Floor Statements

The full committee ranking member's understanding of the circumstances and provision is correct.

My response to my friend and the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee is I absolutely agree the Commerce Department does not have the authority to rescind funds from the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program.

Mr. President, it is clear. The Commerce Department has no legal authority to rescind these funds and should keep its hands off of the money in the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program.

Mr. President, I oppose the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act.

I remind my colleagues that we have a national debt that exceeds $6.9 trillion. The legislation currently before us is part of a budget resolution and economic plan that will cause our debt to double over the next 10 years. Make no mistake about it, we will borrow every penny to pay this $394.3 billion bill. How ironic--we are going to borrow money from Social Security to pay for seniors health care. And what do we get in return? Spotty drug coverage for senior citizens, millions of Americans who will lose their existing coverage, massive subsidies for HMOs, the first step toward the destruction of Medicare as we know it, and a larger fiscal noose around the neck of future generations. We can do much better and should go back to the drawing board.

Instead of providing seniors with the stable and affordable benefit they deserve, this bill forces seniors to maneuver a complex maze of premiums, deductibles and copayments for benefits that contain huge gaps in coverage. On top of their premiums, which will vary from region to region and plan to plan, seniors will get no help for the first $250 of their drug costs, pay 25 percent of costs from $251 to $2,250, pay all the costs from $2,251 to at least $5,100, and then pay a fifth of costs above $5,100. With a breakeven point of $810, many healthier Medicare beneficiaries will opt not to participate. Because of the $2,850 coverage gap, many of the sickest patients will have to ration care for months because even though they continue to pay premiums, they receive no government assistance. Furthermore, seniors better not get too comfortable with their prescription drug coverage. Nearly 3 million of them with retiree coverage, including 39,000 residents of South Carolina will lose their coverage. This bill could force those who participate in the new Medicare drug benefit to move in between three separate plans, with three separate formularies, in 3 years.

It should come as no surprise that the authors of this convoluted mess and Karl Rove have decided to wait until after the 2004 election before this new benefit starts up and Medicare beneficiaries see what they are in for. Conferees could have taken a number of steps to address these deficiencies. Instead, they denied the government the ability to negotiate lower drug prices on behalf of all Medicare beneficiaries. This will impose a higher cost on both the taxpayers who foot this bill and the Medicare beneficiaries who will have to make higher copayments. They also created a $12 billion slush fund the government can use to entice private plans to participate against traditional Medicare and diverted $6.7 billion from the amounts saved by companies that will drop retiree coverage to create tax shelters for wealthy individuals. These funds could have been more appropriately spent providing incentives for companies to continue retiree coverage or reducing the size of the ``doughnut.''

I also believe this bill is the first step toward the dismantling of Medicare. The ``premiums support'' demonstration contained in this legislation opens the door to the privatization of Medicare. Seniors in at least six parts of the country will be forced to either pay higher premium to remain in the traditional Medicare system or move into

an HMO. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, this legislation provides an uneven playing field between traditional Medicare and private plans. I have always felt that if a private plan can offer a better benefit package to a beneficiary at an equal or lower cost, then beneficiaries should have the choice of which plan they want to participate in. This bill dramatically slants the playing field in favor of private plans. In addition to a 9 percent higher payment, private plans will have access to a $12 billion fund to further underwrite their costs. These actions undermine the traditional Medicare system generations of our seniors have come to depend on.

The flimsy prescription drug benefit and long-term damage done to Medicare contained in this legislation does not warrant its high price tag. I encourage my colleagues to defeat this bill, take up and pass S. 1926 to improve reimbursement for doctors, hospitals and rural providers, and continue to work toward a meaningful drug benefit.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement Act of the 21st Century, better known as ``ARRIVE-21.'' This legislation is of vital importance to rail transportation because it provides steady, dependable funding for our beleaguered national passenger rail system. It also provides funding for infrastructure investment in the railroad industry as a whole, including freight railroads. And it establishes a financing mechanism to ensure that our rail system benefits from a steady stream of funding, just like our airline industry, our transit systems, and our national highway system.

For the past 30 years, Amtrak has provided us with a valuable public service, even though it was forced year after year to come beg for money from the Congress. And year after year, the Congress gave it just enough money to barely survive another 12 months. Sometimes Congress didn't appropriate even enough money to last 12 months, and Amtrak had to come back and beg for a supplemental appropriation just to remain in business until the end of the fiscal year. Never mind having enough money to grow the railroad; never mind having enough money to run a first-class passenger railroad. And never mind having enough money to keep the infrastructure in a state of good repair. All Amtrak has been able to do for 30 years is stay alive. It's time to give Amtrak the tools and funding it needs to do the job we keep asking it to do.

Last year I introduced the National Defense Rail Act of 2002 which was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-3. We have shown that bipartisan support exists for authorizing a strong rail program, however the main obstacle we have faced has been securing funding to live up to the authorized amounts. This legislation attempts to address the lack of a guaranteed revenue stream for passenger rail programs and establishes a framework to address freight needs where there is a clear public benefit.

It's a foregone conclusion that transportation development requires money. We somehow figured this out a long time ago with regard to every other mode of transportation. We federally funded the development of the interstate highway system; we subsidized airport construction; we dredged harbors and channels; and we built locks and dams. And the result of all that investment is that our citizens and our goods can move across the country, from big cities and from small towns, efficiently and relatively cheaply. We have today a national transportation system with many impressive components.

You might even say we have been a little too successful with these modes of transportation because many of them are now strained to capacity in many areas of the country. This situation presents not only an economic dilemma, but also a genuine security risk. The atrocious events of September 11th, and the aftermath that followed, exposed the vulnerability of our society and our economy when transportation choices become limited and our mobility is diminished. Effective transportation security means that, as a Nation, we nurture all transportation options and we do not allow ourselves to be overly dependent on only one or two particular modes. In effect, that's what we have done by favoring highways and aviation, where we have directed the flow of billions of dollars. Ironically, rail passenger service is more environmentally-friendly, more fuel-efficient, and more capable of mitigating the impacts of population congestion to help foster regional economic growth than any of the other modes. But in the process of shoring up those other transportation modes for all those years, we lost our focus on passenger rail and we sadly neglected investing in its development.

For passenger rail to be successful, its infrastructure must be developed through the kind of bold Federal leadership we exercised for our other modes of transportation. That's why my colleagues and I are pleased to introduce this landmark piece of legislation designed to change the way we think

about financing passenger rail service and designed to grow our passenger rail system into the world-class system it should be. The bill creates Federal/State and public/private partnerships to promote infrastructure development for both freight and passenger rail. It provides $20-$25 billion in grants over six years to States and State compacts for rail capital projects to provide for a safe, secure, and efficient rail transportation system. It enhances Federal and State rail transportation policy, and it promotes intermodal transportation investment.

ARRIVE-21 creates a non-profit Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation (RIFCO) to issue $30 billion in tax-credit bonds over six years for the purpose of providing grants to States for capital investment in freight and passenger rail infrastructure and facilities. RIFCO will establish a trust account made up of bond proceeds and contributions from States that receive RIFCO grants. Bond proceeds and State contributions in excess of the amount required to maintain the trust account will then be available for grants to the States through a competitive process.

Although my first choice would be to fully fund the needs authorized in this legislation by straight federal spending, it has become clear that over the last thirty years that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow when it comes to Amtrak. There is not enough money in the scant pot available for discretionary spending on transportation programs. We have established dedicated trust funds for the airlines with their ticket taxes, and we have the trust fund for the highways and transit programs which are funded through the gas tax, but when it comes to passenger railroads, there is no such revenue stream. The establishment of RIFCO was not my first choice to finance the publicly needed improvements of the railroad system, but it is an option for the Congress to debate and consider as we attempt to address what we need the rail system to do for this country.

RIFCO is set up to assist the States fund both passenger and freight projects that benefit the public on a State, regional or national basis. State or State compacts may apply for RIFCO funds for discretionary and formula funds for capital projects in four categories: State Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Development, including equipment, stations, and facilities. State Freight Rail Infrastructure Development Projects, including capital projects that primarily benefit freight rail transportation. States may use a percentage of these formula funds to manage State rail programs. National System Improvement Projects, including projects that significantly benefit the national passenger rail system, Amtrak- sponsored projects and Northeast Corridor projects. High Priority Projects, including projects with major public policy benefits to the national rail system or significantly expand rail intermodal capacity in connection with maritime, aviation, and highway facilities.

Eligible capital projects would include new rail line development, planning and environmental reviews, track upgrades and restoration, highway-rail grade crossing improvements and eliminations, relocation of track, infrastructure and facilities, construction of intermodal facilities and passenger rail stations, tunnel and bridge repairs, communication and signaling improvements, environmental impact mitigation, acquisition of passenger rail equipment, and security improvements. Projects to receive discretionary funding would be selected by RIFCO according to selection criteria contained in the bill. The projects would require a 20 percent non-Federal contribution paid to RIFCO for bond repayment.

ARRIVE-21 also directs the Federal Railroad Administration to develop a National Rail Plan and to work with States in developing State rail plans, so that we have a comprehensive and coordinated long-range plan for rail development for the whole country. The bill also directs the Office of Intermodalism in the Department of Transportation to create a ``50-Year Blueprint'' for the development of a national intermodal transportation system and provide a vision of emerging trends and opportunities for the future of passenger and freight rail transportation.

