Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. This legislation arises out of a hearing Senator Grassley and I held in the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control in December 2001 on the proliferation of Ecstasy and other club drugs generally, and the role of some promoters of all-night dance parties, known as ``raves'', in distributing Ecstasy to young people. Our bill provides Federal prosecutors the tools needed to combat the manufacture, distribution or use of any controlled substance at any venue whose purpose is to engage in illegal narcotics activity. Rather than create a new law, our bill merely amends a well-established statute to make clear that anyone who knowingly and intentionally uses their property, or allows another person to use their property, for the purpose of distributing or manufacturing or using illegal drugs can be held accountable, regardless of whether the drug use is ongoing or occurs at a single event.

While my legislation is aimed at the defendant's predatory behavior, regardless of the type of drug or the particular place in which it is being used or distributed, one problem that we are facing currently involves so-called ``club drugs'' and raves. According to a report which the Partnership for a Drug Free America will release in the near future, teens who report attending a rave are seven times more likely to have tried Ecstasy than teens who report not attending a rave. I find this statistic quite troubling.

Despite the conventional wisdom that Ecstasy and other club drugs are ``no big deal,'' a view that even the New York Times Magazine espoused in a cover story, these drugs can have serious consequences, and can even be fatal. Just last month we got some encouraging news: after years of steady increase, Ecstasy use is finally beginning to decrease among teens. That said, the rate of use remains unacceptably high and we still have quite a bit of work to do to counter the widespread misconception that Ecstacy is harmless, fashionable and hip.

At the Drug Caucus hearing, witnesses testified that rogue rave organizers commonly go to great lengths to portray their events as safe so that parents will allow their kids to attend. They advertise their parties as alcohol-free events and some even hire off-duty police officers to patrol outside the venue. But the truth is that some of these raves are drug dens where use of Ecstasy and other ``club drugs'', such as the date rape drugs Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine, is widespread.

But even as these promoters work to make parents think that their events are safe, they send a different message to kids. Their promotional flyers make clear that drugs are an integral part of the party by prominently featuring terms associated with drug use, such as the letters ``E'' or ``X''--street terms for Ecstasy, or the term ``rollin''', which refers to an Ecstasy high. They are, in effect, promoting Ecstasy along with the rave.

By doing so, unscrupulous promoters get rich as they exploit and endanger kids. Some supplement their profits from the $10 to $50 cover charge to enter the club by selling popular Ecstasy paraphernalia such as baby pacifiers, glow sticks, or mentholated inhalers. And predatory party organizers know that Ecstasy raises the core body temperature and makes the user extremely thirsty, so they sell bottles of water for $5 or $10 apiece. Some even shut off the water faucets so club goers will be forced to buy water or pay admission to enter an air-conditioned ``cool down room.''

After the death of a 17-year-old girl at a rave party in New Orleans in 1998, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted an assessment of rave activity in that city which showed the close relationship between these parties and club drug overdoses. In a two year period, 52 raves were held at the New Orleans State Palace Theater, during which time approximately 400 teenagers overdosed and were treated at local emergency rooms. Following ``Operation Rave Review'' which resulted in the arrest of several rave promoters and closing the city's largest rave, overdoses and emergency room visits dropped by 90 percent and Ecstasy overdoses were eliminated.

State and local governments have begun to take important steps to crack down on rave promoters who allow their events to be used as havens for illicit drug activity. In Chicago, where Mayor Daley has shown great leadership on this issue, it is a criminal offense to knowingly maintain a place, such as a rave, where controlled substances are used or distributed. Not only the promoter, but also the building owner and building manager can be

charged under Mayor Daley's law. The State of Florida has a similar statute making such activity a felony.

And in Modesto, California, police officers are offering ``rave training classes'' to parents to educate them about the dangers associated with some raves and the club drugs often associated with them.

At the Federal level, there have been four cases in which Federal prosecutors have used the so called ``crack house statute'' or other Federal charges to go after rogue rave promoters. These cases, in Little Rock, AR, Boise, ID, Panama City, FL, and New Orleans, LA, have had mixed results, culminating in two wins, a loss and a draw, suggesting that there may be a need to tailor this Federal statute more precisely to the problem at hand. As a result, last session I proposed legislation which would do just that. I am reintroducing it today and I am pleased to have Senator Grassley once again as the lead cosponsor. I might note that the legislation is also included in the Democratic leadership crime bill.

After I introduced this legislation last year, a great deal of misinformation began circulating about it. I want to make the record clear. Simply stated, my bill provides technical corrections to an existing statute, one which has been on the books for 16 years and is well established.

Critics of my bill have asserted that if the legislation were to become law ``there would be no way that someone could hold a concert and not be liable'' and that the bill ``holds the owners and the promoters responsible for the actions of the patrons.'' That is simply untrue. We know that there will always be certain people who will bring drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of activity that my bill would address. The purpose of my legislation is not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities and other venues because of incidental drug use at their events. In fact, when crafting this legislation, I took steps to ensure that it did not capture such cases. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a high bar.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Coalition of Licensed Beverage Associations, COLBA, be printed at the end of my statement. COLBA, who initially expressed concerns that my bill would make their members liable for the actions of their patrons, has endorsed my legislation because they realized that my bill was not aimed at responsible party promoters.

I am confident that the overwhelming majority of promoters are decent, law abiding people who are going to discourage drug use, or any other illegal activity, at their venues. But there are a few promoters out there who are taking steps to profit from drug activity at their events. Some of these folks actually distribute drugs themselves or have their staff distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales at their events, have thinly veiled drug messages on their promotional flyers, tell their security to ignore drug use or sales, or send patients who need medical attention because of a drug overdose to a hospital across town so that people won't link emergency room visits with their club. What they are doing is illegal under current law. My bill would not change that fact. Let me be clear. Neither current law nor my bill seeks to punish a promoter for the behavior of their patrons. As I mentioned, the underlying crack house statute has been on the books since 1986, and I am unaware of this statute ever being used to prosecute a legitimate business.

The legislation simply amends the current ``crack house statute'' in two minor ways. First, it clarifies that Congress intended for the law to apply not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but to ``single-event'' activities, such as a party where the promoter sponsors the event with the purpose of distributing Ecstasy or other illegal drugs. After all, a drug dealer can be arrested and prosecuted for selling one bag of drugs, and the government need not show that the dealer is selling day after day, or to multiple sellers. Likewise, the bill clarifies that a ``one-time'' event where the promoter knowingly distributes Ecstasy over the course of an evening, for example, violates the statute the same as a crack house which is in operation over a period of time. Second, the bill makes the law apply to outdoor as well as indoor venues, such as where a rogue rave promoter uses a field to hold a rave for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Those are the only changes the bill makes to the crack house statute. It does not give the Federal Government sweeping new powers as the detractors have asserted.

Critics of the bill have also claimed that it would provide a disincentive for promoters to take steps to protect the public health of their patrons including providing water or air conditioned rooms, making sure that there is an ambulance on the premises, etc. That is not my intention. And to underscore that fact, I plan to remove the findings, which is the only place in the bill where these items are mentioned, from the bill. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for selling water, having a room where people can cool down after dancing, or having an ambulance on hand. Clearly, the presence of any of these things is not enough to signify that an event is ``for the purpose of'' drug use.

The reason that I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill the ``rave scene'' or silence electronic music, all things of which I have been accused. Although this legislation grew out of testimony I heard at a number of hearings about the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertised as places for people to come dance in a safe, drug-free environment then they have nothing to fear from this law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids.

Last year people criticized the bill's title, the ``RAVE Act'', because they thought it was unfairly targeting raves. Although I do not believe that I was unfairly targeting anybody, I have changed the title to the ``Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003.''

In addition to amending the crack house statute, the legislation also addresses the low penalties for trafficking gamma hydroxybutyric acid, GHB, by directing the United States Sentencing Commission to examine the current penalties and consider increasing them to reflect the seriousness of offenses involving GHB. Currently, GHB penalties are simply too low. In order to get five years for a GHB offense, you have to have more than 13 gallons of the drug, equivalent to 100,000 doses and a street value of about $1 million. According to the DEA, big-time GHB dealers distribute approximately one gallon quantities of the drug, the penalty for which is currently only between 15 and 21 months. These cases simply aren't being prosecuted at the Federal level because the penalties are so low. The Sentencing Commission needs to take a look at this problem and consider raising the penalties for this dangerous drug.

But the answer to the problem of drug use at raves is not simply to prosecute irresponsible rave promoters and those who distribute drugs. There is also a responsibility to raise awareness among parents, teachers, students, coaches, religious leaders, etc. about the dangers of the drugs used and sold at raves. The DEA is already doing some of this through its club drug awareness campaign, where DEA agents are holding conferences with local women legislators to get information out about the dangers of these substances. The legislation provides funds to the DEA to continue this important work. Further, the bill authorizes nearly $6 million for the DEA to hire a Demand Reduction Coordinator in each state who can work with communities following the arrest of a significant local trafficker to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and treatment programs.

It is the unfortunate truth that some raves are havens for illicit drugs. Enacting the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act will help to prosecute the promoters who seek to profit from exploiting and endangering young lives and

will take steps to educate youth, parents and other interested adults about the dangers of Ecstasy and other club drugs associated with raves.

I hope that my colleagues will join me and support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. This legislation arises out of a hearing Senator Grassley and I held in the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control in December 2001 on the proliferation of Ecstasy and other club drugs generally, and the role of some promoters of all-night dance parties, known as ``raves'', in distributing Ecstasy to young people. Our bill provides Federal prosecutors the tools needed to combat the manufacture, distribution or use of any controlled substance at any venue whose purpose is to engage in illegal narcotics activity. Rather than create a new law, our bill merely amends a well-established statute to make clear that anyone who knowingly and intentionally uses their property, or allows another person to use their property, for the purpose of distributing or manufacturing or using illegal drugs can be held accountable, regardless of whether the drug use is ongoing or occurs at a single event.

