Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday I gave an address to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, CA on America's role in the world. I ask unanimous consent to print my address in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give the National Guard an enhanced role in homeland security. I am pleased that Senators Bond, Leahy, Lieberman, Gregg, Murray, Johnson, Clinton, Breaux, and Feingold join me as cosponsors of the bill.

In essence, the bill would permit each governor to create a homeland security activities plan for the National Guard in his or her State, and authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide oversight and funding for such plans.

The legislation is modeled after the existing successful National Guard counterdrug program, which was established under 32 U.S.C. sect. 112.

Under this program, the National Guard is used to provide support to law enforcement to help stop illegal drugs from being imported, manufactured, and distributed, and in supporting drug demand reduction programs.

The bill is supported by the co-chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus, the National Governors' Association, the Adjutants General Association of the United States, the National Guard Association of the United States, and National Guardsmen across the country.

Giving the Guard an enhanced role in homeland security makes sense because the Guard connects local communities to the Federal Government, is located in almost every American community, and has the capabilities, legal authority, and structure to help respond to attacks on the homeland.

In addition, such an enhanced role would return the National Guard more to what was envisioned by the founders of this country.

Colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped win the Revolutionary War.

And during the 19th century, the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican war, the early years of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.

It was not until 1903 that Congress passed legislation to increase the role of the National Guard as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army

Now, the National Guard has a dual Federal/State mission. In their role as State militias, Guard units are often activated for homeland duty under Title 32 and thus come under the command of the State governor.

In this status, they are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally restricts law enforcement to civil authorities, and thus are used as the armed forces' primary provider of support to civil authorities.

The National Guard's access to military command and control, discipline, training, and equipment also makes it well suited to coordinate with and aid police, fire, medical, and other emergency responders.

The Army National Guard maintains over 3,000 armories around the Nation and the Air National Guard has 140 units throughout the United States.

There are about 460,000 National Guard members that train throughout the year, 353,000 Army National Guard and 106,000 Air National Guard.

The approximate numbers of National Guard in individual States run from about 1,000 to 21,000, and vary according to the population of the State and recruitment efforts.

In light of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon as well as the October 2001 anthrax attacks on Congress and the media, many of us have come to believe that the National Guard should play a more central role in responding to terrorist attacks, particularly those with weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, the Guard has already played an important role in helping respond to these attacks, not only at the site of the attacks but also at airports, around the Capitol, and elsewhere.

For example, the National Guard currently has a number of Civil Support Teams that assess a suspected weapon of mass destruction event, advise first responders, and facilitate the assistance of additional military forces, if needed.

The National Guard is well-suited to performing an enhanced homeland security mission for many reasons. These reasons include that the fact the Guard is already: deployed in communities around the country; integrated into existing local, State, and regional emergency response networks; has ties with key players in local, State, and Federal government; is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act while serving in Title 32 status and thus has maximum flexibility; is responsible for and experienced with homeland security missions, including air sovereignty, disaster relief, responding to suspected weapons of mass destruction events, and counterdrug operations; has existing physical, communications, and training infrastructure throughout the U.S.; has existing training facilities, distance learning training networks, and a number of highly skilled individuals who have left active forces; and helps preserve constitutional balance between State and Federal sovereign interests, given its unique dual State/Federal role.

Moreover, Department of Defense reviews and reports, including the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and Reserve Component Employment 2005 Study, have made clear that the National Guard should have an expanded role in homeland security.

Other experts agree. The Hart-Rudman and Gilmore terrorism commissions as well as the recent Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force have recommended that the National Guard be given a more direct role in the war on terrorism.

In sum, this legislation is a sensible, efficient way to make our country safer from terrorism. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass it.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give the National Guard an enhanced role in homeland security. I am pleased that Senators Bond, Leahy, Lieberman, Gregg, Murray, Johnson, Clinton, Breaux, and Feingold join me as cosponsors of the bill.

In essence, the bill would permit each governor to create a homeland security activities plan for the National Guard in his or her State, and authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide oversight and funding for such plans.

The legislation is modeled after the existing successful National Guard counterdrug program, which was established under 32 U.S.C. sect. 112.

Under this program, the National Guard is used to provide support to law enforcement to help stop illegal drugs from being imported, manufactured, and distributed, and in supporting drug demand reduction programs.

The bill is supported by the co-chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus, the National Governors' Association, the Adjutants General Association of the United States, the National Guard Association of the United States, and National Guardsmen across the country.

Giving the Guard an enhanced role in homeland security makes sense because the Guard connects local communities to the Federal Government, is located in almost every American community, and has the capabilities, legal authority, and structure to help respond to attacks on the homeland.

In addition, such an enhanced role would return the National Guard more to what was envisioned by the founders of this country.

Colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped win the Revolutionary War.

And during the 19th century, the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican war, the early years of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.

It was not until 1903 that Congress passed legislation to increase the role of the National Guard as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army

Now, the National Guard has a dual Federal/State mission. In their role as State militias, Guard units are often activated for homeland duty under Title 32 and thus come under the command of the State governor.

In this status, they are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally restricts law enforcement to civil authorities, and thus are used as the armed forces' primary provider of support to civil authorities.

The National Guard's access to military command and control, discipline, training, and equipment also makes it well suited to coordinate with and aid police, fire, medical, and other emergency responders.

The Army National Guard maintains over 3,000 armories around the Nation and the Air National Guard has 140 units throughout the United States.

There are about 460,000 National Guard members that train throughout the year, 353,000 Army National Guard and 106,000 Air National Guard.

The approximate numbers of National Guard in individual States run from about 1,000 to 21,000, and vary according to the population of the State and recruitment efforts.

In light of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon as well as the October 2001 anthrax attacks on Congress and the media, many of us have come to believe that the National Guard should play a more central role in responding to terrorist attacks, particularly those with weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, the Guard has already played an important role in helping respond to these attacks, not only at the site of the attacks but also at airports, around the Capitol, and elsewhere.