Before I close, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the work of Nancy Lummens Lewis, a detailee from the Federal Railroad Administration, who has worked on the Commerce Committee since January. We have appreciated her professionalism, competency, and her willingness to work and share her time with us. I thank Nancy for her time spent on this bill, as well as her efforts on the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act, and The Surface Transportation Board Act of 2003. We wish her well in her future endeavors.

ARRIVE-21 presents a smart and efficient solution to a very important transportation dilemma. I am joined by several of my colleagues, including Senators Collins, Specter, Carper and Jeffords, in introducing this bipartisan legislation. As we have passed legislation this week providing approximately $15 billion annually for aviation for the next 4 years, and plan to take up a highway bill next year which will spend $40 to $60 billion annually on highways and transit over six years, we must not leave rail out. It is critical that the Senate take this bill up, and pass it, to ensure that our railroad transportation system, especially our passenger rail system, can grow and develop to meet our current and future transportation needs.

Attached is an amendment that the sponsors of ARRIVE-21 intend to offer during floor consideration of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement Act of the 21st Century, better known as ``ARRIVE-21.'' This legislation is of vital importance to rail transportation because it provides steady, dependable funding for our beleaguered national passenger rail system. It also provides funding for infrastructure investment in the railroad industry as a whole, including freight railroads. And it establishes a financing mechanism to ensure that our rail system benefits from a steady stream of funding, just like our airline industry, our transit systems, and our national highway system.

For the past 30 years, Amtrak has provided us with a valuable public service, even though it was forced year after year to come beg for money from the Congress. And year after year, the Congress gave it just enough money to barely survive another 12 months. Sometimes Congress didn't appropriate even enough money to last 12 months, and Amtrak had to come back and beg for a supplemental appropriation just to remain in business until the end of the fiscal year. Never mind having enough money to grow the railroad; never mind having enough money to run a first-class passenger railroad. And never mind having enough money to keep the infrastructure in a state of good repair. All Amtrak has been able to do for 30 years is stay alive. It's time to give Amtrak the tools and funding it needs to do the job we keep asking it to do.

Last year I introduced the National Defense Rail Act of 2002 which was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-3. We have shown that bipartisan support exists for authorizing a strong rail program, however the main obstacle we have faced has been securing funding to live up to the authorized amounts. This legislation attempts to address the lack of a guaranteed revenue stream for passenger rail programs and establishes a framework to address freight needs where there is a clear public benefit.

It's a foregone conclusion that transportation development requires money. We somehow figured this out a long time ago with regard to every other mode of transportation. We federally funded the development of the interstate highway system; we subsidized airport construction; we dredged harbors and channels; and we built locks and dams. And the result of all that investment is that our citizens and our goods can move across the country, from big cities and from small towns, efficiently and relatively cheaply. We have today a national transportation system with many impressive components.

You might even say we have been a little too successful with these modes of transportation because many of them are now strained to capacity in many areas of the country. This situation presents not only an economic dilemma, but also a genuine security risk. The atrocious events of September 11th, and the aftermath that followed, exposed the vulnerability of our society and our economy when transportation choices become limited and our mobility is diminished. Effective transportation security means that, as a Nation, we nurture all transportation options and we do not allow ourselves to be overly dependent on only one or two particular modes. In effect, that's what we have done by favoring highways and aviation, where we have directed the flow of billions of dollars. Ironically, rail passenger service is more environmentally-friendly, more fuel-efficient, and more capable of mitigating the impacts of population congestion to help foster regional economic growth than any of the other modes. But in the process of shoring up those other transportation modes for all those years, we lost our focus on passenger rail and we sadly neglected investing in its development.

For passenger rail to be successful, its infrastructure must be developed through the kind of bold Federal leadership we exercised for our other modes of transportation. That's why my colleagues and I are pleased to introduce this landmark piece of legislation designed to change the way we think

about financing passenger rail service and designed to grow our passenger rail system into the world-class system it should be. The bill creates Federal/State and public/private partnerships to promote infrastructure development for both freight and passenger rail. It provides $20-$25 billion in grants over six years to States and State compacts for rail capital projects to provide for a safe, secure, and efficient rail transportation system. It enhances Federal and State rail transportation policy, and it promotes intermodal transportation investment.

ARRIVE-21 creates a non-profit Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation (RIFCO) to issue $30 billion in tax-credit bonds over six years for the purpose of providing grants to States for capital investment in freight and passenger rail infrastructure and facilities. RIFCO will establish a trust account made up of bond proceeds and contributions from States that receive RIFCO grants. Bond proceeds and State contributions in excess of the amount required to maintain the trust account will then be available for grants to the States through a competitive process.

Although my first choice would be to fully fund the needs authorized in this legislation by straight federal spending, it has become clear that over the last thirty years that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow when it comes to Amtrak. There is not enough money in the scant pot available for discretionary spending on transportation programs. We have established dedicated trust funds for the airlines with their ticket taxes, and we have the trust fund for the highways and transit programs which are funded through the gas tax, but when it comes to passenger railroads, there is no such revenue stream. The establishment of RIFCO was not my first choice to finance the publicly needed improvements of the railroad system, but it is an option for the Congress to debate and consider as we attempt to address what we need the rail system to do for this country.

RIFCO is set up to assist the States fund both passenger and freight projects that benefit the public on a State, regional or national basis. State or State compacts may apply for RIFCO funds for discretionary and formula funds for capital projects in four categories: State Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Development, including equipment, stations, and facilities. State Freight Rail Infrastructure Development Projects, including capital projects that primarily benefit freight rail transportation. States may use a percentage of these formula funds to manage State rail programs. National System Improvement Projects, including projects that significantly benefit the national passenger rail system, Amtrak- sponsored projects and Northeast Corridor projects. High Priority Projects, including projects with major public policy benefits to the national rail system or significantly expand rail intermodal capacity in connection with maritime, aviation, and highway facilities.

Eligible capital projects would include new rail line development, planning and environmental reviews, track upgrades and restoration, highway-rail grade crossing improvements and eliminations, relocation of track, infrastructure and facilities, construction of intermodal facilities and passenger rail stations, tunnel and bridge repairs, communication and signaling improvements, environmental impact mitigation, acquisition of passenger rail equipment, and security improvements. Projects to receive discretionary funding would be selected by RIFCO according to selection criteria contained in the bill. The projects would require a 20 percent non-Federal contribution paid to RIFCO for bond repayment.

ARRIVE-21 also directs the Federal Railroad Administration to develop a National Rail Plan and to work with States in developing State rail plans, so that we have a comprehensive and coordinated long-range plan for rail development for the whole country. The bill also directs the Office of Intermodalism in the Department of Transportation to create a ``50-Year Blueprint'' for the development of a national intermodal transportation system and provide a vision of emerging trends and opportunities for the future of passenger and freight rail transportation.

Before I close, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the work of Nancy Lummens Lewis, a detailee from the Federal Railroad Administration, who has worked on the Commerce Committee since January. We have appreciated her professionalism, competency, and her willingness to work and share her time with us. I thank Nancy for her time spent on this bill, as well as her efforts on the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act, and The Surface Transportation Board Act of 2003. We wish her well in her future endeavors.

ARRIVE-21 presents a smart and efficient solution to a very important transportation dilemma. I am joined by several of my colleagues, including Senators Collins, Specter, Carper and Jeffords, in introducing this bipartisan legislation. As we have passed legislation this week providing approximately $15 billion annually for aviation for the next 4 years, and plan to take up a highway bill next year which will spend $40 to $60 billion annually on highways and transit over six years, we must not leave rail out. It is critical that the Senate take this bill up, and pass it, to ensure that our railroad transportation system, especially our passenger rail system, can grow and develop to meet our current and future transportation needs.

Attached is an amendment that the sponsors of ARRIVE-21 intend to offer during floor consideration of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I also thank the chairman and the Senator from New Jersey for their work on this important issue. Reauthorization of Federal railroad safety programs is needed, and the chairman has acted with great diligence in advancing this legislation. The issue the Senator from New Jersey has raised concerning railroad police officers is one that requires a closer examination, and I believe the Inspector General can provide valuable input. I look forward to working with both of them on this issue.

definition of negotiated price

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for passage of H.R. 2115, Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. I am pleased that we have finally reached agreement on this important legislation and can now move forward on enacting this bill into law. This comprehensive reauthorization bill will provide $60 billion in funding for FAA operations, including some $14.2 billion for airport grants that will create an estimated 600,000 jobs and support for key aviation projects in communities across the country.

Achieving consensus on the conference report has not been easy, and while I think all of us should be encouraged by the results of these efforts, we should take this opportunity to fully consider and appreciate the critical role that compromise has played in achieving this positive result. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed their concerns about the process by which the FAA Conference Report was deliberated and produced. FAA reauthorization bills have always been moved out of Congress with little controversy, but after passing a bill on the Senate floor with unanimous support and cooperating on developing the bulk on the FAA Reauthorization bill, Democrats were cut out of the process. This was an unacceptable development that violated the spirit of this body, and ultimately it led to the creation of flawed legislation.