While my legislation is aimed at the defendant's predatory behavior, regardless of the type of drug or the particular place in which it is being used or distributed, one problem that we are facing currently involves so-called ``club drugs'' and raves. According to a report which the Partnership for a Drug Free America will release in the near future, teens who report attending a rave are seven times more likely to have tried Ecstasy than teens who report not attending a rave. I find this statistic quite troubling.

Despite the conventional wisdom that Ecstasy and other club drugs are ``no big deal,'' a view that even the New York Times Magazine espoused in a cover story, these drugs can have serious consequences, and can even be fatal. Just last month we got some encouraging news: after years of steady increase, Ecstasy use is finally beginning to decrease among teens. That said, the rate of use remains unacceptably high and we still have quite a bit of work to do to counter the widespread misconception that Ecstacy is harmless, fashionable and hip.

At the Drug Caucus hearing, witnesses testified that rogue rave organizers commonly go to great lengths to portray their events as safe so that parents will allow their kids to attend. They advertise their parties as alcohol-free events and some even hire off-duty police officers to patrol outside the venue. But the truth is that some of these raves are drug dens where use of Ecstasy and other ``club drugs'', such as the date rape drugs Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine, is widespread.

But even as these promoters work to make parents think that their events are safe, they send a different message to kids. Their promotional flyers make clear that drugs are an integral part of the party by prominently featuring terms associated with drug use, such as the letters ``E'' or ``X''--street terms for Ecstasy, or the term ``rollin''', which refers to an Ecstasy high. They are, in effect, promoting Ecstasy along with the rave.

By doing so, unscrupulous promoters get rich as they exploit and endanger kids. Some supplement their profits from the $10 to $50 cover charge to enter the club by selling popular Ecstasy paraphernalia such as baby pacifiers, glow sticks, or mentholated inhalers. And predatory party organizers know that Ecstasy raises the core body temperature and makes the user extremely thirsty, so they sell bottles of water for $5 or $10 apiece. Some even shut off the water faucets so club goers will be forced to buy water or pay admission to enter an air-conditioned ``cool down room.''

After the death of a 17-year-old girl at a rave party in New Orleans in 1998, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted an assessment of rave activity in that city which showed the close relationship between these parties and club drug overdoses. In a two year period, 52 raves were held at the New Orleans State Palace Theater, during which time approximately 400 teenagers overdosed and were treated at local emergency rooms. Following ``Operation Rave Review'' which resulted in the arrest of several rave promoters and closing the city's largest rave, overdoses and emergency room visits dropped by 90 percent and Ecstasy overdoses were eliminated.

State and local governments have begun to take important steps to crack down on rave promoters who allow their events to be used as havens for illicit drug activity. In Chicago, where Mayor Daley has shown great leadership on this issue, it is a criminal offense to knowingly maintain a place, such as a rave, where controlled substances are used or distributed. Not only the promoter, but also the building owner and building manager can be

charged under Mayor Daley's law. The State of Florida has a similar statute making such activity a felony.

And in Modesto, California, police officers are offering ``rave training classes'' to parents to educate them about the dangers associated with some raves and the club drugs often associated with them.

At the Federal level, there have been four cases in which Federal prosecutors have used the so called ``crack house statute'' or other Federal charges to go after rogue rave promoters. These cases, in Little Rock, AR, Boise, ID, Panama City, FL, and New Orleans, LA, have had mixed results, culminating in two wins, a loss and a draw, suggesting that there may be a need to tailor this Federal statute more precisely to the problem at hand. As a result, last session I proposed legislation which would do just that. I am reintroducing it today and I am pleased to have Senator Grassley once again as the lead cosponsor. I might note that the legislation is also included in the Democratic leadership crime bill.

After I introduced this legislation last year, a great deal of misinformation began circulating about it. I want to make the record clear. Simply stated, my bill provides technical corrections to an existing statute, one which has been on the books for 16 years and is well established.

Critics of my bill have asserted that if the legislation were to become law ``there would be no way that someone could hold a concert and not be liable'' and that the bill ``holds the owners and the promoters responsible for the actions of the patrons.'' That is simply untrue. We know that there will always be certain people who will bring drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of activity that my bill would address. The purpose of my legislation is not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities and other venues because of incidental drug use at their events. In fact, when crafting this legislation, I took steps to ensure that it did not capture such cases. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a high bar.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Coalition of Licensed Beverage Associations, COLBA, be printed at the end of my statement. COLBA, who initially expressed concerns that my bill would make their members liable for the actions of their patrons, has endorsed my legislation because they realized that my bill was not aimed at responsible party promoters.

I am confident that the overwhelming majority of promoters are decent, law abiding people who are going to discourage drug use, or any other illegal activity, at their venues. But there are a few promoters out there who are taking steps to profit from drug activity at their events. Some of these folks actually distribute drugs themselves or have their staff distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales at their events, have thinly veiled drug messages on their promotional flyers, tell their security to ignore drug use or sales, or send patients who need medical attention because of a drug overdose to a hospital across town so that people won't link emergency room visits with their club. What they are doing is illegal under current law. My bill would not change that fact. Let me be clear. Neither current law nor my bill seeks to punish a promoter for the behavior of their patrons. As I mentioned, the underlying crack house statute has been on the books since 1986, and I am unaware of this statute ever being used to prosecute a legitimate business.

The legislation simply amends the current ``crack house statute'' in two minor ways. First, it clarifies that Congress intended for the law to apply not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but to ``single-event'' activities, such as a party where the promoter sponsors the event with the purpose of distributing Ecstasy or other illegal drugs. After all, a drug dealer can be arrested and prosecuted for selling one bag of drugs, and the government need not show that the dealer is selling day after day, or to multiple sellers. Likewise, the bill clarifies that a ``one-time'' event where the promoter knowingly distributes Ecstasy over the course of an evening, for example, violates the statute the same as a crack house which is in operation over a period of time. Second, the bill makes the law apply to outdoor as well as indoor venues, such as where a rogue rave promoter uses a field to hold a rave for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Those are the only changes the bill makes to the crack house statute. It does not give the Federal Government sweeping new powers as the detractors have asserted.

Critics of the bill have also claimed that it would provide a disincentive for promoters to take steps to protect the public health of their patrons including providing water or air conditioned rooms, making sure that there is an ambulance on the premises, etc. That is not my intention. And to underscore that fact, I plan to remove the findings, which is the only place in the bill where these items are mentioned, from the bill. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for selling water, having a room where people can cool down after dancing, or having an ambulance on hand. Clearly, the presence of any of these things is not enough to signify that an event is ``for the purpose of'' drug use.

The reason that I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill the ``rave scene'' or silence electronic music, all things of which I have been accused. Although this legislation grew out of testimony I heard at a number of hearings about the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertised as places for people to come dance in a safe, drug-free environment then they have nothing to fear from this law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids.

Last year people criticized the bill's title, the ``RAVE Act'', because they thought it was unfairly targeting raves. Although I do not believe that I was unfairly targeting anybody, I have changed the title to the ``Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003.''

In addition to amending the crack house statute, the legislation also addresses the low penalties for trafficking gamma hydroxybutyric acid, GHB, by directing the United States Sentencing Commission to examine the current penalties and consider increasing them to reflect the seriousness of offenses involving GHB. Currently, GHB penalties are simply too low. In order to get five years for a GHB offense, you have to have more than 13 gallons of the drug, equivalent to 100,000 doses and a street value of about $1 million. According to the DEA, big-time GHB dealers distribute approximately one gallon quantities of the drug, the penalty for which is currently only between 15 and 21 months. These cases simply aren't being prosecuted at the Federal level because the penalties are so low. The Sentencing Commission needs to take a look at this problem and consider raising the penalties for this dangerous drug.

But the answer to the problem of drug use at raves is not simply to prosecute irresponsible rave promoters and those who distribute drugs. There is also a responsibility to raise awareness among parents, teachers, students, coaches, religious leaders, etc. about the dangers of the drugs used and sold at raves. The DEA is already doing some of this through its club drug awareness campaign, where DEA agents are holding conferences with local women legislators to get information out about the dangers of these substances. The legislation provides funds to the DEA to continue this important work. Further, the bill authorizes nearly $6 million for the DEA to hire a Demand Reduction Coordinator in each state who can work with communities following the arrest of a significant local trafficker to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and treatment programs.

It is the unfortunate truth that some raves are havens for illicit drugs. Enacting the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act will help to prosecute the promoters who seek to profit from exploiting and endangering young lives and

will take steps to educate youth, parents and other interested adults about the dangers of Ecstasy and other club drugs associated with raves.

I hope that my colleagues will join me and support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about a deadly attack that occurred last August in West Papua, Indonesia, and to call on the Government of Indonesia to cooperate fully with U.S. law enforcement authorities to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.

Ted Burgon of Oregon and Rick Spier of Colorado were gunned down along with an Indonesian, Bambang Riwanto. Eight Americans were injured: Nancy Burgon, Saundra Hopkins, Ken Balk, and Taia Hopkins, all of Oregon, Patsy Spier of Colorado, Francine Goodfriend of Illinois, Steven Emma of Florida, and Lynn Poston, of Washington State.

The victims, school teachers from the International School and their

families, were associated with the Freeport-McMoran mine in West Papua.

I speak to this issue because the bill before us restores funding for International Military Education and Training programs for Indonesia. Before we do that, I think we need some answers.

Mr. President, there is troubling evidence that members of the Indonesian military may have been behind the attack. It occurred less than half a mile from an Indonesian military outpost.

Hundreds of rounds were fired at the teachers and their vehicles during the ambush, which lasted 45 minutes, but the military was very slow to respond and failed to apprehend any of the assailants.

The Indonesian police promptly began an investigation. They collected evidence, interviewed witnesses, and reconstructed the ambush. The senior police official in charge said last December that there is evidence that soldiers from the army's strategic reserve force were involved in the shooting. This same senior police official also reported last November that a witness to the ambush reported seeing members of the Indonesian army's special forces participating in the attack.

The motive? The Army may have hoped to blame the murders on West Papuan rebels who have been fighting a low level insurgency for years seeking independence from Indonesia.

Bottom line: The police report on the murders concludes, quote: ``there is a strong possibility that the case was perpetrated by members of the Indonesian National Army Force, however, it still needs to be investigated further.''