For example, the National Guard currently has a number of Civil Support Teams that assess a suspected weapon of mass destruction event, advise first responders, and facilitate the assistance of additional military forces, if needed.

The National Guard is well-suited to performing an enhanced homeland security mission for many reasons. These reasons include that the fact the Guard is already: deployed in communities around the country; integrated into existing local, State, and regional emergency response networks; has ties with key players in local, State, and Federal government; is not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act while serving in Title 32 status and thus has maximum flexibility; is responsible for and experienced with homeland security missions, including air sovereignty, disaster relief, responding to suspected weapons of mass destruction events, and counterdrug operations; has existing physical, communications, and training infrastructure throughout the U.S.; has existing training facilities, distance learning training networks, and a number of highly skilled individuals who have left active forces; and helps preserve constitutional balance between State and Federal sovereign interests, given its unique dual State/Federal role.

Moreover, Department of Defense reviews and reports, including the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and Reserve Component Employment 2005 Study, have made clear that the National Guard should have an expanded role in homeland security.

Other experts agree. The Hart-Rudman and Gilmore terrorism commissions as well as the recent Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force have recommended that the National Guard be given a more direct role in the war on terrorism.

In sum, this legislation is a sensible, efficient way to make our country safer from terrorism. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass it.

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

Mr. President, I support the nomination of Tom Ridge to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I think that Mr. Ridge is an excellent choice for the job.

If confirmed, Mr. Ridge will oversee the new Department of Homeland Security, the consolidation of more than two dozen agencies and offices that have been reorganized into a single agency with an overriding mission: protecting the United States from terrorist attack and responding to an attack should one occur.

Unlike his current position in the White House, Mr. Ridge will have budget authority and will be accountable to Congress and the people.

I introduced legislation with Senator Bob Graham on September 21, 2001, long before the Homeland Security Act was signed into law, to give him such authority. I believe that it is indispensable for him to do his job adequately.

I applaud Mr. Ridge's willingness to accept the responsibility of leading the new Department. He will oversee and direct the largest Federal reorganization since the National Security Act of 1947.

It is an enormous challenge. According to historians, James Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense after passage of the 1947 act, resigned after 2 years due to mental exhaustion caused by the difficulties of managing the new Department.

Even with all of his energy and talent, Mr. Ridge will not be able to do it alone.

We need to be sure that the Department of Homeland Security attracts and retains top people, people committed to ensuring homeland security. And we need to be sure that the department has the tools and resources it needs to protect us from and respond to terrorist attacks.

It is hard to understate the importance of getting this new Department off the ground and running.

Last November, I chaired a hearing of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force Report. Members of this new 17-member Hart-Rudman Task Force included two former Senators, two former Secretaries of State, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and two Nobel laureates.

The task force report is chilling to read. And its conclusion is even more disturbing. It reads: ``A year after September 11, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In all likelihood, the next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy.''

Just a month before our hearing, CIA Director George Tenet testified before the Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry that ``al-Qaeda is in an execution phase and intends to strike us both here and overseas.'' He also said that the terrorist threat is as bad today as it was in the summer of 2001.

The statements made by the Hart-Rudman Task Force as well as Director Tenet contrast with Mr. Ridge's recent testimony before the Senate Government Affairs Committee.

There, Mr. Ridge testified that, ``America is undoubtedly safer and better prepared today than on September 10, 2001'' and that ``much has been accomplished'' to protect Americans from terrorism.

My own view is that, while the terrorist threat remains extremely serious, I would disagree with those who argue that we have done nothing since September 11 to reduce our vulnerability to a major terrorist attack.

In fact, since September 11, the 107th Congress has passed major anti-terrorism legislation in the areas of law enforcement, intelligence, aviation security, border security, and bioterrorism.

However, what we have done so far is not enough. Much more remains to be done, particularly in the areas of intelligence, seaport security, and first responders, including the National Guard.

That is why many of us in Congress have been trying to pass additional legislation to protect our country from terrorist attack.

Let me give three examples of homeland security legislation that I plan to pursue in this Congress.

First, we need to create the position of Director of National Intelligence, whose full-time job would be to oversee the Nation's intelligence community. Under the current structure, the intelligence community is fragmented, there is a lack of coordination between agencies, and there is no effective leadership.

The concept behind the bill was endorsed by the House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the September 11 attacks.

Second, as the Hart-Rudman Task Force recognized, we need comprehensive, immediate action to better secure our ports. Our seaports remain a huge gaping hole in our national security.

Terrorism experts who have studied the issue believe that if terrorists try to bring weapons of mass destruction into this country, those weapons will almost certainly come in shipping containers. Only 1 to 2 percent of the 21,000 shipping containers that enter the nation's 361 ports each day are even inspected.

I introduced legislation with Senators Kyl, Hutchison, and Snowe in the last Congress that would thoroughly address the issue of port security from the point cargo is loaded in a foreign country to its arrival on land in the U.S. We plan to pursue similar legislation in this Congress.

Third, we should train and equip 2,700 National Guard units for emergency response.

Modeled after legislation creating the successful National Guard counterdrug program, my proposed bill would permit each governor, with oversight and funding from the Secretary of Defense, to create a homeland security activities plan for his or her State.

The National Governors Association, the National Guard , and the co- chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus all support the bill. The Hart-Rudman Task Force also endorsed the idea.

One thing we should do right now is fully fund homeland security. Certainly, the last thing we should be doing is starving the new Department of resources to fight the war on terrorism.

One reason I oppose the omnibus appropriations bill is that it cuts homeland security by $1 billion, money that has already been requested, authorized, and appropriated.

Right now, the INS will lose $627 million for border security. First responders will lose $132 million. And other homeland security departments and agencies will also suffer.

These cuts will make our Nation more vulnerable. They will also make Mr. Ridge's already tough job even harder.

I hope that he will be a vigorous advocate for legislation to strengthen our country against terrorists and for adequate resources to pay for such protection.