For three months after it was filed, there was a lack of will in Congress to pass the FAA Conference Report in the form that the Republican leadership demanded. As a result, FAA projects went unauthorized after the fiscal year ended, and in an effort to end the stalemate they had created the House Leadership was forced to recommit the legislation on October 28, 2003. At this time, they stripped out the most troubling provision in the bill--language that allowed for the immediate privatization of 69 of FAA's air traffic control (ATC) towers and the entire ATC system in 2007. However, the Senate remained unsatisfied with the bill's lack of protection for the Nation's ATC system after it was recommitted, and we voted against cloture 45-43 on November 17, 2003.

Prior to the vote, I worked with Senators McCain, Rockefeller, and Lott

to seek commitment from the Bush administration to impose a 1-year moratorium on the contracting out or privatization of any ATC functions so that the Senate Commerce Committee can properly conduct its oversight responsibilities of this matter. The Committee plans to hold hearings on this subject next year, and we will also request detailed analyses from the Government Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG) in an effort to determine how to best enhance safety, the steps that should be taken to keep pace with future growth, and the best way for the Federal Government to get there.

Today, we have received the proper commitment from the Bush administration to proceed in this manner. Under the arrangement, the FAA has agreed not to proceed with the privatization or outsourcing of any FAA air traffic separation and control functions in fiscal year 2004. The written agreement includes a prohibition on contracting out the maintenance and certification of the systems and equipment in the air traffic control system in the National Airspace System. In addition, the Administration has committed to maintaining the existing Federal relationship with the Nation's Flight Service Stations, with the understanding that they will be allowed to continue on-going evaluations of how best to revamp the entire program. The DOT IG's office has estimated that consolidation of the FSSs, combined with a new computer system, could provide a better arrangement and save $500 million over 7 years.

With this understanding in place, I am pleased that we can now move forward with broad support for a multi-year reauthorization of FAA programs. Indeed, H.R. 2115 has many good provisions in it that will go a long way towards improving and enhancing our aviation system as we move into the 21st Century. I would like to add that conservative estimates by the FAA show that the formula funding in this legislation will provide more than $112 million and at least 5,325 jobs in my home State of South Carolina over the next 4 years. I look forward to passing the bill.

Finally, I want to thank Chairman McCain, Senator Lott, the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, and Ranking Member Rockfeller for all of their hard work over the last several days and for the long months that they put in prior to that. We came together with a common purpose--to pass this Conference Report--and with bipartisan cooperation have developed comprehensive legislation that provides the American people the proper level of safety, security and financial support.

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor S. 189, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. With this legislation, the Senate recognizes the emerging field of nanotechnology and its importance to the United States economy. I thank my colleagues for their efforts. I particularly thank Senator Wyden for his leadership and maturity in guiding this bill to the floor. There were several times when this bill was going to be derailed and each time Senator Wyden stepped in to get us back on track.

Nanotechnology has been described as the next Industrial Revolution that will drastically alter the way products are manufactured. Yet we are not alone as other countries are competing to push the boundaries of this technical frontier. Countries such as Japan and the European Union are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars on nanotechnology research. The United States cannot afford to fall behind if we want to maintain our economic strength. This legislation is one step towards ensuring America's leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology.

This legislation is an affirmation that the United States will continue to play a leading role in the development of nanotechnology. It authorizes $784 million for fiscal year 2005 for five Federal agencies involved in nanotechnology research. Although other agencies were not included in this bill, I am hopeful that they will contribute to the National Nanotechnology Program. The legislation provides interagency coordination to the Federal Government's nanotechnology research and development efforts. The establishment of a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office will infuse an organized, structured, and collaborative approach to this research. The legislation also calls for the development of a strategic plan that will provide a roadmap for the country's research and development future.

Nanotechnology is a new frontier and we want to ensure that it is developed

responsibly. That is why I pushed for the creation of the American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center. This Center is charged with ensuring that societal, ethical, and environmental concerns surrounding nanotechnology are properly addressed as research progresses. This is vital as we see more and more of nanotechnology in everyday life, we need to assure citizens that this new technology is safe and non- threatening.

In addition to the American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center, this legislation also establishes a Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. The National Academies of Sciences recommended an Advisory Panel in its review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. I am proud to support its creation in this legislation. I think that it is vital that the President receive advice from dedicated experts directly involved in this field, from the scientists and researchers who are at the forefront of this technology, rather than from advisors who are appointed to serve other technical advisory roles.

One of this country's main strengths is our ability to innovate. Nanotechnology will be the next test as to whether we can continue to move forward. There remains a tremendous amount of basic research that needs to be undertaken in order to fully understand the science behind it all. This is exactly the role that Federal Government should play: to promote scientific knowledge that will benefit our society and our economic competitiveness. This bill does exactly that and I am proud to support it.

I thank the House Science Committee for their cooperation. I also thank the other cosponsors, particularly Senators Lieberman and Clinton as well as Senators Allen, McCain, Stevens, Mikulski, Landrieu, Levin, Bayh, Cantwell, Corzine, Hutchinson, Kerry, Lautenberg, Baucus, Rockefeller, Alexander, and Warner for their support. In particular, I would also like to thank the staff who put this bill together. In addition to my staff, we enjoyed the hard work of Ruchi Bhowmik with Senator Wyden, Liz Connell with Senator Stevens, Ken La Sala with the Senate Commerce Committee, Frank Cavaliere with Senator Allen, Mike O'Reilly with Senator Sununu, and Michael Yentzen with Senator Lott.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for bringing the 2004 Defense Authorization Conference Report to the floor today. The conference report before us comes at a critical time in our national history with our troops engaged in conflict throughout the world.

The committee's leaders have demonstrated patience and grace under pressure, navigating a difficult legislative process. I know firsthand how difficult this process can be; I have walked a mile in their shoes. I have served as the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and now serve as its ranking member. It is in this capacity that I rise to express my dismay to learn that the bill agreed to by the conference committee includes significant changes to legislation under Commerce Committee jurisdiction--the Marine Mammal Protection Act, MMPA. The changes include modifications to some of the most fundamental standards providing protection of marine mammals under the MMPA.

I am proud to have been one of the original authors of the MMPA back in 1972. Overall, it has worked extremely well in balancing the need to protect marine mammals while allowing other important activities, including the defense of our Nation, to move forward.

I firmly believe that the U.S. is capable of having both the strongest military force in the world, and at the same time, some of the best conservation laws of any country. I have been a great supporter of our Nation's military, having served on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for three decades.

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, on which I currently serve as the ranking member, has jurisdiction over issues relating to marine mammals, including authorizations for and oversight of the MMPA. The Commerce Committee plans to take up reauthorization of the entire MMPA this Congress. Towards this effort, we have held hearings and numerous briefings with the many different entities who have an interest in the MMPA, including the Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, private industry, the scientific research community, and nongovernmental organizations. Many of these entities have offered comments, including some serious concerns, with respect to the MMPA language now included in the DOD authorization bill.

I regret to say that many of the provisions included in the bill before us simply don't make sense. For example, we have had testimony from respected scientists this year in hearings before our committee, as well as before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the standard for ``harassment'' of marine mammals, now included in this bill, is scientifically indefensible. Moreover, some of the provisions included in the bill go far beyond DOD activities, including all research done by or on behalf of the Federal Government. Although no changes to the MMPA were in the bill that passed the Senate, the Senate leadership on the conference committee apparently felt that such changes would be acceptable.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, which along with the Fish and Wildlife Service, implements the MMPA, estimates that about 38 percent of all of the ``small take'' permits that it has issued under the MMPA were issued to the Department of Defense. That is over one-third of all such activities, and we know that there are numerous other defense activities for which no permit has even been sought. Yet not once did the leadership of the Senate Armed Service Committee reach out to consult with me or my staff on these provisions that will affect over one-third of the activities that it regulates.

We still plan to take up reauthorization of the MMPA in our committee, and we still have oversight of its implementation. I intend to work with my colleagues on the committee to carefully monitor how these changes are

interpreted, to ensure that activities that could have real impacts on marine mammals do not fall off the radar screen, as it were. MMPA was written the way it was because we are still learning about how various activities may impact marine mammals. We must ensure that under these new standards, the lack of perfect science is not used as a basis to avoid the mitigation of potential impacts.

Mr. President, let me weigh in here by acknowledging the mistake we made in the Commerce Committee. In light of that statement, let me first commend our colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden. His intent is good. We followed it. We supported it in the Commerce Committee. We made certain that the Internet was allowed to expand and progress without any tax burden. In that light, we passed the temporary moratorium. The intent of the Commerce Committee, when we reported this measure that is now before us, was to make permanent that moratorium with respect to individual taxes.

What occurred in reporting was that we realized there was a certain language difficulty there. The fact is that the CBO today cannot schedule or account for that language on the budgetary impact. We knew that shortly after the reporting. It was all reported out on a verbal vote. We said this is going to the Finance Committee. They have tax experts and they will clean up our act for us and get the intent of the full committee and the Congress to continue and make permanent this moratorium.

The fact is, under the present language, the moratorium extends not just to the individual consumer, but it goes the entire way down the pipeline as a tax exemption, thereby invading the power of the States to tax or not tax; thereby becoming, as the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, says, an unfunded mandate. So now we have before us not the intent of the Congress at all.