Well, guess what happened? After they pointed the finger at the military, the two senior police officials on the case, General Raziman and Assistant Senior Police Commissioner Sumarjiyo were mysteriously transferred, removed from all responsibility for investigating the murders.

The investigation was handed over to the Indonesian military itself! Not surprisingly, the military concluded that the armed forces had nothing to do with the killings.

Mr. President, this is the same military that denied all culpability for gross violations of human rights over 25 years in East Timor and Aceh. The same military that has armed, trained, and protected militant Islamic groups associated with grotesque, religiously motivated attacks on innocent civilians elsewhere in Indonesia.

Mr. President, it is essential that the United States secure the full support of Indonesia--a nation of 200 million people, most of them Muslims--in the war on terrorism.

Indonesia itself has been the target of terrorists, as we witnessed last year in the terrible bombing on Bali that left hundreds dead and injured, many of them Australian tourists.

It is appropriate that in the wake of 9/11, the United States has sought ways to strengthen our ties to Indonesia, including considering the resumption of normal military training for the Indonesian Army. Civilian authorities in Jakarta and some officers within the military are trying to end the culture of impunity that has prevailed for the past 30 years. I think it is in our national interests to establish appropriate links to the Indonesian armed forces to improve their professionalism, enhance intelligence sharing, and help prevent future terrorist attacks in Indonesia or elsewhere.

But that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to continuing abuses by the Indonesian Army.

We will not be doing ourselves or the Indonesian people any favors if we ally ourselves with those who may themselves be responsible for criminal acts.

Before we jump to restore IMET funding for Indonesia, I hope that President Bush will give us his assurance that we are getting the full cooperation of Indonesian authorities. The FBI should have full access to all the evidence and to the witnesses to the attack. An independent investigation should be launched of the possible Indonesian military involvement.

These are American citizens we are talking about. Victims, perhaps, of a cynical effort to manipulate United States public opinion and convince our government to increase aid to the Indonesian armed forces as part of the war on terrorism. We need to get to the bottom of what happened.

Mr. President, on October 7, 2002, the President of the United States said something very important about United Nations inspections in Iraq. He said: ``Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections . . . will have to be very different. . . . To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country--and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.''

The President was right on the money about inspections. This is how to get the information the world needs on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Inspections are vital to stripping him of those banned weapons.

The United Nations responded properly to the President's challenge. On November 8, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441, which provided: . . . that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government.''

The inspectors are given unprecedented authority. But how are they to implement it? Where will those weapons scientists and their families go, once they've told the truth about Saddam's weapons programs? They can't go home again. And at least in the short run, there will be no safe haven in the region for people who reveal Saddam's most terrible secrets.

Maybe some can go to Europe, although both al Qaeda cells and Saddam's agents have operated there. Maybe some can go to Canada, or to South America.

If the United States wants the world to show resolve in dealing with Saddam Hussein, however, then we must take the lead in admitting those people who have the courage to betray Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological or missile programs. We have a large country in which to absorb those people, and, for all our problems, we have the best law enforcement and security apparatus to guard them.

What we do not have is an immigration system that readily admits large numbers of persons who were involved with weapons of mass destruction, have aided a country in the sop-called ``axis of evil,'' and are bringing their families. I introduced legislation last October, therefore, to admit to our country those personnel, and their families, who give critical and reliable information on Saddam's programs to us, to the United Nations, or to the International Atomic Energy Agency. On November 20, the Senate passed an amended version of that bill, S. 3079, with the strong support of the Administration; but there was not enough time for the House of Representatives to act on the legislation.

Two months have passed since inspections were resumed in Iraq. The new inspectors are gaining experience, as well as actionable intelligence from the United States and other countries. They are beginning to find unreported weapons; and every weapon destroyed is a weapon that will never be used to cause mass destruction or to attack U.S. forces.

But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction,

UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ``a defection agency,'' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The protests of those interviewed can actually be helpful, as they prevent Saddam from knowing which of his personnel may be willing to tell the truth once they and their families are given a secure environment.

The United States must help UNMOVIC and the IAEA to create that secure environment. So, today I am re-introducing the Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act.

I am joined by my esteemed colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who co-sponsored the original bill, and also by the chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee Senator Lugar of Indiana and Senator Hatch of Utah. I have been assured, moreover, that the Administration remains eager to see this bill enacted. This bill is not political. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort to help the President succeed in forcing Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

I urge my colleagues to support quick action on this legislation. Iraqis will not come forward unless we offer protection to them and their families. Those who are willing to provide truthful information will merit our protection. And their information will help disarm Saddam Hussein; it will save lives if we have to go to war; and it could even help us to disarm Saddam without a war.

Current law includes several means of either paroling non-immigrants into the United States or admitting people for permanent residence, notwithstanding their normal inadmissibility under the law. These are very limited provisions, however, and they will not suffice to accommodate hundreds of Iraqi scientists and their families.

The legislation that I am re-introducing, the ``Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003,'' will permit the Attorney General, on a case- by-case basis in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence, to admit a foreigner and his family if such person: has worked in an Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them; is willing to supply or has supplied critical and reliable information on that program to an agency of the United States Government; may be willing to supply or has supplied such information to United Nations or IAEA inspectors; and will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information.

The Attorney General will also have the authority to give legal permanent resident status to persons who provide the promised information.

Finally, this legislation will be limited to the admission of 500 scientists, plus their families. If it works and we need to enlarge the program, we can do so.

The important thing to do now is to give our country the initial authority, and to give United Nations inspectors the ability to reassure Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile experts that they and their families will be protected if they help the world to bring those programs down.

President Bush, other world leaders, and the inspectors in Iraq are trying to disarm a tyrant whose arms programs make him a danger to world peace. And they are trying to do this without going to war, even as we prepare to wage that war if necessary. We owe it to the inspectors to give them every chance to succeed. We owe it to the President to give him the tools he needs to help those inspectors. We owe it to Iraq's people and its neighbors to do everything we can to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs. And we owe it to our own people to do all we can to achieve that end peacefully, and with international support.

This bill is a small, but vital step toward those ends. I urge my colleagues to give it their immediate attention and support.

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

Mr. President, on October 7, 2002, the President of the United States said something very important about United Nations inspections in Iraq. He said: ``Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections . . . will have to be very different. . . . To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country--and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.''

The President was right on the money about inspections. This is how to get the information the world needs on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Inspections are vital to stripping him of those banned weapons.

The United Nations responded properly to the President's challenge. On November 8, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441, which provided: . . . that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government.''

The inspectors are given unprecedented authority. But how are they to implement it? Where will those weapons scientists and their families go, once they've told the truth about Saddam's weapons programs? They can't go home again. And at least in the short run, there will be no safe haven in the region for people who reveal Saddam's most terrible secrets.

Maybe some can go to Europe, although both al Qaeda cells and Saddam's agents have operated there. Maybe some can go to Canada, or to South America.

If the United States wants the world to show resolve in dealing with Saddam Hussein, however, then we must take the lead in admitting those people who have the courage to betray Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological or missile programs. We have a large country in which to absorb those people, and, for all our problems, we have the best law enforcement and security apparatus to guard them.

What we do not have is an immigration system that readily admits large numbers of persons who were involved with weapons of mass destruction, have aided a country in the sop-called ``axis of evil,'' and are bringing their families. I introduced legislation last October, therefore, to admit to our country those personnel, and their families, who give critical and reliable information on Saddam's programs to us, to the United Nations, or to the International Atomic Energy Agency. On November 20, the Senate passed an amended version of that bill, S. 3079, with the strong support of the Administration; but there was not enough time for the House of Representatives to act on the legislation.

Two months have passed since inspections were resumed in Iraq. The new inspectors are gaining experience, as well as actionable intelligence from the United States and other countries. They are beginning to find unreported weapons; and every weapon destroyed is a weapon that will never be used to cause mass destruction or to attack U.S. forces.

But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction,

UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ``a defection agency,'' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The protests of those interviewed can actually be helpful, as they prevent Saddam from knowing which of his personnel may be willing to tell the truth once they and their families are given a secure environment.

The United States must help UNMOVIC and the IAEA to create that secure environment. So, today I am re-introducing the Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act.

I am joined by my esteemed colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who co-sponsored the original bill, and also by the chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee Senator Lugar of Indiana and Senator Hatch of Utah. I have been assured, moreover, that the Administration remains eager to see this bill enacted. This bill is not political. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort to help the President succeed in forcing Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

I urge my colleagues to support quick action on this legislation. Iraqis will not come forward unless we offer protection to them and their families. Those who are willing to provide truthful information will merit our protection. And their information will help disarm Saddam Hussein; it will save lives if we have to go to war; and it could even help us to disarm Saddam without a war.

Current law includes several means of either paroling non-immigrants into the United States or admitting people for permanent residence, notwithstanding their normal inadmissibility under the law. These are very limited provisions, however, and they will not suffice to accommodate hundreds of Iraqi scientists and their families.

The legislation that I am re-introducing, the ``Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003,'' will permit the Attorney General, on a case- by-case basis in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence, to admit a foreigner and his family if such person: has worked in an Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them; is willing to supply or has supplied critical and reliable information on that program to an agency of the United States Government; may be willing to supply or has supplied such information to United Nations or IAEA inspectors; and will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information.

The Attorney General will also have the authority to give legal permanent resident status to persons who provide the promised information.

Finally, this legislation will be limited to the admission of 500 scientists, plus their families. If it works and we need to enlarge the program, we can do so.

The important thing to do now is to give our country the initial authority, and to give United Nations inspectors the ability to reassure Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile experts that they and their families will be protected if they help the world to bring those programs down.

President Bush, other world leaders, and the inspectors in Iraq are trying to disarm a tyrant whose arms programs make him a danger to world peace. And they are trying to do this without going to war, even as we prepare to wage that war if necessary. We owe it to the inspectors to give them every chance to succeed. We owe it to the President to give him the tools he needs to help those inspectors. We owe it to Iraq's people and its neighbors to do everything we can to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs. And we owe it to our own people to do all we can to achieve that end peacefully, and with international support.