I congratulate Mr. Ridge on his nomination and look forward to working with him once he is confirmed.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote on a bill that will save children's lives by expanding the existing AMBER Alert program nationwide.

I want to commend Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her continued leadership on this legislation. Her work on this bill has been extraordinary.

I also want give a special thanks to Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and to Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member, for putting the National Amber Alert Network Act on the fast track to the Senate Floor.

Senator Hutchison and I introduced the bill on January 9th, 2003. Now, just a couple of weeks later, we are voting on Senate passage. I am hopeful that this tidal wave of Senate support will carry over to the House and we soon will have a national AMBER Alert law.

So what are AMBER Alerts? AMBER Alerts are official bulletins transmitted over the airwaves to enlist the public's help in tracking down child abductors fleeing a crime scene.

AMBER Alerts are such powerful tools because they can be issued within minutes of an abduction and reach a wide public audience.

Statistics show that children in the most dangerous abduction cases have precious little time until their safety is compromised.

According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, 74 percent of children who were abducted, and later found murdered, are killed in the first hours after being taken.

Simply put, we need more AMBER Alerts because they may be the best tool law enforcement has to save kidnaped children facing imminent danger.

The National AMBER Alert Network Act has three key components.

First, the legislation would authorize $20 million to the Department of Transportation and $5 million to the Department of Justice in FY 2004 to provide grants for the development of AMBER Alert systems, electronic message boards, and training and education programs in states that do not have AMBER Alerts.

To date, AMBER Alert systems exist in 34 states and a total of 85 local, regional and state jurisdictions. This bill would help the expansion of AMBER Alerts to new jurisdictions.

Second, the bill would build upon the President's Executive Order by authorizing a national coordinator for AMBER Alerts in the Department of Justice to expand the network of AMBER Alert systems and to coordinate the issuance of region-wide AMBER Alerts.

Third, the bill provides a framework for the Department of Justice to establish minimum standards for the regional coordination of AMBER alerts. The Department of Justice, working with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other private organizations with expertise in this area, would build upon the best standards currently in place.

The effectiveness of AMBER Alerts depends on the continued judicious use of the system so that the public does not grow to ignore the warnings.

Furthermore, it is the specific intent of this bill not to interfere with the operation of the 85 AMBER plans that are working today.

Participation in regional AMBER plans is voluntary, and any plan that wishes to go it alone may still do so.

I urge members to support this bill because AMBER Alerts have a proven track record.

Nationally, since 1996, the AMBER Alert has been credited with the safe return of 43 children to their families, including one case in which an abductor reportedly released the child after hearing the alert himself.

I would like to briefly describe two of these cases: the rescues of 10-year-old Nichole Timmons from Riverside and four-year-old Jessica Cortez from Los Angeles.

Last fall, Nichole Timmons and her mother Sharon attended a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information on the AMBER Alert program.

In moving testimony, Sharon described how Nichole was abducted from their Riverside home on August 20, 2002 and how an AMBER Alert brought her daughter back to her within hours of the abduction.

In Nichole's case, an Alert was issued not just in California, but in Nevada as well.

After learning about the Alert, a tribal police officer in Nevada spotted the truck of Nichole's abductor and stopped him within 24 hours of the abduction.

He was found with duct tape and a metal pipe. The AMBER Alert was the only reason that Nichole was able to return home to her mother--safe.

I can't think of any testimony in support of a bill more powerful than the sight of a mother sitting next to her daughter who she thought might be gone forever.

The second case I want to mention is that of Jessica Cortez. Jessica disappeared from Echo Park in Los Angeles on August 11, 2002.

But when Jessica's abductor took her to a clinic for medical care, receptionist Denise Leon recognized Jessica from the AMBER Alert and notified law enforcement.

Without the publicity generated by the Alert, Jessica could have been lost to her parents forever.

Through this legislation, we will extend to every corner of the nation a network of AMBER Alerts that will protect our children.

This program will increase the odds that an abducted child will return to his or her family safely.

But importantly, it will deter potential abductors from taking a child in the first place.

As Marc Klaas said at a hearing on the bill last fall, this legislation will ``save kid's lives.''

Mr. President, as an appropriator, I come to the floor this afternoon to express my opposition to this omnibus appropriations bill.

The $385 billion omnibus appropriations bill cuts almost $10 billion from what the Senate Appropriation Committee approved last year.

On top of these Draconian cuts, the bill before us includes a 2.9 percent across the board cut, to nonmilitary programs, and will affect critical programs such as homeland security, education, and job training.

This bill is a major mistake and represents a short-sided approach to solving our Nation's problems.

What is happening is the administration's effort to starve domestic programs in order to save dollars for a $674 billion tax cut. If this effort is successful, we will see interest rates rise, the deficit balloon, and a 10-year cumulative deficit of $2 to $3 trillion.

Americans don't know it yet, but soon will learn that this bill makes a house of cards out of homeland security, which loses $1 billion which were already requested, authorized, and appropriated.

How many Americans know that this bill will likely cut 1,175 FBI agents, 490 food safety engineers, and 1,600 customs inspectors who are vital if we are to protect our homeland from contraband and those that would do us harm.

How many Americans know that the Head Start cut of $107 million could prevent 2700 youngsters from a Head Start experience, or leave 224,000 needy individuals without the meals provided by WIC, or 230,000 veterans without medical services.

To make matters worse, this bill is being offered at a time when our Nation continues to face significant challenges in protecting homeland security, increasing school achievement, and strengthening our workforce.

Essentially what this bill does is cut the money from a number of critical projects so this body can pass a tax cut of $674 billion, which will lead to a $2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years.

Every day this body is faced with tough choices. But in my decade in the Senate, I believe that this bill represents one of the worst pieces of legislation to pass this Senate.

Mr. President, I rise with a number of my colleagues and the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee, the Senator from South Carolina, to discuss funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, popularly know as SCAAP. As my colleagues know, States and localities across the Nation are facing extraordinary costs associated with incarcerating criminal illegal aliens.