I recently was in China, and I can tell you we do not have to worry about trying to control the Internet. It is not with taxes that the Chinese are trying to control the Internet and its usage, expansion, and its progress. On the contrary, they are trying by law to control it, and they cannot. That cat is out of the bag and it is going to grow.

The fundamental problem is just what the Senator from Tennessee has spotted. We have now invaded States and the locals and their taxing power, and that is not right. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and we made a mistake. Over the horizon, some of these corporate America giants are piggybacked. They said, oh, now look at what we have. If we can get in on this kind of extension, we will do away with some $4 billion to $8 billion in taxes. Of course, they are not passing it on to the consumer. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the expansion or the progress and success of the Internet. That is what we have confronting us.

In that light, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, have gotten together an amendment that the distinguished Chair has joined in, and this Senator from South Carolina has joined in, so that we can pass this bill and extend it. That is what we all want to do. We like the present law and that is what we in the Commerce Committee thought we were doing, we were protecting consumers by extending the present law to make it permanent. We could then send that over to the House side, and if we can send that to the House, we can dispose of this knotty problem and move on to more important legislation.

I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for handling this bill. Once again, I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Wyden from Oregon. He has led us on this Internet effort for a long period of time. He has made absolutely certain that the Internet continues to progress and succeed. We cannot come in now and tell the States how to tax and what to tax and not to tax.

We are not trying to give a tax cut to corporate America. We want to make sure there is not a tax increase to consumers on the Internet. That is what the present law did until it expired a few days ago, and that is what ought to be extended and made permanent.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for handling this measure and again commend my colleague on the committee, Senator Wyden, for his leadership.

I would like to take a moment of the chairman and ranking members' time to discuss a project that has been supported by the committee since 1999. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in South Carolina and the Earth Sciences and Resources Institute at the University of South Carolina (ESRI-USC) have successfully developed technology to aid NRCS, both in South Carolina and throughout the Nation, to meet the needs of the agricultural community in a more effective and efficient manner. Over the years, the University of South Carolina has demonstrated their capabilities and the quality of their products while building a solid working partnership with the NRCS.

The implementation of the software tools they developed has produced significant savings in manpower and cost for many of NRCS's conservation programs. For example, it is estimated that the man-hours needed to create waste management plans using the traditional paper- based way was on the order of 230 man-hours per plan. Using the ESRI- USC geographic information systems tools, this time requirement was reduced to just over 100 man-hours per plan--that is 130 man-hours saved per plan. The evolving products ESRI-USC has developed for comprehensive nutrient management planning have resulted in even greater time, and cost savings than the earlier tools. As a result of the use of another program, EQIP-for-the-Web, South Carolina NRCS has conservatively saved three man-years of effort. Using another tool, NASIS-for-the-Web, we estimate that this automated access to the soil survey reports results in five man-hours per day in NRCS personnel savings. There is also a benefit to the public, which can access these data via the Web. The time savings to foresters, engineers, farmers, and other users of soil survey data is enormous. There are over 170 users of a particular program in 17 States and a user base in 31 States.

Consequently, I wish to continue to pursue this project at the next level and establish a Center of Excellence within ESRI-USC to assure a long-term, cost-effect means to provide a stable and sustained environment for the development of new technologies as well as support of existing capabilities such as AFOPro, C-Grax, NASIS for the Web, and EQIP for the Web. ESRI-USC's value added NRCS programs provide functional, rapidly developed and deployed applications that can be used by conservationists and field office staff level.

I thank my friend and colleague for your time. It may also be worth noting that Bruce Knight, Chief of NRCS recently visited the University this past April and was very impressed with their capabilities. He concurs that the work completed by ESRI-USC has been of high value to NRCS software development efforts.

Mr. President, we have 17 dead astronauts on our plate--3 from Apollo I, all preventable; 7 from the Challenger, all preventable; and 7 from the Columbia, all preventable.

What we are trying to do on behalf of myself and these several other Senators is get to a good healthy debate on the future of space in the United States and, more particularly, on correcting the safety features. There is a culture there that prevents safety from being adhered to, and, more than anything else, NASA is broke.

What is not understood is that at the present time we are going in all directions. It is like the Navy during World War II: When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

We here are saying we ought to take the orbital space station and accelerate it. Others on the other side say no, that is should be abolished. Some say we ought to go to Mars, and others say what we really need is to hire more expert personnel and bring them in. No one is going to leave their job and come work for the NASA endeavor at this particular time until we get a mixture and a program and a policy. That has to come from the President of the United States.

I introduce the National Space Commission Act to address the range of issues that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board--CAIB--identified with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--NASA--and our space program in general, following the tragic loss of the Columbia Space Shuttle and its crew of seven astronauts. This bill authorizes the creation of a National Space Commission appointed by the President, to ensure that the safety reforms and recommendations of the Columbia investigation board are fully implemented by NASA. The commission will review and make recommendations regarding NASA's return-to-flight proposals and institutional changes that NASA will need to make to improve safety in the agency and to improve safety of the space shuttle, and other actions to assure future safe transportation to space and to the International Space Station. The commission will also look at the broader question of how the United States is organized for the safety of space flight across civilian, military and commercial sectors. It will begin to build a consensus on a future vision of space exploration that I hope will rekindle enthusiasm for our space program and generate the necessary support in the Congress and the administration for these endeavors.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board shone a laser-sharp spotlight upon NASA and its program of human space exploration. Their pain-staking work to determine the cause of the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia provides the context and justification for a new national agenda for space, a turning point in the history of space. Though the board stopped short of laying out this new future, its clear expectation is that the President and Congress should take up where the board left off.

The U.S. civilian space effort has moved forward for more

than 30 years without a guiding vision, and none seems

imminent . . . Recommending the content of this debate goes

well beyond the Board's mandate, but we believe that the

White House, Congress, and NASA should honor the memory of

Columbia's crew by reflecting on the nation's future in space

and the role of new space transportation capabilities in

enabling whatever space goals the nation chooses to pursue.

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Volume I,

August 2003, p. 210

The legislation I am introducing today, the National Space Commission Act, is designed to respond to this challenge. It is a complex challenge, and a complex undertaking, that now lies before the Congress and the Nation. My bill is not intended to supplant, nor substitute for, the President's desire to set a new goal in place for the Human Space Flight Program. But as we have seen in the board's report, merely setting a far-reaching goal into place for

NASA and for the Nation is not enough. It will not resolve the many complex issues raised by Admiral Harold Gehman and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. No, this report, and these challenges, run deeper than a rousing call for future missions to Mars on the Earth's Moon can resolve. As Admiral Gehman said last week in testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee:

In the course of (our) study, we became convinced how

difficult it is to get into and out of low Earth orbit. It is

extraordinarily dangerous and very difficult to do . . . We

have to do it more safely than 49 out of 50 times, that's not

good enough . . . No matter what your vision is for human

space flight, whether it's Mars or the L2 or the Moon or

whatever it is, it starts in low Earth orbit . . . We need

some leadership to say, ``Just getting into and out of low

Earth orbit is a goal worthy of itself, without killing a lot

of people.'' And that's hard to argue, because it isn't very

jazzy.

Hearing on NASA's Future, October 29, 2003

Since the inception of the human space flight program, seventeen astronauts have lost their lives and all were avoidable. In its investigative work, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board reached several fundamental conclusions that went beyond the specific technical and physical causes of the loss of Columbia. The Columbia Board found basic flaws in how NASA managers behaved, the belief system that lay behind NASA attitudes and behavior, and NASA's understanding of basic technical and organizational requirements of safety.

The attitudes and decision-making of Shuttle Program

managers and engineers during the events leading up to this

accident were clearly overconfident and often bureaucratic in

nature.

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Volume I,

August 2003, p. 177

NASA's bureaucratic culture kept important information from

reaching engineers and managers alike. The same NASA whose

engineers showed initiative and a solid working knowledge of

how to get things done fast had a managerial culture with an

allegiance to bureaucracy and cost-efficiency that squelched

the engineers' efforts. When it came to NASA managers' own

actions, however, a different set of rules prevailed. The

Board found that Mission Management Team decision-making

operated outside the rules even as it held its engineers to a

stifling protocol . . .

Each decision, taken by itself, seemed correct, routine,

and indeed, insignificant and unremarkable. Yet, in

retrospect, the cumulative effect was stunning.

Ibid, p. 202-203

Most troubling to the Board was the fact that these NASA tendencies were not new but existed in full force at the time of both the Challenger and the Columbia Shuttle accidents.

The (Rogers) Commission found that NASA's safety system had

been silent . . . (denoted by) a lack of problem reporting

requirements, inadequate trend analysis, misrepresentation of

criticality, and lack of involvement in critical discussions

. . .

By the eve of the Columbia accident, institutional

practices that were in effect at the time of the Challenger

accident--such as inadequate concern over deviations from

expected performance, a silent safety program, and schedule

pressure--had returned to NASA.

Ibid, p. 100-101

This ``echo'' between the events eighteen years ago and the present made the loss of Columbia and its explanation all the more confounding, because so many who reviewed the agency, its practices, and its culture had sounded an alarm. The fact that these NASA behaviors and beliefs were so enduring that they persisted beyond the stunning loss of the Challenger and her crew was all the more startling to the Columbia Board. So startling, that the Board found it necessary to offer a blunt and chilling assessment.