This bill is a small, but vital step toward those ends. I urge my colleagues to give it their immediate attention and support.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of all those who breathe and I want to thank the sponsors of this amendment for their efforts. I say that half in jest, because I get the feeling that those who are trying to weaken our clean air laws often forget why we passed them in the first place--so we all can breathe cleaner, healthier air. I certainly support the most efficient and effective regulations we can devise to curb pollution, and I agree with the statement that the New Source Review Program could use some reform, but we must not lose sight of the fact that these rules are designed first and foremost to protect public health.

The Bush administration has shifted priorities from protecting the public to protecting polluters from doing their best. The Bush administration is protecting special interests, rather than protecting our environment and the public health. That is unacceptable and threatens to reverse the progress we have made as a nation to protect our citizens from health threats in the workplace and environment.

This is a serious issue for the people in my state of Delaware. We live in a region that is in non-attainment with the Federal ozone standard. Bottom line, we don't meet the current health-based standards. But not all of our air pollution comes from industry in Delaware. We could do everything right and still not be in compliance. What our neighbors do and what industries do in other parts of the country affects us and our ability to breathe clean air. If power plants in Pennsylvania, Maryland or even West Virginia and Ohio aren't required to do all they can to reduce harmful emissions, we pay the price in higher respiratory illnesses and premature deaths, particularly among children and the elderly. To me, that is all the more reason that we should be tightening the rules, reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants, instead of making it easier for the utility companies.

But you know what is so surprising to me, what I just can't understand--the administration has no data to even suggest that these changes will improve air quality, nor have they conducted any analysis, studies, anything. Show me that the changes will not cause a deterioration in the quality of our air. Show me that children and the elderly will not have to worry about being outside in the summer. Show me that states like Delaware will benefit. And we, my colleagues in the Senate and I, have asked . . . repeatedly!

That is why this amendment is so important. This amendment does two things. First, it would prevent the implementation of the rule changes prior to September 15, 2003. Second, it simply asks for a rigorous analysis of the air pollution and public health impacts of the proposed rule changes. The National Academy of Sciences would be tasked with completing this study by August 15, 2003. Sure, it would have made sense to do the analysis before the changes were published in the Federal Register, but it is not too late.

I want to share briefly a success story from my state of Delaware where we helped pioneer the Plantwide Applicability Limit, or so-called PAL permit. PAL is an innovative approach where separate process permitting requirements are consolidated in exchange for greater pollution reductions. This allows flexibility for plant process expansion and modification while saving businesses time and money. And it works.

One permit Delaware helped pioneer was at DaimlerChrysler's Newark Delaware Assembly Plant, where the Dodge Durango is manufactured. The plant focuses primarily on vehicle coating--painting--and assembly of parts produced at other DaimierChrysler facilities to produce finished vehicles. Years ago, when it wanted to start producing the Durango, the plant had to build a new state-of-the-art paint shop in a new building. Permit applications for this new process triggered New Source Review requirements for non-attainment areas. Working with the EPA, one of the first ever PAL permits was issued to the plant in 1996. And, the permit, the first of its kind for the automotive industry, was issued in 99 days. The plant continues to operate under this flexible permit and, as an added benefit, has saved Chrysler $13 million in increased productivity and pollution prevention. This was a win-win situation. Chrysler won with a permit that gave them flexibility to meet production needs and Delaware citizens won through reduced air pollution. Not surprising, Delaware does not believe it could repeat the pollution prevention performance of the PAL permit it issued under the new rule and is opposing the reform proposal.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Give us 6 months to find out. Send the right message. Let's not forget that these rules are designed to protect public health, not to protect industry from fulfilling its civic duty. Let's not reverse the progress we have made over the past three decades.

Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Nevada a question about what he just stated?

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, what confuses me about what the Senator from Pennsylvania said, and others have said, and is disturbing, our friends on the other side of the aisle have an incredible definition of what constitutes security. The idea that we would at this moment cut the end strength of the U.S. military, there would be 100 out of 100 Senators in opposition on the floor.

The idea that we are like those soccer moms we talk so much about, they are no longer soccer moms, I suggest. They are security moms. They are literally worried about whether or not in their children's schoolyard, in their shopping center, in their daily routine, they and/ or their family might be a victim of terrorism.

If this war is a war the President talks so much about, with good reason, a war on terror, I assume we are saying the same thing. A war on terror is not a war that is only being conducted by special forces overseas, but the war on terror is in the United States.

What is the greatest concern Americans have? It is that something is going to happen as happened on September 11.

I ask this of these friends of ours on the other side of the aisle. I think they mean well. They talk about the fact they do not want to grow government. I ask, How are you going to combat terror in the United States of America, in Washington, DC; in Omaha, NE; in Wilmington, DE; in San Francisco, CA; how are you going to confront terror, combat terror? How are you going to make our nuclear powerplant that is right across the river from tens of thousands of Delawareans secure? How are you going to make sure there are no Americans subject to poison gas attacks, the water supply being polluted, chemical agents, or, God forbid, biological weapons. The only way to do that, it seems to me, is with more defense.

What is the defense? That is homeland defense. The defense is the FBI, local law enforcement; the defense is domestic surveillance, domestic operations. My friends keep saying they do not want to grow government. What the devil are they talking about? They just cut 1,100 FBI agents. They shrank government. If tomorrow they took this similar percentage of U.S. Marines and cut them, we would say: My God, what are they doing? They are crazy.

A U.S. marine, I ask my friend from Nevada, who is going to confront a terrorist on the Mall in Washington, DC, or at a nuclear powerplant in Nevada or Delaware, who will confront that person? Who will track them down? Is it a marine? A special forces person? No, it is going to be a law enforcement officer.

These fellows have, unintentionally, I hope, emasculated law enforcement. They have cut the COPS Program that put 100,000 cops on the street. They eliminated that. They transferred, necessarily, 570- some FBI agents out of violent crime strike forces toward terror. They have reduced the coverage in the States. They have now cut another roughly 1,100 FBI agents, eliminated any help for local law enforcement. They ballooned--as a consequence of that, in part--the budget of all these States, and they proudly stand here and say: We are not going to grow government.

I raise my hand; I want to grow government to fight terror. I want to grow the number of FBI agents. I want to grow the number of CIA agents. I want to grow the number of police officers. I want to grow the ability to defend my family from a terrorist attack on a nuclear powerplant in my region, all of which are exposed now. They are exposed.

I hope my friends, when they come to the floor, will explain to me why an increase in the deficit to maintain the end strength of the FBI is less worthy than increasing the deficit over 10 years by half a billion, counting interest, to give people a deduction, no taxes, on their dividends.

I was only talking about the dividends.

If the Senator will yield briefly--and I will yield the floor--I appreciate the response.

I have no doubt and I do not disagree with anything the Senator has said overall, but I am just suggesting that I wonder how any Members will explain at home, if, God forbid, one of our nuclear powerplants is blown up; if, God forbid, sarin gas is released in the tunnels under New York City; if, God forbid, any number of other things I could mention, which I won't because they will frighten people, happen, I wonder how any Member will explain how we justified, in the name of not growing government, reducing the number of what I call domestic defense officials, the number of FBI agents, the law enforcement agents, the number of people who, in fact, have as their primary responsibility, the security of our people. A government's first and foremost responsibility is security. It is not tax equity, it is security. Security. I am here to say we are skating perilously close to a disaster line here for failing to step up to the plate.

My last comment is I made a speech on September 10 to the National Press Club making the same argument I am making now. It was at that time thought to be somehow a little bit of--we can't afford it. The argument I made on September 10 at the National Press Club was we were ignoring domestic security and international terror at our peril and I laid out what we were not doing.

Let me say to you, I will be back on the floor again and again because I do not want my children or my grandchildren saying to me: Where were you during the war, daddy? Put it another way: Where were you when we were fighting terrorism, or supposed to be fighting terrorism? Why were you cutting law enforcement, cutting the FBI? Why were you cutting the very agencies that were designed to protect our security, that mom in her living room, her child in her school, her husband on the subway? Where were you?

I think we are misguided, in terms of the majority view on this floor. I want to grow government to defeat terror. I want to do it with people with guns. I want to do it with people with might. I want to do it with people with intelligence capability. I want to stop it before it happens. You cannot convince me you can do a better job with fewer people.

I thank my friend.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Harkin's amendment to restore full funding to the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, a program which is used to fund crime and drug prevention programs in communities nationwide.

The bill before use today cuts the Byrne grant program by $500 million, in essence eviscerating it. I have trouble understanding why anyone would choose to decrease funding for a program that strives to improve the criminal justice system and increase public safety.

Cutting this program has real consequences in my home State of Delaware. There, Byrne grant money goes to fund a wide range of significant drug abuse and prevention programs, juvenile crime initiatives and other criminal justice projects, including: Delaware's Key and Crest programs, which help criminal offenders get off of drugs and decrease there chance of re-offending once they are released from jail; drug treatment services for criminal offenders in drug court programs; drunk driving patrols in Dover, DE; and drug prevention programs such as ``Heroin Hurts'' which educates teens about the dangers of the deadly pure heroin available in my State.

The Byrne program is distributed as a block grant to each State, based on a State's population. Delaware typically receives almost $2.5 million per year. It's critical funding, funding that secures the hometown and that helps keep our kids safe and drug-free.

I could go on about the good Byrne has done in Delaware. We have used Byrne funds to create eight community-based crime prevention programs around my State. In New Castle County and Dover, these programs offered training and services to adults and youth in high crime areas. Another project identified hate crime hotspots throughout New Castle County and increased police services through a specialized hate crime unit to those areas.

We have used Byrne funds to train prison officers, to improve our criminal justice records, and to expand the Delaware State Police's crime mapping project.

Byrne is an incredibly flexible law enforcement program. It's amazing to me that we would propose to eliminate it in this bill. I will fight this cut, and I am pleased to stand with my friend from Iowa in offering this amendment to restore Byrne funds.