Since the September 11th terrorists attacks, State and local governments have borne unprecedented costs that the Nation's critical infrastructure and public are protected. As a result, State and local governments are facing tremendous budget deficits. Moreover, the budgets of local law enforcement agencies are stretched to the limit. California, for one, is estimated to face a shortfall of at least $26 billion over the next 18 months.

In the face of these new challenges, the burden placed on States by the Federal Government's long-standing inability to control illegal immigration continues to grow. States like California continue to shoulder extraordinary criminal alien incarceration costs. One out of every seven prison beds in California is occupied by an illegal criminal alien.

SCAAP funding helps all States that are experiencing increasing costs from incarcerating undocumented felons--both low-impact and high-impact States. Last year, more than 400 local jurisdictions, including all 50 States, received SCAAP funding. With States facing budget deficits reimbursement for the costs they have incurred will be even more important. Congress must continue to support communities that must shoulder the burden of what is, in essence, a Federal responsibility. Given the rising costs associated with criminal alien incarceration, I had hoped that the Senate would see fit to increase the funding for this important program to $650 million, or at minimum, at last year's level of $565 million.

I understand that the House-passed Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill provides $500 million for the SCAAP program. Given that fact, I would like to inquire of my friend from New Hampshire if there is something that can be done to increase funding for this bill for SCAAP to at least the funding level approved by the House.

I thank the Senator for his encouraging words. As I am sure he knows, the SCAAP reimbursements provided in prior years did not nearly cover the costs States and localities incurred do incarcerate illegal aliens in their jurisdictions.

The cost for States and localities amounted to more than $11 billion. Thus, last year's funding level of $565 million covered a mere 5.1 percent, of the actual costs.

Failing to fund the program altogether would be devastating to our States. The State of Wisconsin, for example, would lose more than $3.5 million in funding; Massachusetts would lose over $13 million; Pennsylvania would lose over $2.6 million; Virginia would lose more than $6.4 million; North Carolina would lose $5.2 million; Michigan would lose $2.9 million; Minnesota would lose $1.8 million. Thus, even States that have not traditionally had to confront the growth in illegal immigration are now bearing the costs of this Federal responsibility.

When the Federal Government fails in its responsibility to control our Nation's borders, local taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens in State and local jails. I will work closely with the Senators from New Hampshire and South Carolina and my colleagues in both bodies ensure that this bill adequately funds SCAAP.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Intelligence Community Leadership Act of 2003. This legislation creates the position of Director of National Intelligence to provide budget and statutory authority over coordinating our intelligence efforts. This will help assure that the sort of communication problems that prevented the various elements of our intelligence community from working together effectively before September 11 never happens again.

Today there are 14 different agencies and departments which make up the Intelligence Community: the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Army Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, intelligence elements of the Departments of State, Treasury, Energy, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Coast Guard. Together they make up a huge network, with thousands of employees and a significant, secret, budget.

Interestingly, there is no real head of this sprawling Community. In law the Director of Central Intelligence leads both the CIA and the Intelligence Community, but in practice he is unable to exercise meaningful control and leadership. The Community is plagued by acute turf battles, incompatible information systems and uncoordinated operations. The present structure makes coordination and movement of personnel within the Intelligence Community more difficult than it should be.

Last Spring I offered legislation to address this problem, S. 2645, which created the position of Director of National Intelligence.

Since then the Joint Inquiry of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees completed its investigations into the Intelligence Community role in the attacks of September 11.

The Joint Inquiries' major recommendation was the creation of a ``Director of National Intelligence'', DNI, with real authority to run the Intelligence Community, separate from the head of the CIA, and thus free from having to run both the Community and one of its major constituent agencies.

Working with those recommendations, I have updated the bill I introduced last year to reflect the Joint Inquiries' findings. The changes include adding specific language to ensure that the new Director of National Intelligence has meaningful and effective budget and personnel authority.

Specifically this legislation would create the new position of Director of National Intelligence who would head the intelligence community, serving at the pleasure of the President, with the proper and necessary authority to coordinate activities, direct priorities, and develop and execute the budget for our nation's national intelligence community.

The DNI would be responsible for all of the functions now performed by the Director of Central Intelligence in his role as head of the intelligence community, while a separate individual would be Director of the CIA.

Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the DNI would be empowered to create and execute the national intelligence budget in conjunction with the various intelligence agencies within our government.

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, DCIA, freed from the double burden as head of the intelligence community, would then be able to concentrate on the critical missions of the CIA alone: Assure the collection of intelligence from human sources, and that intelligence is properly correlated, evaluated, and disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to decision makers.

I recognize that this bill will certainly not solve every problem within the intelligence community, but I believe it is an important, perhaps critical, first step. My hope is that introduction of this bill will move the much-needed debate on Intelligence Community reform forward.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Intelligence Community Leadership Act of 2003. This legislation creates the position of Director of National Intelligence to provide budget and statutory authority over coordinating our intelligence efforts. This will help assure that the sort of communication problems that prevented the various elements of our intelligence community from working together effectively before September 11 never happens again.

Today there are 14 different agencies and departments which make up the Intelligence Community: the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Army Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, intelligence elements of the Departments of State, Treasury, Energy, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Coast Guard. Together they make up a huge network, with thousands of employees and a significant, secret, budget.

Interestingly, there is no real head of this sprawling Community. In law the Director of Central Intelligence leads both the CIA and the Intelligence Community, but in practice he is unable to exercise meaningful control and leadership. The Community is plagued by acute turf battles, incompatible information systems and uncoordinated operations. The present structure makes coordination and movement of personnel within the Intelligence Community more difficult than it should be.

Last Spring I offered legislation to address this problem, S. 2645, which created the position of Director of National Intelligence.

Since then the Joint Inquiry of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees completed its investigations into the Intelligence Community role in the attacks of September 11.

The Joint Inquiries' major recommendation was the creation of a ``Director of National Intelligence'', DNI, with real authority to run the Intelligence Community, separate from the head of the CIA, and thus free from having to run both the Community and one of its major constituent agencies.