If these persistent, systemic flaws are not resolved, the

scene is set for another accident.

Ibid, p. 195

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board also found that it was not only NASA that was at fault for the loss of Columbia. Rather, the Board found that the weaknesses at NASA were just as much a result of the Nation's neglect of its human space flight program.

Post-Challenger policy decisions made by the White House,

Congress, and NASA leadership resulted in the agency

reproducing many of the failings identified by the Rogers

Commission. Policy constraints affected the Shuttle Program's

organization culture, its structure, and the structure of its

safety system.

Ibid, p. 197

The impact of this neglect extended beyond NASA's organizational responses, encompassing broad aspects of planning for NASA's future missions and the development of its technology.

There (has been a) lack, over the past three decades, of

any national mandate providing NASA a compelling mission

requiring human presence in space . . . (and a) lack of

sustained government commitment over the past decade to

improving U.S. access to space by developing a second-

generation space transportation system.

Ibid, p. 209

It is the view of the Board that previous attempts to

develop a replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle represent

a failure of national leadership.

Ibid, p. 211

The bill I am introducing today establishes a permanent National Space Commission to oversee the nation's current and future development and use of space. The commission is established with 12 members, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Commission members will be leaders chosen from industry, academia, and other professions who have a profound expertise in space flight and safety and have worn the mantle of responsibility and challenge in the development and use of space.

The Commission will be independent of NASA and is authorized to hire a staff to develop the engineering and technical expertise to carry out its work. It will begin its work looking at some of our most vexing current problems raised by the Columbia Board's report and provide the necessary oversight to ensure that the Board's recommendations are implemented in the following areas: (1) the return-to-flight of the Space Shuttle and return to assembling the International Space Station, (2) replacement of the Space Shuttle, and (3) changes to the culture of NASA. We specify a number of detailed questions, criteria, and concerns that the Commission should take up in laying out a near-term path forward for NASA's Human Space Flight program. In making its recommendations, the Commission is directed to consider the safety and dignity of human life as its highest priority.

This specific aspect of the bill is a special clause in my mind, one that is not subject redaction--the United States space flight program must, above all, be an American approach to the future of space flight and, as such, must place the dignity and preservation of human life above all other considerations. This assertion is not meant as an accusation or indictment of NASA--Admiral Gehman made it clear that the fault for the loss of Columbia rests with us all, impressed as we all were with space flight and our accomplishments, and naive about its risks and challenges.

If Shuttle operations came to be viewed as routine, it was,

at least in part, thanks to the skill and dedication of those

involved in the program. They have made it look easy, though

in fact it never was. The Board urges NASA leadership, the

architects of U.S. space policy, and the American people to

adopt a realistic understanding of the risks and rewards of

venturing into space.

Ibid, p.208

For never again should we have to read in a formal accident report of the United States space program:

Managers failed to fulfill the implicit contract to do

whatever is possible to ensure the safety of the crew.

Ibid, p.170

Never again.

In each of these assessments of current issues in NASA's Human Space Flight Program, we intend the commission to provide the President, the Congress, and NASA its informed judgment and advice, so that we can expeditiously return the program to a condition of stability and adopt a NASA culture of safety as soon as possible.

The second aspect of the bill is to set a long-range view of our Nation's participation in and development of space.

Concurrent with the work on current issues at NASA, but due by late 2005, are two ground-breaking studies. These studies are intended to go beyond defining a destination for humans in space and to address broader questions about the goals and methods we use, with a specific concern for public and private utilization and investment in space. Though we have learned that the economics of space flight should never again take precedence over its safety, we also know that, in the past, its cost has driven us down pathways that have not resulted in success.

In all three (Shuttle replacement) projects--National

Aerospace Plane, X-33,

and X-34--national leaders had set ambitious goals in

response to NASA's ambitious proposals. The programs relied

on the invention of revolutionary technology, had run into

major technical problems, and had been denied the funds

needed to overcome these problems--assuming they could be

solved. NASA had spent nearly 15 years and several billion

dollars, and yet had made no meaningful progress toward a

Space Shuttle replacement.

Ibid, p. 111

Continued U.S. leadership in space is an important national

objective. That leadership depends on a willingness to pay

the costs of achieving it.

Ibid, p. 211

First, the commission is chartered to provide a sweeping assessment of the future of space. Included in that assessment is a review of United States capabilities, goals, and uses for space, including the state of our Nation's investment in launch capabilities, how space could benefit State and local governments and regions, and the role of non-governmental, private organizations in the promotion of our space endeavors. The review will also take up the difficult issues related to public and private investment: the role of private institutions in the development and use of space and the business conditions they must meet; how Federal Government programs in space science, exploration, national security, and public safety support or limit the commercial development of space; and how space contributes to the terrestrial economy of the United States.

Given the high cost of space, and the even higher costs of space that the Nation is certain to experience in the near and long-term future, resolution of these questions of private versus public participation and promotion of the development of space is a necessary part of the examination of possible technological and economic futures for the space sector of the economy.

Second, and most importantly, the National Space Commission Act is directed to perform a comprehensive assessment and inventorying of the Nation's programs and practices related to the conduct and safety of space flight. This study will assess the state of the Nation's acceptance, approval, and commercial licensing practices as they relate to the conduct of civil, commercial, and military space flight and explore how space launch and high-risk space operations are conducted across each of these sectors. This study is intended to result in a series of recommendations about the future management of space launch and high-risk orbital and sub-orbital space operations in order to achieve the highest level of safety and management of these risks. To those who question the importance of establishing an authority independent of NASA to assess these provisions, the Columbia Accident Investigation board stated the case most convincingly:

(NASA) cultural norms tend to be fairly resilient . . . The

norms bounce back into shape after being stretched or bent.

Beliefs held in common throughout the organization resist

alteration.

Ibid, p. 101

Within NASA, the cultural impediments to safe and effective

Shuttle operations are real and substantial . . . Leadership

will have to rid the system of practices and patterns that

have been validated simply because they have been around so

long . . . These recommendations will be difficult to

initiate, and they will encounter some degree of

institutional resistance.

Ibid. p. 209

NASA's blind spot is it believes it has a strong safety

culture . . . Twice in NASA history, the agency embarked on a

slippery slope that resulted in catastrophe . . . A safety

team must have equal and independent representation so that

managers are not again lulled into complacency by shifting

definitions of risk.

Ibid, p. 203

Since NASA is an independent agency answerable only to the

White House and Congress, the ultimate responsibility for

enforcement of the recommended corrective actions must reside

with those governmental authorities.

Ibid, p. 209

The National Space Commission is established on a permanent basis to maintain oversight of the implementation of space flight across all sectors of industry and government and vigilance in the management of safety in all United States high-risk space operations.

Let me reiterate. Merely announcing a bold new plan to travel to the Earth's Moon or to Mars is not sufficient. If the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia merely results in that proposal, we will have failed the memory of our brave astronauts who lost their lives aboard both Challenger and Columbia. And we will have failed our own future. Unfortunately, our current charge is more difficult. We must challenge our assumptions, question our decisions and designs, revisit our approaches, and rethink our Nation's ambitions and goals for space. We must submit ourselves to the discipline to begin anew. The future of space and our Nation's reputation that we carry into history rests in the balance.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an article from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we have 17 dead astronauts on our plate--3 from Apollo I, all preventable; 7 from the Challenger, all preventable; and 7 from the Columbia, all preventable.

What we are trying to do on behalf of myself and these several other Senators is get to a good healthy debate on the future of space in the United States and, more particularly, on correcting the safety features. There is a culture there that prevents safety from being adhered to, and, more than anything else, NASA is broke.

What is not understood is that at the present time we are going in all directions. It is like the Navy during World War II: When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

We here are saying we ought to take the orbital space station and accelerate it. Others on the other side say no, that is should be abolished. Some say we ought to go to Mars, and others say what we really need is to hire more expert personnel and bring them in. No one is going to leave their job and come work for the NASA endeavor at this particular time until we get a mixture and a program and a policy. That has to come from the President of the United States.

I introduce the National Space Commission Act to address the range of issues that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board--CAIB--identified with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--NASA--and our space program in general, following the tragic loss of the Columbia Space Shuttle and its crew of seven astronauts. This bill authorizes the creation of a National Space Commission appointed by the President, to ensure that the safety reforms and recommendations of the Columbia investigation board are fully implemented by NASA. The commission will review and make recommendations regarding NASA's return-to-flight proposals and institutional changes that NASA will need to make to improve safety in the agency and to improve safety of the space shuttle, and other actions to assure future safe transportation to space and to the International Space Station. The commission will also look at the broader question of how the United States is organized for the safety of space flight across civilian, military and commercial sectors. It will begin to build a consensus on a future vision of space exploration that I hope will rekindle enthusiasm for our space program and generate the necessary support in the Congress and the administration for these endeavors.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board shone a laser-sharp spotlight upon NASA and its program of human space exploration. Their pain-staking work to determine the cause of the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia provides the context and justification for a new national agenda for space, a turning point in the history of space. Though the board stopped short of laying out this new future, its clear expectation is that the President and Congress should take up where the board left off.

