guise of briefing them regarding the technical aspects of the products. All of this information is designated as critical infrastructure by the companies, and is therefore protected from disclosure and oversight by the media or possibly even individual members of Congress who could see the information but not reveal it.

The Homeland Security Act was never intended to protect polluters or special interests from public scrutiny. But as these examples demonstrate, that is exactly what could happen if the current, vague language in the law is not corrected. The bill we are introducing today would make the needed corrections.

On January 17, 2003 at his confirmation hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee, I questioned Governor Ridge about these problems with the current wording of the Homeland

Security Act. I asked him whether the HSA could have the unintended consequences of providing protections for wrongdoing while impeding access to necessary information to protect public health and safety. Governor Ridge replied: ``[T]hat certainly wasn't the intent, I am sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption, to give wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity, and I will certainly work with you to clarify that language.'' If that was not the intent, then let us fix the vague, and potentially dangerous provisions that are in this bill.

I would also note, for the record, that many organizations have endorsed our bill including the following:

American Association of Law Libraries, American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Library Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Americans for Democratic Action, American Society of Magazine Editors, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Arab American Institute, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Associated Press Managing Editors, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy and Technology, Children's Environmental Health Network, Clean Production Network, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Cook Inlet Keeper, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Council on Professional Association of Federal Statistics, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Environmental Defense, Federation of American Scientists, Freedom of Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Fund for Constitutional Government, Government Accountability Project, Greenpeace, Magazine Publishers of America, Maryland Pesticide Network, National Federation of Press Women, National Newspaper Association, National Press Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, Newsletter & Electronic Publishers Association, Newspaper Association of America, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, OMB Watch, Pesticide Action Network, North America Powder River Basin Resource Council, Privacy Activism, Privacy Times, Project on Government Oversight, Radio- Television News Directors Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Sierra Club, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Society of Professional Journalists, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, University of Missouri School of Journalism, West Harlem Environmental Action Working Group on Community Right-to-Know.

Mr. President, today I join with Senators Leahy, Byrd, Jeffords, and Lieberman to introduce the Restore Freedom of Information Act, Restore FOIA, that will provide the public with access to information, while at the same time ensuring that information voluntarily submitted to the government by companies is not improperly disclosed. In order to ensure public access and limit improper disclosure, we need to reexamine some aspects of the Homeland Security Act, HSA, which was rushed through Congress last year, dropping several carefully-crafted, bipartisan measures which had been adopted by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, along the way. Dropping those measures left ambiguities in the law that need to be clarified, and today's bill is an attempt to make those clarifications and address certain problems that could otherwise result.

The issue this bill addresses is public access to information in the possession of the Homeland Security Department. Although some seem to want to shroud all homeland security efforts in secrecy, as Judge Damon Keith, writing for the U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals, recently warned ``Democracies die behind closed doors.'' The principles of open government and the public's right to know are cornerstones of our democracy. We cannot sacrifice those principles in the name of protecting them.

One of the reasons that I voted against the Homeland Security Act last year was because the final bill dropped a bipartisan provision, passed by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, clarifying how the new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should comply with the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. The final bill substituted a poorly drafted provision that could inappropriately close the door on persons seeking unclassified information from the Department related to critical infrastructure.

What is critical infrastructure? Critical infrastructure is the backbone that holds our country together and

makes it work--our roads, computer grids, telephones, pipelines, water treatment plants, utilities, and other facilities essential to a fully functioning Nation. It so happens that, in the United States, much of our critical infrastructure is controlled by private entities, often privately owned or publicly traded corporations. To strengthen existing protections for these facilities, the Federal Government asked the companies that own them to submit unclassified information about their facilities to assist the government in evaluating them, identifying possible problems, and designing stronger protections from terrorist attack, natural disasters, or other threats to homeland security.

Some companies asked to voluntarily submit this information feared that it might be improperly disclosed, and sought a new exemption from the Federal Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, to prohibit disclosure of so-called ``critical infrastructure information.'' Reporters, public interest groups, and others feared that, if this FOIA exemption were granted, companies could send important environmental and safety information to DHS under the general heading of ``critical infrastructure information'' and thereby put this information out of the public's reach. To bring these sides together, last July, Senators Bennett, Leahy and I worked out a bipartisan FOIA compromise that codified existing case law with regard to companies voluntarily submitting information. At the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up of the homeland security legislation, Senator Bennett said that the Administration supported our compromise, but the language was ultimately dropped from the final Homeland Security Act. As a result, the media, public interest groups, and others continue to fear that companies may be hiding important health and safety information that has long been public and should be public behind the mask of ``critical infrastructure.''

To rectify this situation, today we are introducing a bill that would change the existing HSA language in several important ways. First, our bill defines the key term, ``critical infrastructure,'' in a more focused way than the overly broad language in the HSA. To do that, our bill draws from language in existing case law, that has already been tested by the courts. The existing HSA language, it interpreted broadly, could expand the prohibition on disclosing critical infrastructure information to include virtually every aspect of a company's operations, denying public access to a great deal of health and safety information that the public has a right to know. If this expansive interpretation was not the intent of the bill's drafters, then they should be willing to accept our court-tested language.