Working with those recommendations, I have updated the bill I introduced last year to reflect the Joint Inquiries' findings. The changes include adding specific language to ensure that the new Director of National Intelligence has meaningful and effective budget and personnel authority.

Specifically this legislation would create the new position of Director of National Intelligence who would head the intelligence community, serving at the pleasure of the President, with the proper and necessary authority to coordinate activities, direct priorities, and develop and execute the budget for our nation's national intelligence community.

The DNI would be responsible for all of the functions now performed by the Director of Central Intelligence in his role as head of the intelligence community, while a separate individual would be Director of the CIA.

Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the DNI would be empowered to create and execute the national intelligence budget in conjunction with the various intelligence agencies within our government.

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, DCIA, freed from the double burden as head of the intelligence community, would then be able to concentrate on the critical missions of the CIA alone: Assure the collection of intelligence from human sources, and that intelligence is properly correlated, evaluated, and disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to decision makers.

I recognize that this bill will certainly not solve every problem within the intelligence community, but I believe it is an important, perhaps critical, first step. My hope is that introduction of this bill will move the much-needed debate on Intelligence Community reform forward.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Murray's amendment to add $438 million to Amtrak to fund system-wide rail security upgrades and to reiterate my unwavering support for Amtrak.

I believe it is essential to fund Amtrak at $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 to prevent our passenger rail system from grinding to a halt and stranding millions of commuters coast to coast. In fact, Amtrak's President David Gunn has said a funding level of only $762

million would ``guarantee insolvency by spring and the shutting down of the railroad at that time.''

And as James Jones, California State Legislative Director of the United Transportation Union, wrote to me in a recent letter:

This shutdown would end all intercity rail and much of the

commuter operations in California. This would cause a serious

adverse effect on the general public, the Amtrak employees

that would be out of work, as well as the California economy.

Amtrak's passenger rail service is an essential link in our transportation system and our economy.

Every day, Americans use Amtrak and local commuter rail systems that depend on Amtrak to get to and from work. More and more Americans are relying on long distance Amtrak trains for their travel because of security changes at our Nation's airports.

I cannot think of a worse time to underfund Amtrak.

What will happen if Amtrak shuts down? Well, you can be sure the roads will jam up even more and air travel will become an even greater headache.

Last year, I joined many of my colleagues in a commitment to fund $1.2 billion for Amtrak in fiscal year 2003. This is the amount Amtrak needs and it was the amount the Appropriations Committee unanimously approved last year despite the Bush administration's paltry budget request of $521 million for fiscal year 2003.

I cannot understand why President Bush continues to stand by his budget request of $521 million.

Amtrak needs more funding, not less and last week I was pleased to again co-sponsor Senator Hollings's legislation to fund Amtrak for the next 5 years. The National Defense Rail Act would authorize $4.6 billion annually for passenger rail service. The legislation, which passed the Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-3 last April would fund rail security improvements, high-speed rail development, and operational costs for existing rail routes.

I strongly believe that Amtrak is not a failure, it is the government that has failed Amtrak. If we do not properly fund our rail system, how do we expect it to thrive?

Since 1971, when Amtrak was founded, only $25 billion has been spent on passenger rail, compared to over $750 billion that has been invested in highways and aviation. The Federal Government has made a commitment to fund road construction and expand aviation capacity, but we have always come up short to provide fair funding for our rail system.

The Federal Government provided $15 billion in payments and loan guaranties to aid the airlines after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Why can't we provide $438 million more to keep our trains running?

Imagine the chaos that will ensue if Amtrak does shut down. There will be even more traffic on our roads and air travel will slow down if trains are not an option for commuters heading to work or travelers on vacation.

Last summer, Senator Boxer and I wrote President Bush to ask him to approve Amtrak's $200 million loan guarantee to prevent the rail system from grinding to a halt. I cannot believe that 6 months later Amtrak is again being denied life support.

If Amtrak shuts down, thousands of people in California who depend on Amtrak service every day will be stranded. Since most rail lines in California are run by Amtrak or depend on Amtrak, everything is in jeopardy.

These include three Amtrak routes funded by the State and the Federal Government:

No. 1, the Capitol Corridor route between San Jose and

Auburn;

No. 2, the San Joaquin route between Oakland and

Bakersfield; and

No. 3, the Pacific Surfliner route between San Diego and

San Luis Obispo.

These are three of the most successful routes in the United States. In fact, all three are among the top five intercity rail corridors, and the Pacific Surfliner is the fastest growing route in the Nation. Overall the State of California has added 28 new daily trains since 1995, and over 1.5 million new passengers.

But a shutdown will also threaten some of California's largest regional transportation systems including:

No. 1, Caltrain, the rail service between San Francisco and

San Jose;

No. 2, Metrolink, Southern California's regional transit

system; and

No. 3, the Coaster, San Diego County's regional train.

It is clear to me that a shutdown of Amtrak will be devastating for rail passengers across the Nation. I believe we must act immediately to avoid it. I urge my colleagues to approve Senator Murray's amendment to add $438 million to Amtrak to fund system-wide rail security upgrades.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison in introducing the Air Cargo Security Act, a bill that passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent in the 107th Congress.

Today Senator Hutchison and I released a report from the General Accounting Office that demonstrates why the Congress and the Transportation Security Administration must, together, move quickly to shore up our vulnerabilities to protect against another terrorist attack.

I strongly believe that we must increase our defenses across the board to anticipate the next attack, not just correct the vulnerabilities that were already exploited by terrorists on September 11th.

After September 11th, Congress moved quickly to federalize the airport security screening workforce to prevent more hijackings, but we have not done enough to increase our air cargo security.

The General Accounting Office report shows that Congress must require the TSA to develop a strategic plan to screen and inspect air cargo to protect our Nation's air transportation system. According to this report, our air cargo system remains vulnerable to a terrorist attack because: first, there aren't enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone shipping air cargo under the ``known shipper'' program has taken the proper steps to protect against use by terrorists; second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where cargo transfers from company to company; third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal background checks, and they do not always have their identification verified; fourth and most importantly, most cargo shipped by air is never screened.