The U.S. civilian space effort has moved forward for more

than 30 years without a guiding vision, and none seems

imminent . . . Recommending the content of this debate goes

well beyond the Board's mandate, but we believe that the

White House, Congress, and NASA should honor the memory of

Columbia's crew by reflecting on the nation's future in space

and the role of new space transportation capabilities in

enabling whatever space goals the nation chooses to pursue.

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Volume I,

August 2003, p. 210

The legislation I am introducing today, the National Space Commission Act, is designed to respond to this challenge. It is a complex challenge, and a complex undertaking, that now lies before the Congress and the Nation. My bill is not intended to supplant, nor substitute for, the President's desire to set a new goal in place for the Human Space Flight Program. But as we have seen in the board's report, merely setting a far-reaching goal into place for

NASA and for the Nation is not enough. It will not resolve the many complex issues raised by Admiral Harold Gehman and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. No, this report, and these challenges, run deeper than a rousing call for future missions to Mars on the Earth's Moon can resolve. As Admiral Gehman said last week in testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee:

In the course of (our) study, we became convinced how

difficult it is to get into and out of low Earth orbit. It is

extraordinarily dangerous and very difficult to do . . . We

have to do it more safely than 49 out of 50 times, that's not

good enough . . . No matter what your vision is for human

space flight, whether it's Mars or the L2 or the Moon or

whatever it is, it starts in low Earth orbit . . . We need

some leadership to say, ``Just getting into and out of low

Earth orbit is a goal worthy of itself, without killing a lot

of people.'' And that's hard to argue, because it isn't very

jazzy.

Hearing on NASA's Future, October 29, 2003

Since the inception of the human space flight program, seventeen astronauts have lost their lives and all were avoidable. In its investigative work, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board reached several fundamental conclusions that went beyond the specific technical and physical causes of the loss of Columbia. The Columbia Board found basic flaws in how NASA managers behaved, the belief system that lay behind NASA attitudes and behavior, and NASA's understanding of basic technical and organizational requirements of safety.

The attitudes and decision-making of Shuttle Program

managers and engineers during the events leading up to this

accident were clearly overconfident and often bureaucratic in

nature.

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Volume I,

August 2003, p. 177

NASA's bureaucratic culture kept important information from

reaching engineers and managers alike. The same NASA whose

engineers showed initiative and a solid working knowledge of

how to get things done fast had a managerial culture with an

allegiance to bureaucracy and cost-efficiency that squelched

the engineers' efforts. When it came to NASA managers' own

actions, however, a different set of rules prevailed. The

Board found that Mission Management Team decision-making

operated outside the rules even as it held its engineers to a

stifling protocol . . .

Each decision, taken by itself, seemed correct, routine,

and indeed, insignificant and unremarkable. Yet, in

retrospect, the cumulative effect was stunning.

Ibid, p. 202-203

Most troubling to the Board was the fact that these NASA tendencies were not new but existed in full force at the time of both the Challenger and the Columbia Shuttle accidents.

The (Rogers) Commission found that NASA's safety system had

been silent . . . (denoted by) a lack of problem reporting

requirements, inadequate trend analysis, misrepresentation of

criticality, and lack of involvement in critical discussions

. . .

By the eve of the Columbia accident, institutional

practices that were in effect at the time of the Challenger

accident--such as inadequate concern over deviations from

expected performance, a silent safety program, and schedule

pressure--had returned to NASA.

Ibid, p. 100-101

This ``echo'' between the events eighteen years ago and the present made the loss of Columbia and its explanation all the more confounding, because so many who reviewed the agency, its practices, and its culture had sounded an alarm. The fact that these NASA behaviors and beliefs were so enduring that they persisted beyond the stunning loss of the Challenger and her crew was all the more startling to the Columbia Board. So startling, that the Board found it necessary to offer a blunt and chilling assessment.

If these persistent, systemic flaws are not resolved, the

scene is set for another accident.

Ibid, p. 195

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board also found that it was not only NASA that was at fault for the loss of Columbia. Rather, the Board found that the weaknesses at NASA were just as much a result of the Nation's neglect of its human space flight program.

Post-Challenger policy decisions made by the White House,

Congress, and NASA leadership resulted in the agency

reproducing many of the failings identified by the Rogers

Commission. Policy constraints affected the Shuttle Program's

organization culture, its structure, and the structure of its

safety system.

Ibid, p. 197

The impact of this neglect extended beyond NASA's organizational responses, encompassing broad aspects of planning for NASA's future missions and the development of its technology.

There (has been a) lack, over the past three decades, of

any national mandate providing NASA a compelling mission

requiring human presence in space . . . (and a) lack of

sustained government commitment over the past decade to

improving U.S. access to space by developing a second-

generation space transportation system.

Ibid, p. 209

It is the view of the Board that previous attempts to

develop a replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle represent

a failure of national leadership.

Ibid, p. 211

The bill I am introducing today establishes a permanent National Space Commission to oversee the nation's current and future development and use of space. The commission is established with 12 members, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Commission members will be leaders chosen from industry, academia, and other professions who have a profound expertise in space flight and safety and have worn the mantle of responsibility and challenge in the development and use of space.

The Commission will be independent of NASA and is authorized to hire a staff to develop the engineering and technical expertise to carry out its work. It will begin its work looking at some of our most vexing current problems raised by the Columbia Board's report and provide the necessary oversight to ensure that the Board's recommendations are implemented in the following areas: (1) the return-to-flight of the Space Shuttle and return to assembling the International Space Station, (2) replacement of the Space Shuttle, and (3) changes to the culture of NASA. We specify a number of detailed questions, criteria, and concerns that the Commission should take up in laying out a near-term path forward for NASA's Human Space Flight program. In making its recommendations, the Commission is directed to consider the safety and dignity of human life as its highest priority.

This specific aspect of the bill is a special clause in my mind, one that is not subject redaction--the United States space flight program must, above all, be an American approach to the future of space flight and, as such, must place the dignity and preservation of human life above all other considerations. This assertion is not meant as an accusation or indictment of NASA--Admiral Gehman made it clear that the fault for the loss of Columbia rests with us all, impressed as we all were with space flight and our accomplishments, and naive about its risks and challenges.

If Shuttle operations came to be viewed as routine, it was,

at least in part, thanks to the skill and dedication of those

involved in the program. They have made it look easy, though

in fact it never was. The Board urges NASA leadership, the

architects of U.S. space policy, and the American people to

adopt a realistic understanding of the risks and rewards of

venturing into space.

Ibid, p.208

For never again should we have to read in a formal accident report of the United States space program:

Managers failed to fulfill the implicit contract to do

whatever is possible to ensure the safety of the crew.

Ibid, p.170

Never again.

In each of these assessments of current issues in NASA's Human Space Flight Program, we intend the commission to provide the President, the Congress, and NASA its informed judgment and advice, so that we can expeditiously return the program to a condition of stability and adopt a NASA culture of safety as soon as possible.

The second aspect of the bill is to set a long-range view of our Nation's participation in and development of space.

Concurrent with the work on current issues at NASA, but due by late 2005, are two ground-breaking studies. These studies are intended to go beyond defining a destination for humans in space and to address broader questions about the goals and methods we use, with a specific concern for public and private utilization and investment in space. Though we have learned that the economics of space flight should never again take precedence over its safety, we also know that, in the past, its cost has driven us down pathways that have not resulted in success.

In all three (Shuttle replacement) projects--National

Aerospace Plane, X-33,

and X-34--national leaders had set ambitious goals in

response to NASA's ambitious proposals. The programs relied

on the invention of revolutionary technology, had run into

major technical problems, and had been denied the funds

needed to overcome these problems--assuming they could be

solved. NASA had spent nearly 15 years and several billion

dollars, and yet had made no meaningful progress toward a

Space Shuttle replacement.

Ibid, p. 111

Continued U.S. leadership in space is an important national

objective. That leadership depends on a willingness to pay

the costs of achieving it.

Ibid, p. 211

First, the commission is chartered to provide a sweeping assessment of the future of space. Included in that assessment is a review of United States capabilities, goals, and uses for space, including the state of our Nation's investment in launch capabilities, how space could benefit State and local governments and regions, and the role of non-governmental, private organizations in the promotion of our space endeavors. The review will also take up the difficult issues related to public and private investment: the role of private institutions in the development and use of space and the business conditions they must meet; how Federal Government programs in space science, exploration, national security, and public safety support or limit the commercial development of space; and how space contributes to the terrestrial economy of the United States.

Given the high cost of space, and the even higher costs of space that the Nation is certain to experience in the near and long-term future, resolution of these questions of private versus public participation and promotion of the development of space is a necessary part of the examination of possible technological and economic futures for the space sector of the economy.

Second, and most importantly, the National Space Commission Act is directed to perform a comprehensive assessment and inventorying of the Nation's programs and practices related to the conduct and safety of space flight. This study will assess the state of the Nation's acceptance, approval, and commercial licensing practices as they relate to the conduct of civil, commercial, and military space flight and explore how space launch and high-risk space operations are conducted across each of these sectors. This study is intended to result in a series of recommendations about the future management of space launch and high-risk orbital and sub-orbital space operations in order to achieve the highest level of safety and management of these risks. To those who question the importance of establishing an authority independent of NASA to assess these provisions, the Columbia Accident Investigation board stated the case most convincingly:

(NASA) cultural norms tend to be fairly resilient . . . The

norms bounce back into shape after being stretched or bent.