A second important change that our bill would make in the existing HSA involves the issue of civil immunity for companies that violate the law. As currently worded, the HSA seems to suggest that companies which voluntarily submit to DHS critical infrastructure information indicating that the company is in violation of public health or safety regulations may gain protection from legal action in court to halt or penalize this wrongdoing, even if the information shows that the company is acting negligently. For example, the current HSA provisions could lead to the disturbing situation where DHS learns, through a critical infrastructure submission, that a company is leaking polluted sludge into a nearby waterway in violation of environmental restrictions, but is barred from going to court to stop the pollution because the law appears to prohibit the agency's use of the critical infrastructure information in a civil action. Our bill would eliminate the possibility that the HSA would provide companies with civil immunity under these circumstances.

A third key problem with the existing HSA language is that it includes a provision that could send a Federal whistleblower who discloses critical infrastructure information, even to an appropriate authority, to prison. The language is clear that if a DHS employee discloses unclassified critical infrastructure information, even when acting as a whistleblower who reveals the information to Congress in an act of conscience or patriotism, that whistleblower could wind up in jail. My colleague, Senator Leahy, describes a whistleblower who works at the FAA who blew the whistle on government collusion to coverup failures by airlines to meet tests on airline preparedness. That whistleblower could have ended up in jail had he blown the whistle under today's law. A year in jail is quite a deterrent for a Federal employee who is thinking about blowing the whistle, and we have never before threatened Federal whistleblowers with jail terms. It is a bad idea, and it is counterproductive to homeland safety.

There are other troubling provisions in the current HSA law as well, equally detrimental to the public's right to know. For example, the HSA exempts all communication of critical infrastructure information from the open meeting and other sunshine requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and places critical infrastructure information outside restrictions on ex parte contacts. The HSA also pre-empts state and local sunshine laws, an undue intrusion on the power of the States. The bill we are introducing today would strike all of these unnecessary provisions, and create in their stead a narrow FOIA exemption that balances the prohibition against improper disclosures of critical infrastructure information with the public's right to know.

Finally, I would like to include in the Record two examples of situations that could occur under the language in the HSA but would not occur under our bill. These disturbing examples were provided by Dr. Rena Steinzor, Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, on behalf of the center for Progressive Regulation.

Case Study Number 1 is the following:

A large Midwest utility decides to replace an old coal burning electric generation unit with a new one. The new unit, much larger than the first, will produce significantly greater air pollution emissions. The company could mitigate these increases by installing additional pollution control equipment, but decides it does not wish to incur the expense. It begins construction and simultaneously reports its plans to the DHS as ``critical infrastructure information,'' so Federal security experts will know about its increased capacity to generate electricity.

A Department of Homeland Security employee, visiting the plant to consult on government purchases of power during emergency situations, notices readings on internal gauges reflecting the dramatically increased emissions. She telephones EPA to report the situation. EPA issues a Notice of Violation to the company, and threatens to bring an action for civil penalties, but is instructed to desist by DHS officials who inform EPA that the HSA prohibits disclosing the information provided to the agency in court and that DHS wants to list the company as an emergency supplier capable of providing expanded electricity production in an upcoming report to Congress. EPA drops its enforcement action, and the DHS employee not only loses her job but also is prosecuted criminally.

Case Study Number 2 is the following:

Lobbyists representing companies that provide goods and services to the Department of Homeland Security routinely submit materials describing their companies' products in glowing terms. They arrange repeated trips for government purchasing agents to exotic locations under the guise of briefing them regarding the technical aspects of the products. All of this information is designated as critical infrastructure by the companies, and is therefore protected from disclosure and oversight by the media or possibly even individual members of Congress who could see the information but not reveal it.

The Homeland Security Act was never intended to protect polluters or special interests from public scrutiny. But as these examples demonstrate, that is exactly what could happen if the current, vague language in the law is not corrected. The bill we are introducing today would make the needed corrections.

On January 17, 2003 at his confirmation hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee, I questioned Governor Ridge about these problems with the current wording of the Homeland

Security Act. I asked him whether the HSA could have the unintended consequences of providing protections for wrongdoing while impeding access to necessary information to protect public health and safety. Governor Ridge replied: ``[T]hat certainly wasn't the intent, I am sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption, to give wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity, and I will certainly work with you to clarify that language.'' If that was not the intent, then let us fix the vague, and potentially dangerous provisions that are in this bill.

I would also note, for the record, that many organizations have endorsed our bill including the following:

American Association of Law Libraries, American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Library Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Americans for Democratic Action, American Society of Magazine Editors, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Arab American Institute, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Associated Press Managing Editors, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy and Technology, Children's Environmental Health Network, Clean Production Network, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Cook Inlet Keeper, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Council on Professional Association of Federal Statistics, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Environmental Defense, Federation of American Scientists, Freedom of Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Fund for Constitutional Government, Government Accountability Project, Greenpeace, Magazine Publishers of America, Maryland Pesticide Network, National Federation of Press Women, National Newspaper Association, National Press Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, Newsletter & Electronic Publishers Association, Newspaper Association of America, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, OMB Watch, Pesticide Action Network, North America Powder River Basin Resource Council, Privacy Activism, Privacy Times, Project on Government Oversight, Radio- Television News Directors Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Sierra Club, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Society of Professional Journalists, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, University of Missouri School of Journalism, West Harlem Environmental Action Working Group on Community Right-to-Know.