To address these problems, the GAO recommends that the Transportation Security Administration develop a comprehensive plan for improving air cargo security.

The legislation we are reintroducing today, directs the TSA to: 1. Develop a strategic plan to ensure the security of all air cargo; 2. Establish an industry-wide pilot program database of known shippers; 3. set up a training program for handlers to learn how to safe-guard cargo from tampering; and 4. Inspect air cargo shipping facilities on a regular basis.

The Aviation Security Act Congress passed after September 11 required the Transportation Security Administration to screen and inspect air cargo ``as soon as practicable.'' This report shows we cannot wait any longer. The time is now for the Senate to again take up this legislation, again pass this legislation, and for the TSA to prevent terrorists from tampering with the cargo loaded into the underbelly of our airplanes.

The General Accounting Office recommends that the Under Secretary for Transportation develop a comprehensive plan for air cargo security that includes priority actions identified on the basis of risk, costs, deadlines for completing those actions, and performance targets.

The TSA has a great deal of options at its disposal. The TSA could: screen air cargo for explosives; secure cargo with high-tech seals; control access to holding areas containing cargo; use cargo tracking systems; install more cameras in cargo areas at airports; use blast resistant containers; have more bomb-sniffing dogs; put cargo in decompression chambers before loading it onto an aircraft; require the identity of people making air cargo deliveries to be checked; establish an industrywide computer profiling system; require criminal background checks for employees at freight forwarders and consolidators; and require third party inspections.

We do not expect the TSA to X-ray and scan all cargo for explosives because shippers and carriers would be able to process only 4 percent of cargo received daily, which would severely disrupt the air cargo industry. However, the Federal Government can deploy a combination of the techniques I have listed to implement a comprehensive security plan for air cargo.

Since one half of the hull of each passenger aircraft is typically filled with cargo and 22 percent of all cargo transported by plane is loaded on passenger flights, I believe air cargo security is just as important as passenger security. In fact, you cannot keep passengers safe without stronger air cargo security.

Each time there is a major jet crash or bombing, we reexamine our aviation security. I hope it will not take another accident or attack for us to finally pass this legislation into law.

I would like to thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the issue of transportation security and I urge my colleagues to support our legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Boxer, to introduce the ``San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act'' to authorize the United States Mint to issue a commemorative coin that will honor the San Francisco Old Mint and help restore this historic building in downtown San Francisco.

The San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historical landmark for San Francisco, the State of California, and the United States. Beginning its operations in 1854, the San Francisco Mint was established to take advantage of the plentiful gold and silver mined in the West during the California Gold Rush. At one point, more than half of the money minted in the United States came from the San Francisco Mint, and it once held a third of the Nation's gold supply. Today the ``S'' Mint Mark is found on many rare coins as well as on many new proof coin sets.

The Old Mint Building, located in the heart of the city, has been standing for more than 125 years as the oldest stone building in San Francisco. It is the Old Mint opened in 1874, it was the largest Federal building in the West. Architect Alfred B. Mullet designed this building which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A.B. Mullet is the same architect who designed both the U.S. Treasury building and the Old Executive Office Building here in Washington D.C.

A product of America's ``Gilded Age,'' the Old Mint is architecturally reflective of a distinguished line of Greek revival- style buildings that were soon to be eclipsed by other designs at the turn of the century.

Aided by its magnificent stone structure, the Old Mint Building was able to survive the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. In fact, the Mint was the only financial instruction that remained operable after the earthquake and the building was used as the treasury for the city's disaster relief funds.

The San Francisco Old Mint Building minted coins until 1937 when the building became too small and its operations moved to a larger space elsewhere in San Francisco. In the years since then, the building has deteriorated. In 1994, the Bureau of the Mint closed the Old Mint because it could not afford the then-estimated $20 million seismic retrofit to bring the building up to code. Since then the building, transferred to the General Services Administration, has remained closed.

Now, the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society has proposed an exciting project to restore and rejuvenate the Old Mint Building in downtown San Francisco. A fine history museum supported by shops, restaurants, community office space, a coin shop, and a visitors center will combine to make the building a striking and viable destination.

I am introducing this legislation to honor the history of the San Francisco Old Mint and the role it played in rebuilding the great ``City by the Bay'' after the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. This legislation will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue 100,000 $5 gold coins and 500,000 $1 silver coins, which will be emblematic of the San Francisco Old Mint Building and its importance to California and the United States.

The commemorative coin will also help provide funds for the building's restoration. The proceeds generated from the sale of these commemorative coins will be paid to the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society for the building's rehabilitation.

The San Francisco Old Mint is venerated by coin collectors as the ``Granite Lady'' and I believe it is worthy of a commemorative coin. I am very pleased to note that the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, CCCAC, has agreed and that its members have unanimously endorsed this legislation for a 2006 coin, a year that will mark the 100-year anniversary of the building's survival of the 1906 earthquake and fire.

2006 is also the year the U.S. Mint will issue the California quarter and I expect both coins will be attractive to coin collectors. The CCCAC's recommendation will be included in its 2002 annual report that will be delivered to Congress before the end of this month.

Collectors, Californians, and millions of Americans hold the San Francisco Old Mint in the highest regard as a national treasure. Because no other such icon of the numismatic community has been honored by the issuance of a commemorative coin, I believe the San Francisco Old Mint merits commemoration at this time.

I believe honoring and restoring the San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historic preservation project. I hope my colleagues will join me to support the San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act to honor the unique and proud history of the ``Granite Lady.''

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison in introducing the Air Cargo Security Act, a bill that passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent in the 107th Congress.

Today Senator Hutchison and I released a report from the General Accounting Office that demonstrates why the Congress and the Transportation Security Administration must, together, move quickly to shore up our vulnerabilities to protect against another terrorist attack.

I strongly believe that we must increase our defenses across the board to anticipate the next attack, not just correct the vulnerabilities that were already exploited by terrorists on September 11th.