Beliefs held in common throughout the organization resist

alteration.

Ibid, p. 101

Within NASA, the cultural impediments to safe and effective

Shuttle operations are real and substantial . . . Leadership

will have to rid the system of practices and patterns that

have been validated simply because they have been around so

long . . . These recommendations will be difficult to

initiate, and they will encounter some degree of

institutional resistance.

Ibid. p. 209

NASA's blind spot is it believes it has a strong safety

culture . . . Twice in NASA history, the agency embarked on a

slippery slope that resulted in catastrophe . . . A safety

team must have equal and independent representation so that

managers are not again lulled into complacency by shifting

definitions of risk.

Ibid, p. 203

Since NASA is an independent agency answerable only to the

White House and Congress, the ultimate responsibility for

enforcement of the recommended corrective actions must reside

with those governmental authorities.

Ibid, p. 209

The National Space Commission is established on a permanent basis to maintain oversight of the implementation of space flight across all sectors of industry and government and vigilance in the management of safety in all United States high-risk space operations.

Let me reiterate. Merely announcing a bold new plan to travel to the Earth's Moon or to Mars is not sufficient. If the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia merely results in that proposal, we will have failed the memory of our brave astronauts who lost their lives aboard both Challenger and Columbia. And we will have failed our own future. Unfortunately, our current charge is more difficult. We must challenge our assumptions, question our decisions and designs, revisit our approaches, and rethink our Nation's ambitions and goals for space. We must submit ourselves to the discipline to begin anew. The future of space and our Nation's reputation that we carry into history rests in the balance.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an article from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes, this time coming from the time previously allotted to Senator Kennedy.

I thank the distinguished Chair.

Mr. President, I come to acknowledge my ``Cambodian moment'' in the Iraq war. I refer to the Cambodian moment that Senator Mansfield experienced after years and years of opposing the war in Vietnam. He had a practice of taking written memoranda time and again to both Presidents Johnson and Nixon, supporting the President openly on the floor of the Senate, but finally at the time Cambodia was invaded under President Nixon, he could not take it any longer and spoke out.

He went on national TV and said: This war was a mistake from the get go. The next day, he got a letter from an admirer who had just lost her son. She said: I just buried my son and came home and watched you on this program. You said it was a mistake from the get go. Why didn't you speak out sooner?

She said: My regret is that you did not speak out sooner or loudly enough for me to hear.

It is time we speak out, because unless we are going to put in 100,000 or 150,000 more United States troops and get law and order in Iraq, in Baghdad, we are going to have operation meat grinder continue, and it is our meat.

In conscience, I cannot stand silent any longer. What happens if we had invaded the city of Atlanta, let's say. We had landed at Hartsfield Airport, and then we had gone on to an aircraft carrier and said: Whoopee, mission accomplished; when the truth of the matter is, two divisions of Republican Guards have blended into the environs of Atlanta with all kind of ammunition dumps, and all they do day in and day out is raid the dumps, set traps, blow us up, kill more Americans, and we talk about schools opening and hospitals working, and that we have a water system. This cannot go on. It has to stop.

Let me start by saying I believe, unlike most of my colleagues, that the intelligence we had on Iraq was sound. We knew from the outset a lot about Iraq in the sense we had conquered it and we had two overflights, one in the north and one in the south. We had to look down and see in the middle of Iraq. For 10 years we knew exactly what was going on. If we had any doubts, we could check with the Israeli intelligence. Don't tell me Israel didn't have good intelligence on nuclear weapons because she went in there back in the eighties--she is a small country and can't play games and can't wait around for the United Nations and conferences. She had to knock that facility out.

What else did we know about Iraq? We knew they didn't have terrorists there at the time. Oh, yes, while we are

trying to internationalize a defense effort, what we find is, our effort is more or less internationalizing terrorism.

The most ridiculous thing on the TV last night was to hear the President say foreigners are in Iraq killing our soldiers. Can you imagine us, thousands of miles away, talking about foreigners killing our soldiers? Come on. What happened was, it did not have terrorists at the time we went in. They tried to connect al-Qaida to Iraq, but now the President himself has acknowledged you couldn't connect al-Qaida. They didn't have nuclear capability. And, of course, there was no democracy. There weren't people yearning for it, as Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz said, meeting us in the streets waving: Whoopee, we finally got democracy.

Anybody who knows the history of the Mideast knows that is a bunch of nonsense. They don't have democracy in Iraq, in Syria, in Iran, in Jordan, in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, in Libya--or go right around--Libya, in the Mideast. Where does somebody think they are going to meet us in the streets and say: Whoopee for democracy?

I wish the distinguished Chair would pay attention to this one. What did George Herbert Walker Bush, the former President, say in his book, ``A World Transformed''?

I firmly believed that we should not march into Baghdad. .

. . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition,

turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken

tyrant into a latter day Arab hero.

. . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a

securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in

what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.

That is what President George Herbert Walker Bush, the President's daddy, said.

We all knew that about Iraq. But why did we go in and why did the Senator from South Carolina vote for the resolution last October? Why? I can tell my colleagues why. On August 7, Vice President Cheney, speaking in California, said of Saddam Hussein: What we know now from various sources is that he continues to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Then on September 8: We do know with absolute certainty that he is attempting to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

Then the President of the United States himself said, in his weekly address on September 14, before we voted in October: Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.

Then on September 24, Prime Minister Blair said that the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

On September 8 of last year, Condoleezza Rice said that we do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

On October 7, President Bush said: Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Now, any reasonable, sober, mature, experienced individual listening to that litany knows to vote against that resolution would have been pure folly. One has to back the President.

I am not on the Intelligence Committee. I was not privy to any kind of intelligence but I knew we had a lot of intelligence. The truth is, I thought the Israeli intelligence was really furnishing all of this information and that we were going in this time for our little friend Israel. Instead of them being blamed, we could finish up what Desert Storm had left undone; namely, getting rid of Saddam and getting rid of nuclear at the same time.

I voted for the resolution. I was misled. Now we hear that this is not Vietnam. I read my friends Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman. They say this is not a Vietnam.

The heck it is not. This crowd has got historical amnesia. There is no education in the second kick of a mule. This was a bad mistake. We were mislead. We are in there now, and I am hearing the same things that the Senator heard in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 right on through 1973.

At the time I was a young politician, having just come to the Senate, listening to those who knew. I knew Leader Mansfield would know about Vietnam. I knew my friend Senator Dick Russell was against the war in Vietnam from the get-go. Now, if Senator Mansfield had spoken up, he could have saved 10,000 lives. We would have followed him in the Senate. But he was trying to follow the mistake and the misread of Maddox and the Turner joy that brought about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

There are similarities. There are the misleading statements that I have just given, the litany by the President telling us all there was reconstituted nuclear. Here again we are in a guerilla war. It is an urban guerilla war, not in the bushes of Vietnam but we still again are trying to win the hearts and minds.

We were trying to victimize Vietnam. In this one we are trying to Iraqi Iraq. We are trying to do our best doing the same things over and over again. In fact, in this particular war we received the Pentagon papers a lot earlier. I ask unanimous consent that this article in USA Today entitled ``Defense Memo: A Grim Outlook,'' by Secretary Rumsfeld, be printed in the Record at this particular point.

Mr. President, I do not know how many more similarities

we are going to get. Iraq is Vietnam all over for the Senator from South Carolina.

Now we have to either put the troops in there or else get out as soon as we can. I take it the present plan is to Iraqi Iraq; namely, train up a bunch of folks together, give them high pay. They have 70-percent unemployment so they will all grab and get a uniform and act as if they are security, but that will give us a cover and face to leave and leave as soon as we can, unless we are going to put the troops in there and get law and order.

What we have done is come into Iraq against the military requirements of taking the city. We just stopped at the airport and declared mission accomplished, and look around and wonder and say this is part of the war on terror.

This is not and was not a part of the war on terror. Yes, there are terrorists in there now, but Iraq was not a part of the war on terror. It was quiet. It was not bothering anybody. They did not have al-Qaida. They did not have nuclear capabilities. They were not connected in any way to 9/11. We went in there under a mislead.

We learned in World War II that no matter how well the gun was aimed, if the recoil is going to kill the guncrew one does not fire the gun.

Yes, it was a good aim to get Saddam but now look at the headline. I ask unanimous consent to include this particular article from the Financial Times, ``Al-Qaida Exploits Insecurity in Iraq to Acquire Weapons and Swell Its Ranks.''

I thank the distinguished Chair. We now have more terrorism than less terrorism. That is the fact. We have the entire world turned against us. When we cannot get Mexico and Canada to go along with us, we are in trouble.

I am hopeful the United States will win back the hearts and minds of the world's people, because we were always loved, respected, and looked up to for leadership.

In this particular venture what we have done is exactly what President George Herbert Walker Bush warned against. He said to watch out; do not go into that place. I quote again, now that my distinguished friend is here. I want that particular quote to appear in the Record again. He said in his book ``A World Transformed'':

I firmly believe that we should not march into Baghdad. To

occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning

the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into

a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a

fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and

condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban

guerrilla war.