Mr. President, I cannot fathom why my colleagues are doing this. This is the single most popular, effective program that has existed in helping State law enforcement. Everybody on that side knows that. It has all the Republican attributes. It is flexible. It is one of those programs that the States like very much.

The Presiding Officer from South Carolina knows how it works in South Carolina, and in this rush to be able to make room for these cockamamie priorities, what are we doing? We are cutting FBI agents. We eliminate the Violent Crimes Task Force. The FBI cannot function in the States on ordinary crimes such as bank robbery and interstate car theft. We cut another 800 FBI agents, or thereabouts, under this proposal.

We are cutting the COPS program. I think my colleagues have it backwards. I think this is the most cockamamie idea I have heard in a long while. This narrow definition of a constitutional national defense is going to come back to bite us.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Harkin's amendment to restore full funding to the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, a program which is used to fund crime and drug prevention programs in communities nationwide.

The bill before us today cuts the Byrne grant program by $500 million, in essence eviscerating it. I have trouble understanding why anyone would choose to decrease funding for a program that strives to improve the criminal justice system and increase public safety.

Cutting this program has real consequences in my home state of Delaware. There, Byrne grant money goes to fund a wide range of significant drug abuse and prevention programs, juvenile crime initiatives and other criminal justice projects, including:

Delaware's Key and Crest programs, which help criminal offenders get off of drugs and decrease their chance of re-offending once they are released from jail;

Drug treatment services for criminal offenders in drug court programs;

Drunk driving patrols in Dover, DE;

Drug prevention programs such as ``Heroin Hurts'' which educates teens about the dangers of the deadly pure heroin available in my State.

The Byrne program is distributed as a block grant to each state, based on a State's population. Delaware typically receives almost $2.5 million per year. It's critical funding--funding that secures the hometown and that helps keep our kids safe and drug-free.

I could go on about the good Byrne has done in Delaware. We have used Byrne funds to create eight community-based crime prevention programs around my state. In New Castle County and Dover, these programs offered training and services to adults and youth in high crime areas. Another project identified hate crime hotspots throughout New Castle County and increased police services through a specialized hate crime unit to those areas.

We have used Byrne funds to train prison officers, to improve our criminal justice records, and to expand the Delaware State Police's crime mapping project.

Byrne is an incredibly flexible law enforcement program. It's amazing to me that we would propose to eliminate it in this bill. I will fight this cut, and I am pleased to stand with my friend from Iowa in offering this amendment to restore Byrne funds.

Madam President, if I may ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, a question.

Although I have been waiting a while, I can refrain from doing that if we are likely to move on to other votes. I do not want to hold people up on Friday afternoon. But if we don't have something we are going to go to right away--in other words, I don't want to get in the chairman's way. But, otherwise, I would like to speak. But I know it is Friday afternoon. I see people with topcoats on their laps, and they have places to go. I can make this the last order of business today. But I don't want to yield to others who are not going to speak on an amendment. But I will yield if you really think we are going to move to something and we are going to act on it. That is my point.

I ask the Senator from Alaska if he can tell me what the plans are.

Madam President, I rise today to, quite frankly, compliment and add to the comments of my friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd--although I will not be as eloquent--who spoke today on Iraq and Korea and national security policy.

Before I do, there was an intervening comment exchange that was made on the floor earlier relating to the Michigan University cases.

I rise at this moment not to speak on whether or not the merits of the Michigan cases or the merits of the Michigan admissions policies are constitutional or unconstitutional. My instinct, in what little I know about it, is that it seems to be constitutional because there is a two-pronged equal protection test that has to be met; and that is, does the University's consideration of race as one of many factors in making admissions decisions constitute a compelling Government interest, and if it does, is it narrowly tailored. It appears, from what I have read in the press, that it is.

But I want to respond in the next 2 minutes to something my friend from Pennsylvania, my neighbor, Senator Santorum, said. He talked about this point system. I just want to remind everyone how the University of Michigan's policy works, which is like many other universities.

Under the University's undergraduate admissions process, every applicant can get up to 150 points in seeking admission. My assumption is, what the university does, it reviews all of the applications from applicants. No one gets 150 points, necessarily, but there are methods by which you can get up to 150 points.

Madam President, 110 of the 150 points are strictly related to academic criteria. They relate to GPA, the school you went to, the high school you went to, the curricula you took, your SAT scores, et cetera. Forty points are up for grabs, and they relate to nonacademic factors.

It is possible for a minority to get 20 points because of his minority status. People are pointing to that as saying that is unfair. Well, forget the constitutional detailed arguments for just a moment, because we will have plenty of time to make those on the floor. I want everyone to remind themselves what the rest of the University of Michigan policy allows.

If you are the son or daughter of alumni, you get 4 points. If you come from an underrepresented county within the State of Michigan, you can get up to 16 points. If you are a Michigan resident, you get 10 points. If you are from an underrepresented State, you get 2 points.

Let me translate this. And I do not mean this as a criticism of anybody else's State. The most competitive, the most difficult place to gain admission, the most difficult geographic States to gain admission to the most elite colleges are Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. It is harder to get into competitive colleges if you're a resident of those States.

If you are from Mississippi or Alabama or Alaska and have the same scores as students from these northeast states--like my son or daughter from Delaware, and my nephew from Pennsylvania--and everything else is equal, the child from Mississippi or Alabama or Alaska will get into the school before the child from Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Maryland. That's because--rightly or wrongly--the academic standards in these latter States are considered to be higher, and the competition is more intense.

So that is a literal fact of life. You say: OK, well, why in God's name would some child who does not have quite the same marks, or has the same marks, from the Midwest or Alaska or the Deep South have an advantage over a child from a New England State or a mid-Atlantic State? The reason is not to benefit the child. It is to benefit all the other students in the university. Because we have made a judgment, historically, in this Nation that it is better for my child to go to school with someone from Alaska, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina--all across the Nation--than it is to go to school with everybody being from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. It has been a judgment educators have made. And the more elite the university, the more diversity, geographically, they seek.

It is the same way, I might add, that Rhodes Scholarships are, in fact, awarded. It is a heck of a lot harder to get a Rhodes Scholarship as a resident from New York State than it is from South Dakota. That is a fact--a fact. It is the competition pool. Why? More money per pupil tends to be spent in those richer States than in the States that are not as wealthy.

So what have we done? In everything we do about education, we seek, as a goal, not to reward the student, the diverse student who is coming in, but the goal is to reward the student body that is there to expose them to diversity.

It is good that my middle-Atlantic State daughter is in a school with people who talk to you like this--you know what I mean--like y'all do in the South. It is a good thing. She should be exposed to that. It is good your southern son or daughter knows and has someone in class that talks like they are from Brooklyn. It is a good thing. Some may disagree, but that has been a national consensus.

Like geography, race is one of those factors colleges do and should consider. The only generic point I want to make to people, as a Senator who opposes quotas--that is not hyperbole; I oppose quotas; and I have a 30-year voting record about that--but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

All of you who tell me this is a level playing field, give me a break. If your daddy happened to go to that school, it is not wrong that you get a preference. But at least admit you are getting a preference. Stop this game, this silly little game.

If, in fact, you come from a State that is poor, stop pretending to me that it is a level playing field for a kid from Mississippi to get to Harvard versus a kid from Westchester County, NY to get to Harvard.

Give me a break. Let's stop being phony around here. I am not suggesting anybody is phony. I am just trying to inform those of you who have not had a chance to think of this how things actually work, how they actually work.

And, by the way, even on the academic side, you get somewhere between zero and 10 points based on the school you went to.

The school I went to is a Catholic prep school, with mostly middle class kids. My daughter, who is now a senior in college, graduated from that same school several years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that out of 114 kids in her graduating class, 69 passed five or more advanced placement tests, meaning that they tested out of their entire first semesters at the universities they attended--69 out of 114 passed five or more AP tests.

According to what was then put out by the SAT outfit out of New Jersey, these kids represented the highest number in the region to test out of their first semester classes, and one of the highest in the country--this little old Catholic school I went to. Guess what. It costs 14 grand a year to go to that school. Now, my daughter, I am confident, were she applying to Michigan, could have gotten up to 18 points--up to 10 for the quality of the school and up to an additional 8 for the quality of her curriculum. And not because of anything she had, but because her old man was able to borrow the money with her mother to pay for her to go to that school and expose her to that. She may have gotten B's and my sons who went there or I who went there may have gotten B's, while a kid from a little one-room schoolhouse--some States still have one-room schoolhouses, not many--from a small school in, say, North Dakota, where you have 20 kids in a senior class, that kid got a B, same grade point. My daughter may have gotten up to 18 points; the kid from North Dakota, with the same grade point average, may get no added points.

How does it really work? A Black kid in west Philadelphia, he might have gotten B's from a school we all acknowledge isn't that great a school. My daughter gets an 18-point bump on the academic side because she went to a school that costs--guess what, when I went there, it cost $900 a year, now it is 15, 14 grand. How many middle-class Black kids out there are able to pay 14 grand, or Hispanic, Latino kids? So I just think we should be honest about this.

There is a legitimate constitutional argument to make and a test that Michigan is going to have to prove, and they should have to prove. There is a two-prong test here. When you are in a suspect category-- race is a suspect category--there are two tests: One, is there a compelling Government interest in using race as one of many factors to achieve a diverse class, and, two, is that use narrowly tailored. I think

Michigan can prove that. I haven't done all the work. I teach constitutional law; I think I know a little about it. I can't say to the Chamber, I am guaranteeing I know the Michigan test is constitutional. They should have to prove it. No problem. I think they will. But let's not kid each other. OK? Level playing fields? I will conclude this part and get on to what I was going to speak about and just look at it.

Of the total 150 points an applicant to the University of Michigan can get, 40 points are for non-academic factors. You can get 20 points if you're an underrepresented minority, but also if you're a scholarship athlete, or if you're a kid who is socio-economically disadvantaged; you can get 10 points if you're a Michigan resident, 16 points if you live in 2 particular counties in Michigan; 4 points if your parents are alumni; 3 points for your required personal essay; 5 points for personal achievement; 5 points for leadership and service and, guess what--I say to my friend who went to a great, great university, the Presiding Officer, Duke University, one of the great universities in America; this will not surprise her, I suspect--the provost has 20 points of discretion. How about that one? The provost has 20 points of discretion.