After September 11th, Congress moved quickly to federalize the airport security screening workforce to prevent more hijackings, but we have not done enough to increase our air cargo security.

The General Accounting Office report shows that Congress must require the TSA to develop a strategic plan to screen and inspect air cargo to protect our Nation's air transportation system. According to this report, our air cargo system remains vulnerable to a terrorist attack because: first, there aren't enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone shipping air cargo under the ``known shipper'' program has taken the proper steps to protect against use by terrorists; second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where cargo transfers from company to company; third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal background checks, and they do not always have their identification verified; fourth and most importantly, most cargo shipped by air is never screened.

To address these problems, the GAO recommends that the Transportation Security Administration develop a comprehensive plan for improving air cargo security.

The legislation we are reintroducing today, directs the TSA to: 1. Develop a strategic plan to ensure the security of all air cargo; 2. Establish an industry-wide pilot program database of known shippers; 3. set up a training program for handlers to learn how to safe-guard cargo from tampering; and 4. Inspect air cargo shipping facilities on a regular basis.

The Aviation Security Act Congress passed after September 11 required the Transportation Security Administration to screen and inspect air cargo ``as soon as practicable.'' This report shows we cannot wait any longer. The time is now for the Senate to again take up this legislation, again pass this legislation, and for the TSA to prevent terrorists from tampering with the cargo loaded into the underbelly of our airplanes.

The General Accounting Office recommends that the Under Secretary for Transportation develop a comprehensive plan for air cargo security that includes priority actions identified on the basis of risk, costs, deadlines for completing those actions, and performance targets.

The TSA has a great deal of options at its disposal. The TSA could: screen air cargo for explosives; secure cargo with high-tech seals; control access to holding areas containing cargo; use cargo tracking systems; install more cameras in cargo areas at airports; use blast resistant containers; have more bomb-sniffing dogs; put cargo in decompression chambers before loading it onto an aircraft; require the identity of people making air cargo deliveries to be checked; establish an industrywide computer profiling system; require criminal background checks for employees at freight forwarders and consolidators; and require third party inspections.

We do not expect the TSA to X-ray and scan all cargo for explosives because shippers and carriers would be able to process only 4 percent of cargo received daily, which would severely disrupt the air cargo industry. However, the Federal Government can deploy a combination of the techniques I have listed to implement a comprehensive security plan for air cargo.

Since one half of the hull of each passenger aircraft is typically filled with cargo and 22 percent of all cargo transported by plane is loaded on passenger flights, I believe air cargo security is just as important as passenger security. In fact, you cannot keep passengers safe without stronger air cargo security.

Each time there is a major jet crash or bombing, we reexamine our aviation security. I hope it will not take another accident or attack for us to finally pass this legislation into law.

I would like to thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the issue of transportation security and I urge my colleagues to support our legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Boxer, to introduce the ``San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act'' to authorize the United States Mint to issue a commemorative coin that will honor the San Francisco Old Mint and help restore this historic building in downtown San Francisco.

The San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historical landmark for San Francisco, the State of California, and the United States. Beginning its operations in 1854, the San Francisco Mint was established to take advantage of the plentiful gold and silver mined in the West during the California Gold Rush. At one point, more than half of the money minted in the United States came from the San Francisco Mint, and it once held a third of the Nation's gold supply. Today the ``S'' Mint Mark is found on many rare coins as well as on many new proof coin sets.

The Old Mint Building, located in the heart of the city, has been standing for more than 125 years as the oldest stone building in San Francisco. It is the Old Mint opened in 1874, it was the largest Federal building in the West. Architect Alfred B. Mullet designed this building which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A.B. Mullet is the same architect who designed both the U.S. Treasury building and the Old Executive Office Building here in Washington D.C.

A product of America's ``Gilded Age,'' the Old Mint is architecturally reflective of a distinguished line of Greek revival- style buildings that were soon to be eclipsed by other designs at the turn of the century.

Aided by its magnificent stone structure, the Old Mint Building was able to survive the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. In fact, the Mint was the only financial instruction that remained operable after the earthquake and the building was used as the treasury for the city's disaster relief funds.

The San Francisco Old Mint Building minted coins until 1937 when the building became too small and its operations moved to a larger space elsewhere in San Francisco. In the years since then, the building has deteriorated. In 1994, the Bureau of the Mint closed the Old Mint because it could not afford the then-estimated $20 million seismic retrofit to bring the building up to code. Since then the building, transferred to the General Services Administration, has remained closed.

Now, the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society has proposed an exciting project to restore and rejuvenate the Old Mint Building in downtown San Francisco. A fine history museum supported by shops, restaurants, community office space, a coin shop, and a visitors center will combine to make the building a striking and viable destination.

I am introducing this legislation to honor the history of the San Francisco Old Mint and the role it played in rebuilding the great ``City by the Bay'' after the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. This legislation will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue 100,000 $5 gold coins and 500,000 $1 silver coins, which will be emblematic of the San Francisco Old Mint Building and its importance to California and the United States.

The commemorative coin will also help provide funds for the building's restoration. The proceeds generated from the sale of these commemorative coins will be paid to the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society for the building's rehabilitation.

The San Francisco Old Mint is venerated by coin collectors as the ``Granite Lady'' and I believe it is worthy of a commemorative coin. I am very pleased to note that the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, CCCAC, has agreed and that its members have unanimously endorsed this legislation for a 2006 coin, a year that will mark the 100-year anniversary of the building's survival of the 1906 earthquake and fire.

2006 is also the year the U.S. Mint will issue the California quarter and I expect both coins will be attractive to coin collectors. The CCCAC's recommendation will be included in its 2002 annual report that will be delivered to Congress before the end of this month.

Collectors, Californians, and millions of Americans hold the San Francisco Old Mint in the highest regard as a national treasure. Because no other such icon of the numismatic community has been honored by the issuance of a commemorative coin, I believe the San Francisco Old Mint merits commemoration at this time.