Iraq is Vietnam all over again. I know the distinguished Senator from Alaska revered our friend Senator Mansfield. I will never forget when Senator Mansfield said all Senators are equal, and when they rolled the Senator from Alaska on a particular matter he was concerned with, he, himself--that is Leader Mansfield--got up, took the floor, and put Alaska's amendments up and we passed them.

So Senator Mansfield took some 5 years and 17 memos to Presidents before he finally changed his mind and spoke. That is exactly where I am today as I enter this particular debate with respect to the supplemental. I would oppose the supplemental on one score, namely we will not pay for it. We tell that poor GI, downtown in Baghdad, we hope you don't get killed, and the reason we hope you don't get killed is because we want you to hurry back. We want you to hurry back so we can give you the bill because we are not going to pay for it. We in the Congress, my generation, we need a tax cut so we can get reelected next year. We are not going to pay for it.

This is the first war in the history of the United States where there is no sacrifice on the homefront. They all run around the mulberry bush here saying ``it's not Vietnam'' and that we have to stay.

We either have to get in or get out. We can't stand for operation meat grinder to continue day in and day out.

In a war on terror, I just want the administration to know that might does not make right. On the contrary, right makes might. Winning the hearts and minds of the world's peoples, I can tell you here and now, we have to get right on our policy in the Mideast. We all back Israel, but we don't back the taking over of these settlements. If you have been a conquered people--and I read where the distinguished Senator from Alaska went down into those areas for the first time in Israel-- for 35 years you have looked not only for your light and water but your jobs up in Israel. Anybody with any get-up-and-go has gotten up and gone, after 35 years. You have the disenchanted. They don't have an army or anything else like that. So don't be amazed. You have to play it with an even hand.

Might makes right in this terror war. We got onto this Iraqi venture, which was a bad mistake from the very beginning. There is not any question about it. If I went to a funeral this afternoon of a fallen soldier in Iraq, what would I say? Did they fall there for democracy? They are not going to have a democracy. It is going to be the Shiite democracy, like they have in Iran--at best. That is exactly what Secretary Rumsfeld said we were not going to have.

Was it for nuclear? No.

Was it for terrorists? No, they didn't have terrorists there.

Your son gave his life for what? As their Senator, I am embarrassed. It wasn't for any of those things. Why we went in, the administration has yet to tell us. They keep changing the rules and the goalposts every time. But somehow, somewhere they have to really put the force in there, quit trying to do it on the cheap, put the force in there and clean out that city, so they will quit killing them, or otherwise get out as fast as we can.

I thank the distinguished Chair.

Mr. President, this Congress has worked towards providing the brave men and women who fight fires the funds and material to better perform their crucial tasks. We all saw brave members of the fire service sacrifice their lives to rescue people from the World Trade Center. But we do not see firefighters in every town in America risking their lives every day to save lives and homes from the ravages of fire. I lost a home to a severe fire, and I saw the herculean efforts of my local firefighters to save it. Too many people die or suffer grievous injuries from home fires. During a recent visit with the firefighters from my home State of South Carolina, they told me that in spite of their best efforts, nearly 40 people die each year from home fires.

In my conversations with fire services across the country, I hear two things. First, the departments need funds for equipment and training. With the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement grant program, we are on our way to getting these people the resources they need to do their job. There is more work to do, but this grant program is a start. Second, and most troubling, is that the best-equipped and best-trained fire departments cannot out race most home fires.

A recent FEMA-commissioned study from the National Fire Protection Association reported that 65 percent of our fire departments cannot respond within 4 minutes of receiving an alarm. The fire that engulfed the nightclub in Rhode Island is an unfortunate example of what we are dealing with in regard to fire fighting and fire safety. The fire department arrived within 5 minutes of the fire starting, which is exceptionally fast, yet 100 people died that night. Most of them died within 2 minutes of the fire starting.

Addressing the equipment and training of the fire service is one very important component to fighting fires. We've begun to address this need in recent years with the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement

(FIRE) Act, which I co-sponsored and helped move through the Commerce Committee in 2000. This established the FIRE grants that have helped local fire departments across the country acquire the equipment and training to improve their operations. I've also worked with Senator Chris Dodd, D-CT, on the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Act, which would provide the funding to hire 75,000 new firefighters. The legislation is modeled on the success of the COPS program.

But the soundproofing materials that fed that fire in Rhode Island are identical to ingredients used in furniture in our homes. Indeed, the majority of fire deaths occur in homes. So we must address the underlying causes of home fires, the fuel that feeds them. We need to reduce the ignition potential of household items.

In 1998, residential fires killed 2,660 Americans, and injured 15,260. Senior citizens over 70 and children under 5 are at the greatest risk of dying in a fire; children under the age of 10 accounted for 17 percent of fire-related deaths in 1996. Fires also cause $3.5 billion in residential property loss each year.

It is in this context that Senators John Breaux, D-LA, Olympia Snowe, R-ME, Barbara Boxer, D-CA, Byron Dorgan, D-ND, Lindsey Graham, R-SC and I introduce the American Home Fire Safety Act. The Act would establish minimum combustibility standards for mattresses, upholstered furniture, candles and bed clothing. American manufacturers already have cost- effective technology to improve the safety of these products, and are ready to make products that meet the higher standards.

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission already has the authority to set fire safety standards for these products. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that new standards would save lives, the Commission has been slow to address this issue. There are some who ask for more time for the Commission to work on this issue. More than 20 years have passed since the Commission has addressed product fire safety. There is no more time to waste.

We have taken great care to select standards that were developed with the best available science and broad input from scientists at NIST and ASTM, fire safety officials, industry and consumers. The Act explicitly asks the EPA to ensure that nothing done in the pursuit of fire safety would harm Americans in other ways. The standards in the Act will improve safety and over time will save many lives.

Companies have the technology right now to address fire safety in an economically responsible way. The number of lives we lose now to home fires can be dramatically reduced by the standards in this legislation. I ask for your support in making this a reality.

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

Mr. President, this Congress has worked towards providing the brave men and women who fight fires the funds and material to better perform their crucial tasks. We all saw brave members of the fire service sacrifice their lives to rescue people from the World Trade Center. But we do not see firefighters in every town in America risking their lives every day to save lives and homes from the ravages of fire. I lost a home to a severe fire, and I saw the herculean efforts of my local firefighters to save it. Too many people die or suffer grievous injuries from home fires. During a recent visit with the firefighters from my home State of South Carolina, they told me that in spite of their best efforts, nearly 40 people die each year from home fires.

In my conversations with fire services across the country, I hear two things. First, the departments need funds for equipment and training. With the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement grant program, we are on our way to getting these people the resources they need to do their job. There is more work to do, but this grant program is a start. Second, and most troubling, is that the best-equipped and best-trained fire departments cannot out race most home fires.

A recent FEMA-commissioned study from the National Fire Protection Association reported that 65 percent of our fire departments cannot respond within 4 minutes of receiving an alarm. The fire that engulfed the nightclub in Rhode Island is an unfortunate example of what we are dealing with in regard to fire fighting and fire safety. The fire department arrived within 5 minutes of the fire starting, which is exceptionally fast, yet 100 people died that night. Most of them died within 2 minutes of the fire starting.

Addressing the equipment and training of the fire service is one very important component to fighting fires. We've begun to address this need in recent years with the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement

(FIRE) Act, which I co-sponsored and helped move through the Commerce Committee in 2000. This established the FIRE grants that have helped local fire departments across the country acquire the equipment and training to improve their operations. I've also worked with Senator Chris Dodd, D-CT, on the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Act, which would provide the funding to hire 75,000 new firefighters. The legislation is modeled on the success of the COPS program.

But the soundproofing materials that fed that fire in Rhode Island are identical to ingredients used in furniture in our homes. Indeed, the majority of fire deaths occur in homes. So we must address the underlying causes of home fires, the fuel that feeds them. We need to reduce the ignition potential of household items.

In 1998, residential fires killed 2,660 Americans, and injured 15,260. Senior citizens over 70 and children under 5 are at the greatest risk of dying in a fire; children under the age of 10 accounted for 17 percent of fire-related deaths in 1996. Fires also cause $3.5 billion in residential property loss each year.

It is in this context that Senators John Breaux, D-LA, Olympia Snowe, R-ME, Barbara Boxer, D-CA, Byron Dorgan, D-ND, Lindsey Graham, R-SC and I introduce the American Home Fire Safety Act. The Act would establish minimum combustibility standards for mattresses, upholstered furniture, candles and bed clothing. American manufacturers already have cost- effective technology to improve the safety of these products, and are ready to make products that meet the higher standards.

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission already has the authority to set fire safety standards for these products. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence that new standards would save lives, the Commission has been slow to address this issue. There are some who ask for more time for the Commission to work on this issue. More than 20 years have passed since the Commission has addressed product fire safety. There is no more time to waste.

We have taken great care to select standards that were developed with the best available science and broad input from scientists at NIST and ASTM, fire safety officials, industry and consumers. The Act explicitly asks the EPA to ensure that nothing done in the pursuit of fire safety would harm Americans in other ways. The standards in the Act will improve safety and over time will save many lives.

Companies have the technology right now to address fire safety in an economically responsible way. The number of lives we lose now to home fires can be dramatically reduced by the standards in this legislation. I ask for your support in making this a reality.

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