Do you think the provost is more likely to receive a phone call from the chairman of the board of General Motors, or do you think the provost is likely to take a phone call from Rashid's mother in Detroit? My colleagues, as the kids used to say, let's get real. Let's acknowledge the truth of this. There is no absolutely totally blind test out there.

I am not criticizing. Universities have a reason for giving alumni preference. How do you think Harvard was built? There is a little red book on how Harvard's endowment was built. You build loyalty to a university. People then do things for the university. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is a good thing. There is geographic diversity. It is a good thing that there is discretion built in.

But if you are going to take this purest view that race can never be considered, that minority status can't be considered and you want to be fair, be fair. Cash in your senatorial credentials when you start writing recommendations. OK? Don't write a recommendation.

You want to be really fair? Be like every other person out there, do you know what I mean? Maybe it is because I come from a place called Claymont. I come from an Irish Catholic family. I am the first one in my family to go to college--no Horatio Alger story.

I once got in an argument during the Thomas hearings which I don't like to recall very often. Someone was saying to me that there was no preference given to the Justice getting in the Yale University Law School. And I looked at this particular guy, who wasn't happy with me over another issue about logging roads through Federal lands. He was really mad at me about that. I looked at him and I said: Where did you go to school?

He said: I went to Yale.

I said: You are the guy who took my spot at Yale.

He said: What do you mean?

I said: We are the same age. You took my spot at Yale. I know you are the one.

He said: What are you talking about?

This guy happened to be from Alaska. I come from Delaware. If I'm not mistaken, you got points at Yale for being from Alaska. And probably his marks were better than mine, but I joked with him. He didn't know.

I said: I bet my marks were better than yours. I said: I'll make you another bet. I bet your daddy went to Yale.

He said: Yes, what difference does that make?

It makes a difference. Assume my marks had been the same as his. I am from Claymont, Delaware. My father is making 17,000 bucks a year, and I applied to Yale. He is from a geographically underrepresented area and his daddy went to Yale.

I mean this sincerely, I understand the anger of working-class and middle-class White people like me, my background. I can remember when my dad, who was an automobile salesman, I remember my dad being so angry when he was trying to borrow the money to get a student loan to send me to the local university and my sister almost at the same time. He was $800 over the limit. It was like 18,000 bucks he made that year, over the limit to be able to borrow.

The guy who worked on the lot came in really happy one day, and my dad was good friends with him. But the guy was the laborer who cleaned the cars. And he said: My son is getting in. I got the loan.

And my dad thought it was so unfair that this guy made one-third less than he did and he was able to get the loan, but my dad couldn't afford to send us all without the loan.

So I am not in any way belittling the legitimate concern and anxiety of middle class and lower middle class White folks who feel they are pushed out of the way. That is why I think we should give them all a $12,000 tax deduction to get to school which I have been pushing for 8 years now.

But it amazes me how some of our friends in this Chamber and in the body politic political elite really will bleed over the 1 or 2 or whatever percent of the White children who really do get bumped out of the way. Where is their bleeding for the 10, 20, or 30 percent of the Black kids or Latino kids who get pushed out of the way a thousand ways? Is anybody suggesting to me the injustice done to middle White class or any White student is anywhere nearly equivalent to the injustices done or the lack of opportunity available to minorities?

There is such an imbalance about this. That doesn't mean we should justify a wrong when it is only done to 1 percent of the people because there is a greater wrong done to another group of people. We ought to be able to figure out how to deal with this.

I will end with this: I respectfully suggest we should be making it a lot easier for kids to get to college, period, across the board. One of the things we should do is what my friend from Connecticut has devoted his career to, and he knows more about it than I do by a long shot, and that is making elementary and secondary education truly equal. He had an amendment that said, on this big bill we passed on education, by the way, if you are going to test people equally, make sure you spend equal amounts of money on them.

If you are a kid in west Philadelphia and you are a kid in Marion, which is one of the wealthiest areas just 4 miles away, I don't remember exactly what the numbers are, but it is like two or three to one resources spent on the kid in Marion to educate him than the kid in west Philadelphia. We are going to give them the same test. It reminds me of the old separate but equal stuff. So there is a lot we can do to make sure no child, White or Black, is bumped out of the way because they are qualified, but otherwise they do not suffer from one of the litany of things listed as being able to be taken into consideration in admission.

I am not making the case on the merits. I don't know enough about the Michigan policy. I hope we have a honest discussion about this when we talk about it because there are preferences built in across the board, absolute preferences.

I know, as a middle-class White kid--lower middle class economically--growing up, who did relatively well, I knew that the kid who had a lot more money, whose parents had gone to college, had more of an advantage. I didn't begrudge them the advantage. It is just there. It is just there. Let us at least admit to that and acknowledge that. Let's stop this--and nobody has done this in the Chamber, but let's not start demagoging this notion that all these White kids are being discriminated against and so-called reverse discrimination is killing opportunities for White children.

Madam President, we can't afford to put either Iraq or North Korea on the back burner. Both need our immediate and sustained attention. But the crisis on the Korean peninsula, and it is a crisis-- is our most urgent priority.

The situation in North Korea has gone from bad to worse. They've thrown out the international inspectors. They've turned off cameras that tracked thousands of canisters of weapons grade plutonium. They've withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The irony here is that the very rationale some in the administration cite for regime change in Iraq is an emerging reality in North Korea: A rogue regime and one of the world's worst proliferators is on the verge of becoming a plutonium factory. It will sell anything it develops to the highest bidder.

We know it doesn't take much plutonium to make a nuclear threat real. You only need something the size of the bottom of a water glass, about an eighth of an inch thick, two pieces. With a crude operation to ram it together at high speed, you have a 1 kiloton bomb in a homemade nuclear device.

My colleagues from New York will remember this: our national laboratories produced what could be a homemade nuclear weapon. They made it off the shelf with easily obtainable materials. Everything except the plutonium. I asked Senators Clinton and Schumer to bring that homemade weapon up to S. 407 and they walked it right in.

The threat of proliferation exists in North Korea as we speak, right now, not tomorrow or next week or next month or next year, but right now.

And by the way, if President Clinton had not completed the Agreed Framework, North Korea would already have material for dozens of nuclear weapons.

If North Korea continues down this path, we also risk an arms race in Asia. Think about it. North Korea, South Korea, Japan. And if that happens, China will build up its nuclear weapons arsenal, India will get nervous and do the same, and Pakistan will follow suit. Everything we've been working to present for decades--a nuclear arms race in Asia and beyond--will become a reality. And that could have a terrible impact on economic stability, too.

The regime in Pyongyang is first and foremost to blame for this crisis. But frankly, two years of policy incoherence on our part has not helped matters. We have see-sawed back and forth between engagement and name-calling.

And the last two weeks of taking options off the table--especially talking--has made matters worse. It tied our own hands and added tension to our already strained relationship with a key ally, South Korea. We need a clear--and clear eyed--strategy for dealing with this danger.

I'm pleased the administration now seems to be on the right track. As several of us have argued for weeks, direct talks are the best way out of this impasse.

Some claim that talking is appeasement. Well, we know that not talking could result in North Korea having the material to build up to a half dozen nuclear weapons in six months--and dozens more in the months and years to follow.

We know that taking out North Korea's plutonium program must be a course of very last resort. Pyongyang has more than 10,000 heavily protected artillery pieces just miles from Seoul--it could devastate the city, its inhabitants and many of our troops before we could respond.

We know that for additional sanctions to bite, we would need the participation of South Korea and China, neither of whom so far, wants to pursue that path.

And we know that talking is not appeasement. It is the most effective way to tell North Korea what it must do if it wants more normal relations with us. In fact, in dealing with an isolated regime and a closed-off leader, talking clearly and directly is critical if we want to avoid miscommunication and miscalculation.

We cannot and should not buy the same carpet twice. We won't if we insist on getting more from North Korea than we got last time. This should include giving up the plutonium and spent fuel it already has produced and forsaking the production of plutonium and uranium in the future--all of this verified by international inspectors and monitoring.

In turn, we should hold out the prospect of a more normal relationship, including energy assistance, food aid and a ``no hostility pledge.''

iraq

As we contend with Korea, we also must deal with Iraq. The administration was mistaken to suggest North Korea could be put on the back burner. But so are those who suggest Iraq is not a major problem. It is, and we must continue to deal with it on its own merits, but on our own timetable.

It's no secret that the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Joint Chiefs of are at odds on the best course of action in Iraq.

We have Hans Blix and the IAEA saying that the inspectors need more time to accomplish their mission--that they will have to stay in Iraq much longer to get the job done.

Secretary Rumsfeld is saying, if we get ourselves locked in for four more months we will lose our weather window and be forced to wait until the fall.

Secretary Powell is saying, look, we must make it a priority to maintain the support of the French and the Germans and everyone else, not to mention the American people. The President was right to make Iraq the world's problem, not just our own. Let's keep it that way.

In my view, the President has shown restraint on Iraq. He has gone to the United Nations. He has allowed inspectors to begin. Now he must allow them to take their course. I would say to the President, keep it going. In the eyes of the world, you're doing it right.

Inspectors are not a permanent solution and neither is our massive troop presence. But so long as the inspectors are doing their work in Iraq, backed up by the threat of our forces, it is highly unlikely Iraq could pursue a nuclear program undetected or would run the risk of selling chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. And we will sustain international support. Meanwhile, the pressure will build on Saddam. Unlike in North Korea, times is on our side, not his.

Of course, this massive deployment is costly and hard on our men and women in uniform. But going to war would be far more costly in terms of troops and treasure. It must remain a last resort.

If we do go to war, we better be absolutely certain that our friends and allies are all in the game at the outset.

Not because we cannot prevail against Saddam Hussein without them. We can--though it certainly makes sense to spread the risk and share the cost. But because without the support of other nations, we will be left with a political, financial, and, potentially, a regionally destabilizing burden after we take down Saddam. We will have to deal with the ``day after'' Saddam--or more accurately the decade after--on our own.