I believe honoring and restoring the San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historic preservation project. I hope my colleagues will join me to support the San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act to honor the unique and proud history of the ``Granite Lady.''

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act along with Senator Kyl, Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, and Senator Craig.

I first introduced this bipartisan legislation last June with the full support of the Justice Department. The bill will make it easier for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who, as is so often the case, steal an identity for the purpose of committing one or more other crimes.

I am hopeful that we can build on the momentum generated by this legislation in the 107th Congress. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing on the bill on July 9, 2002.

The Judiciary Committee subsequently passed the legislation out of Committee on November 14, shortly before the Senate went out of session.

As we enter the 108th congress, there remains a compelling need to stiffen the penalties for identity thieves.

A little more than a month ago, the largest single identity theft case in U.S. history was uncovered. Federal authorities arrested Philip Cummings who, along with two accomplices, allegedly sold the credit reports and other personal information of 30,000 victims for as little as $30 each. Investigators have confirmed $2.7 million in losses so far, and the totals are expected to be much greater. This case is an example of the tremendous damage that an identity thief can cause.

Moreover, many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by stolen identifies.

Lofti Raissi, a 27-year old Algerian pilot from London who is believed to have trained four of the 9/11 hijackers, was identified in British court papers as having used the Social Security number of Dorothy Hansen, a retired factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died in 1991.

Last year, the Department of Justice filed charges against an Algerian national who stole the identifies of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, MA. He then transferred those stolen identities to one of the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999.

Joseph Kalady of Chicago was charged with trying to fake his own death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial on charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards and driver's licenses, allegedly suffocated a homeless man and sought to have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in order to fake his own death and avoid prosecution.

The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the legislation we introduce today so vital. Identity theft has become the major escalating crime of the new millennium, and Congress needs to give law enforcement the tools to prosecute these crimes.

Let me just outline what this bill would do.

First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person to commit certain serious, Federal crimes.

Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two- year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another person: Stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension funds; and other serious Federal crimes, all of them felonies.

Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five- year penalty for any individual who uses the stolen identity of another person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism crimes found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crimes include: The destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes.

Under the legislation, aggravated identity theft is a separate crime, not just a sentencing enhancement. And the two-year and five-year penalties for aggravated identity theft must be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying crime.

This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after identity thieves and to provide their case.

First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents, but does not specifically ban the possession of those documents with the intent to commit a crime.

So if law enforcement discovers a stash of identity documents with the clear intent to use those documents to commit other crimes, the person who possesses those documents will now be subject to prosecution.

Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not be separately proved.

This simply makes the job of the prosecutor easier when an individual is convicted of a Federal crime and uses a false identity in collection with that crime.

This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity theft under current law from three years to five years.

And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation of domestic terrorism as well.

Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution as well.

Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down on identity thieves.

And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal information, and other key data from potential identity thieves.

The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have experienced in recent years is over.

No longer will prosecutors decline to take identity theft seriously. No longer will identity thieves get off with just a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all. Under this legislation, penalties will be severe, prosecution will be more likely, and cases against identity thieves will be easier to prove.

Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill is an important step in that process.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act along with Senator Kyl, Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, and Senator Craig.

I first introduced this bipartisan legislation last June with the full support of the Justice Department. The bill will make it easier for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who, as is so often the case, steal an identity for the purpose of committing one or more other crimes.

I am hopeful that we can build on the momentum generated by this legislation in the 107th Congress. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing on the bill on July 9, 2002.

The Judiciary Committee subsequently passed the legislation out of Committee on November 14, shortly before the Senate went out of session.

As we enter the 108th congress, there remains a compelling need to stiffen the penalties for identity thieves.

A little more than a month ago, the largest single identity theft case in U.S. history was uncovered. Federal authorities arrested Philip Cummings who, along with two accomplices, allegedly sold the credit reports and other personal information of 30,000 victims for as little as $30 each. Investigators have confirmed $2.7 million in losses so far, and the totals are expected to be much greater. This case is an example of the tremendous damage that an identity thief can cause.

Moreover, many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by stolen identifies.

Lofti Raissi, a 27-year old Algerian pilot from London who is believed to have trained four of the 9/11 hijackers, was identified in British court papers as having used the Social Security number of Dorothy Hansen, a retired factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died in 1991.

Last year, the Department of Justice filed charges against an Algerian national who stole the identifies of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, MA. He then transferred those stolen identities to one of the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999.

Joseph Kalady of Chicago was charged with trying to fake his own death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial on charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards and driver's licenses, allegedly suffocated a homeless man and sought to have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in order to fake his own death and avoid prosecution.

The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the legislation we introduce today so vital. Identity theft has become the major escalating crime of the new millennium, and Congress needs to give law enforcement the tools to prosecute these crimes.

Let me just outline what this bill would do.

First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person to commit certain serious, Federal crimes.

Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two- year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another person: Stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension funds; and other serious Federal crimes, all of them felonies.

Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five- year penalty for any individual who uses the stolen identity of another person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism crimes found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crimes include: The destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes.

Under the legislation, aggravated identity theft is a separate crime, not just a sentencing enhancement. And the two-year and five-year penalties for aggravated identity theft must be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying crime.

This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after identity thieves and to provide their case.

First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents, but does not specifically ban the possession of those documents with the intent to commit a crime.

So if law enforcement discovers a stash of identity documents with the clear intent to use those documents to commit other crimes, the person who possesses those documents will now be subject to prosecution.

Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not be separately proved.

This simply makes the job of the prosecutor easier when an individual is convicted of a Federal crime and uses a false identity in collection with that crime.

This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity theft under current law from three years to five years.

And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation of domestic terrorism as well.

Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution as well.

Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down on identity thieves.

And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal information, and other key data from potential identity thieves.

The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have experienced in recent years is over.

No longer will prosecutors decline to take identity theft seriously. No longer will identity thieves get off with just a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all. Under this legislation, penalties will be severe, prosecution will be more likely, and cases against identity thieves will be easier to prove.

Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill is an important step in that process.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.