In the weeks ahead, if we move to war, I hope the President will tell the American people what he has not yet told them: How much will the war cost? How will the balance his guns and butter rhetoric with the bottom-line budget realities we face? How many troops will have to stay in Iraq after Saddam and for how long? How much will it cost to rebuild Iraq? Who will help us foot the bill? The American people deserve answers to these and other key questions?

Mr. President, we are once again back here on the Senate floor fighting for the future of passenger rail in this country.

Everyone here is well aware of my position on railroads. Unfortunately, this is a battle that those of us who believe in passenger rail service have had to make over and over.

I don't need to tell anyone here that our national rail system is at a crossroads. Decades of underfunding have finally caught up to us.

Amtrak is struggling to stay afloat. They have imposed drastic spending cuts in the last 2 years. They have deferred key capital maintenance projects. The have mortgaged Penn Station in New York-- their most valuable asset. The have slashed jobs.

These short-term moves have only served to worsen Amtrak's long-term financial viability and put its future in jeopardy.

For 30 years, Congress has dragged its feet. It has taken a back-seat approach to dealing with the long-term needs of a national passenger rail system. It stalled. It bickered. In the end, it provided only enough money to allow Amtrak to continue to limp along.

And we broke the deal we made with Amtrak to help it meet its capital needs. Year after year, Amtrak received only $521 million--far less than it was promised--forcing it to turn to private sector loans and dramatically increasing it debt burden.

No industrialized country in the world operates a rail system that is completely self-sufficient. Japan, Germany, France--all of the supposedly superior, successful rail systems, received some level of subsidy from their governments, in most cases far more than that sought by Amtrak.

They understand the enormous capital costs involved in developing and maintaining a national rail system. Why don't we? Why don't we speak the truth: America needs a passenger rail system and it will take a national commitment. It makes sense. It's simple common sense.

And yet, though we've made a substantial commitment to highway and aviation development--over $750 billion since 1971--somehow we don't seem to get it. We don't seem to understand the parallel commitment necessary for railroads.

Instead, we have starved the rail system. And that's why Amtrak is in this situation today.

We have to end that practice. We have to sit down with governors, mayors, railroad workers--with everyone who cares about keeping the railroads solvent, safe, and moving.

We need to discuss and resolve the kind of passenger rail system this country deserves. And how much support from Federal, State, and local agencies will be needed to sustain it now and over time.

And we need to do this in the larger context--taking into account increasing capacity constraints on our highways, at our airports, the chronic overcrowding, and the air pollution that comes from that.

I commend my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, because as chairman of the Commerce Committee, he made the reauthorization of Amtrak a priority and stepped up to the plate-- recognizing the depth of commitment that is needed. I am proud to cosponsor his bill.

But this is not what we're fighting over today. Today, we are asking for the life-support to keep Amtrak moving until we are able to reach a consensus on its future. If we don't adopt this amendment, if we don't fund Amtrak at $1.2 billion this year, this system will die, commerce will be disrupted, passengers will be abandoned, and it will cost us much more to build a new rail system down the road.

I want to thank the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, and the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, for giving Amtrak a fighting chance, and to give us the time we need to resolve these issues.

Last spring, Amtrak got a new president, David Gunn. Right out of the gate he was faced with the prospects of shutting down the system because of the lack of operating funds.

We were here less than a year ago, fighting for an emergency $200 million to keep the trains running.

This administration was not especially receptive to the idea of helping, but in the end, after long hours, an agreement was reached and Amtrak got the infusion of funds it needed to keep going.

But David Gunn made it clear to the Congress even before then that in this fiscal year--the one we are in right now--Amtrak was going to need $1.2 billion in this year to stay alive.

The administration sent up a budget with just a placeholder number in it: $521 million--the same number Amtrak has received in other recent years. But everyone knew that number wasn't real, that it was grossly insufficient.

The number in this bill is grossly insufficient as well. Its $374 million short. Once more, Amtrak is getting underfunded. But this time we can't expect it to keep limping along. This time--if we don't step up to our commitment--we're going to strand millions of rail passengers.

We need to give David Gunn the resources he needs to get Amtrak back on its feet again. Now--with new leadership at the helm--it is critical that we don't short change Amtrak one more time.

Mr. President, this is unusual for me. I thank my friend from Arizona. I appreciate him. My friend from Arizona is right on one very basic point. We have had such a stark disagreement, he and I, for so many years, as close as we are. It is the only thing ever where we have gotten each other's hackles up, and in the middle of these debates we have occasionally felt like walking across and pummeling one another, but we are close friends.

But he is right--and I mean this sincerely--about one important thing. We should make a decision. We should shut this sucker down or we should fund it. I have been fighting this fight for 30 years as a Senator, and it is always a bridge too far. I am not referring to my friend from Arizona because he says: Look, let's figure out how to reorganize this sucker; let's chop it, move it, change it, but whatever we are going to do, let's do it.

I agree. Let's have the final fight here. Not tonight. Let's this year have a fight over whether or not to reauthorize Amtrak. Let's do it. If we do it--whatever we call it, subsidy or not--let's pay for it. If we call them giveaways, whatever it is, let's just be realistic and decide, is it worth the price?

It reminds me--and I will end with this--every single year I have come on this floor since the Nixon administration, and said: I will take whatever you can give me; just keep part of it open; just keep it open. It was always less than everyone said was needed to make it run. It kind of reminds me of when we talk about vouchers--I am not talking about my friend from Arizona--we talk about vouchers for school.

In my State, the cost of the average private school is about $1,500. If you go to the real private schools, they cost about $13,000 a year, like down here in Washington. If I go to some African-

American or Latino kid in the neighborhood and say: You have $500. Here it is. I could give him $5,000, if the cost is $13,000--I could give him $10,000--and he can't get there. That is kind of where Amtrak is. There is no way to get from here to there without funding it, like I guess we have basically reached an agreement on. We are going to get, at least initially here, a reform.

I thank my friend. I really hope this year he and I and others--the leader in this deal for me has always been Senator Hollings, and now Patty Murray, who has for the last I don't know how many years headed up this subcommittee. I think we should just have a knockdown, drag it out debate about whether we should have the railroad or not. If we have it, fund it. If not, let's get rid of it.

No, I am fine. I said all I want to say. I sincerely mean what I said about let's decide whether we are going to have this system or not.

If the Senator will yield, I think I could have guessed what he said.

Will the Senator yield?

I will only take 2 minutes. The Senator is right. It's like going to someone and saying: By the way, we are going to demand that you be self-sufficient within the next 2 weeks or 2 years. By the way, we are going to give you half of what you need to be self- sufficient. And now you have to promise me you are going to be self- sufficient.

I know darned well I can't get self-sufficient based on what I have to operate with. But what do I do? What has been done--and this is the lie of it, in effect--what has been done too long, they say: OK, don't shut us down now. We will be self-sufficient--hoping that something happens in the next year and the year after and the year after.

So my friend is exactly right. He made a believer out of me. He's absolutely right. That is what I mean by let's not do that anymore, let's shut it down or whatever we want to do.

I really appreciate the courtesy, and this is really the last thing I will say. I realize, and I don't think other people here do--I realize my friend is not ``against rail.'' He has said to me, I don't know how many times over the years: Why can't we work something out, Joe, that funds the places needed, the dense populations, the Northeast corridor? But the rest of this apparatus is bleeding us to death. And you have inefficiencies even in the corridor. Why don't we work that out?

What I am saying to my friend, and I say it sincerely, he is right in this respect. We should either decide what we mean by Amtrak, that it is the Northeast corridor and West Coast system and that's it, or we should decide it is a national system and we are going to pay the price. We should decide what it is. He is right about that debate. Let's have that debate. Whatever it comes out, in terms of reorganization, let's then make sure it can function.

I wasn't being smart with my friend. I am sincere when I say I know he is not ``against rail.'' He is against what he believes to be--and in many cases is right--total inefficiency and outrageous subsidies. That's the only way we have been able to keep the Northeast corridor going, because we had to get everyone from Texas to West Virginia and Minnesota to vote for it.

Mr. President, as another semester begins, many college students are worrying not only about their course loads and class work, but about how they will pay for school. Today, the average cost of room, board and tuition at a public four-year college has jumped to over $9,000. Tuition and fees alone jumped 9.6 percent from last year. The average cost of room, board and tuition at a private four-year college has jumped to just over $25,000 with tuition and fees having risen 5.8 percent.

What do the rising costs of attending a college or university mean for American families? It means that despite their best efforts to save and plan ahead, hard working families have to spend a larger percentage of their income than ever before to send their children to school. To attend my alma mater, the University of Delaware, it costs nearly 20 percent of a Delaware family's average annual income to cover costs. In fact just a few months ago, tuition was increased from the Fall to Spring semester by $120 to make up for an expected $3.1 cut in state aid to the university. If a Delaware family wants to send their child to a private university, approximately 50 percent of their income is required.

To help counteract these spiraling costs, I come to the floor today to reintroduce ``The Tuition Assistance for Families Act,'' a comprehensive package of tax credits and deductions, grants and scholarships that will assist American families in sending their children to college. Building upon the previous efforts of mine and others, this legislation will provide more families with much needed assistance so that the decision to send one's child to school will not be overshadowed by the decision of how to pay for it.

Specifically, the ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will raise the current tuition tax deduction for higher education expenses from $3,000 to $12,000. Based on legislation that I previously sponsored with Senator Schumer, this $9,000 increase will go a long way in helping middle class American families afford tuition.

The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' expands tuition tax credits already in law, the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit. Currently, the Lifetime Learning Credit allows a 20 percent tax credit on the first $10,000 of one's higher education expenses. Under my bill, this percentage jumps to 25 percent while the amount of expenses subjected to the credit rises to $12,000. This means that a student who files a return in tax year 2003 under my plan could get up to $3,000 back in taxes. This is $1,000 more than the $2,000 maximum allowable credit available under current law. That means that under my plan, up to an additional $1,000 can go directly back into a student's pocket to pay for books, a computer or tuition. To maximize the utility of the tax credits, my bill also raises the income limits for both the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Credit to up to $130,000 per family, per year. This will allow more families to access the help that they need.

My bill reintroduces the idea of a $1,000 merit scholarship to be awarded to each high school senior graduating in the top 5 percent of his or her class. These types of scholarships not only reward student achievement, they help to ensure that the best and brightest students have the ability to go on to college thereby increasing the pool of well-qualified Americans in the workforce.

Finally, the ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will increase the maximum Pell Grant award from $4,000 to $4,500. During the 2001- 2002 school year, the maximum Pell Grant award covered approximately 42 percent of the average tuition, room and board at a public four-year university. During the 1975-76 it covered 84 percent of these same costs. Clearly, the purchasing power of these grants has declined dramatically over the years. As such, the debt load of American students and American families has increased as students have looked to federal and private loans to finance their education. Shockingly but not surprisingly, 64

percent of today's college students graduate with student loan debt at an average of $16,928, double the debt load of 1994.

It is the dream of every American parent to provide for their child a better life than they had themselves. Part of doing this involves sending your kids to college. This is why I have spent a great deal of my time in the Senate fighting to provide tax relief for middle class American families struggling with college costs. And while I was pleased when some of the ideas I advocated were adopted in the 1997 tax cut bill, it is clear that as tuition costs rise dramatically, Americans need additional assistance. The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will provide extra help so that more families can afford to give their children a brighter and better future. The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' goes one step further in committing the federal government to making college more affordable for Americans.

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

Mr. President, as another semester begins, many college students are worrying not only about their course loads and class work, but about how they will pay for school. Today, the average cost of room, board and tuition at a public four-year college has jumped to over $9,000. Tuition and fees alone jumped 9.6 percent from last year. The average cost of room, board and tuition at a private four-year college has jumped to just over $25,000 with tuition and fees having risen 5.8 percent.

What do the rising costs of attending a college or university mean for American families? It means that despite their best efforts to save and plan ahead, hard working families have to spend a larger percentage of their income than ever before to send their children to school. To attend my alma mater, the University of Delaware, it costs nearly 20 percent of a Delaware family's average annual income to cover costs. In fact just a few months ago, tuition was increased from the Fall to Spring semester by $120 to make up for an expected $3.1 cut in state aid to the university. If a Delaware family wants to send their child to a private university, approximately 50 percent of their income is required.

To help counteract these spiraling costs, I come to the floor today to reintroduce ``The Tuition Assistance for Families Act,'' a comprehensive package of tax credits and deductions, grants and scholarships that will assist American families in sending their children to college. Building upon the previous efforts of mine and others, this legislation will provide more families with much needed assistance so that the decision to send one's child to school will not be overshadowed by the decision of how to pay for it.

Specifically, the ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will raise the current tuition tax deduction for higher education expenses from $3,000 to $12,000. Based on legislation that I previously sponsored with Senator Schumer, this $9,000 increase will go a long way in helping middle class American families afford tuition.

The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' expands tuition tax credits already in law, the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit. Currently, the Lifetime Learning Credit allows a 20 percent tax credit on the first $10,000 of one's higher education expenses. Under my bill, this percentage jumps to 25 percent while the amount of expenses subjected to the credit rises to $12,000. This means that a student who files a return in tax year 2003 under my plan could get up to $3,000 back in taxes. This is $1,000 more than the $2,000 maximum allowable credit available under current law. That means that under my plan, up to an additional $1,000 can go directly back into a student's pocket to pay for books, a computer or tuition. To maximize the utility of the tax credits, my bill also raises the income limits for both the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Credit to up to $130,000 per family, per year. This will allow more families to access the help that they need.

My bill reintroduces the idea of a $1,000 merit scholarship to be awarded to each high school senior graduating in the top 5 percent of his or her class. These types of scholarships not only reward student achievement, they help to ensure that the best and brightest students have the ability to go on to college thereby increasing the pool of well-qualified Americans in the workforce.

Finally, the ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will increase the maximum Pell Grant award from $4,000 to $4,500. During the 2001- 2002 school year, the maximum Pell Grant award covered approximately 42 percent of the average tuition, room and board at a public four-year university. During the 1975-76 it covered 84 percent of these same costs. Clearly, the purchasing power of these grants has declined dramatically over the years. As such, the debt load of American students and American families has increased as students have looked to federal and private loans to finance their education. Shockingly but not surprisingly, 64

percent of today's college students graduate with student loan debt at an average of $16,928, double the debt load of 1994.

It is the dream of every American parent to provide for their child a better life than they had themselves. Part of doing this involves sending your kids to college. This is why I have spent a great deal of my time in the Senate fighting to provide tax relief for middle class American families struggling with college costs. And while I was pleased when some of the ideas I advocated were adopted in the 1997 tax cut bill, it is clear that as tuition costs rise dramatically, Americans need additional assistance. The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will provide extra help so that more families can afford to give their children a brighter and better future. The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' goes one step further in committing the federal government to making college more affordable for Americans.

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

Mr. President, I rise along with the distinguished Senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to introduce the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003, a bill that guarantees prompt justice to victims of sexual assault crimes through DNA technology. This bill is not new to my colleagues. Last session, I introduced the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act with Senators Specter, Cantwell, Clinton, and Schumer. The bill was voted favorably out of the Judiciary Committee with the key support of my good friend across the aisle, Senator Specter. And in September, with twenty co-sponsors, Republicans and Democrats, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act unanimously passed the Senate. Regrettably, our House counterparts were not able to act so quickly or decisively on a DNA bill, so I am back to re-introduce the bill and to urge quick passage of the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003. I am pleased that, once again, this bill has strong bipartisan support and I look forward to working with my good friend from Utah, the distinguished Senior Senator, Senator Hatch, in acting promptly in marking up this bill when he assumes chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.

Promoting and supporting DNA technology as a crime-fighting tool is not a new endeavor for me. A provision of my 1994 Crime Bill created the Combined DNA Index System, called ``CODIS'', which is an electronic database of DNA profiles, much like the FBI's fingerprint database. CODIS includes two kinds of DNA information, convicted offender DNA samples and DNA from crime scenes. CODIS uses the two indexes to generate investigative leads in crimes where biological evidence is recovered from the scene. In essence, CODIS facilitates the DNA match. And once that match is made a crime is solved because of the incredible accuracy and durability of DNA evidence.

99.9 percent--that is how accurate DNA evidence is. 1 in 30 billion, those are the odds someone else committed a crime if a suspect's DNA matches evidence at the crime scene. 20 or 30 years, that is how long DNA evidence from a crime scene lasts.

Just ten years ago DNA analysis of evidence could have cost thousands of dollars and taken months; now testing one sample costs $40 and can take days. Ten years ago forensic scientists needed blood the size of a bottle cap, now DNA testing can be done on a sample the size of a pinhead. The changes in DNA technology are remarkable, and mark a sea change in how we can fight crime, particularly sexual assault crimes.

The FBI reports that since 1998 the national DNA database has helped put away violent criminals in 6,257 investigations in 40 States. How? By matching the DNA crime evidence to the DNA profiles of offenders. Individual success stories of DNA ``cold hits'' in sexual assault cases make these numbers all too real.

Just last month, Alabama authorities charged a man in the rape of an 85-year-old woman almost ten years ago after he was linked to the case by a DNA sample he was compelled to submit while in prison on unrelated charges.

In Colorado Springs, CO, a trial will soon begin of a man accused of at least fourteen rapes and sexual assaults. Due to the national DNA database, prosecutors were able to trace the defendant to rapes and assaults that occurred in Colorado, California, Arizona, Nevada and Oklahoma between 1999 and 2002.

In Florida, Kellie Green was brutally attacked and raped in the laundry room of her apartment complex. Because of lack of funds, her rape kit sat on the shelf for three years until a persistent detective had it analyzed. The evidence matched the profile of a man already incarcerated for beating and raping a woman 6 weeks before Kellie.

Or take, for example, a 1996 case in St. Louis where two young girls were abducted from bus stops and raped at opposite ends of the city. The police were unable to identify a suspect. In 1999, the police decided to re-run the DNA testing to develop new leads. In January 2000, the DNA database matched the case to a 1999 rape case, and police were able to identify the perpetrator.

Last spring, the New York Police Department arrested a man linked to the rape of a woman years ago. In 1997, a woman was horribly beaten, robbed and raped, there were no suspects. Five years later, the perpetrator submitted a DNA sample as a condition of probation after serving time for burglary. The DNA sample matched the DNA from the 1997 rape. Crime solved, streets safer.

Undoubtedly, DNA matching by comparing evidence gathered at the crime scene with offender samples entered on the national DNA database has proven to be the deciding factor in solving stranger sexual assault cases--it has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and brought closure and justice for victims.

In light of the past successes and the future potential of DNA evidence, the reports about the backlog of untested rape kits and other crime scene evidence waiting in police warehouses are simply shocking. It is a national problem, plaguing both urban and rural areas, that deserves national attention and solutions. One woman, in particular, has reminded State and Federal lawmakers that we cannot ignore even one rape kit sitting on a shelf gathering dust, Debbie Smith. In 1989, Mrs. Smith was brutally taken from her home and raped. There were no known suspects and Mrs. Smith lived in fear of her attacker's return. Six years later, the Virginia crime laboratory discovered a DNA match between the rape scene evidence and a State prisoner's DNA sample. Mrs. Smith had her first moment of real security and closure and since then, she has traveled the country to advocate on behalf of assault victims and champion the use of DNA to fight sexual assault. I am pleased that the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003 bears a provision entitled, ``The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants.''

Today I am introducing legislation, ``The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003'', to strengthen the existing Federal DNA regime as an effective crimefighting tool. My bill addresses five pressing issues.

First, exactly how bad is the backlog of untested rape kits nationwide? A

1999 government report found over 180,000 rape kits were sitting, untested, on the storage shelves of police department and crime laboratories all across the country.

While recent press reports estimate that the number today is approaching 500,000 untested rape kits, I am told that there are no current, accurate numbers of the backlog. Behind every single one of those rape kits is a victim who deserves recognition and justice. Accordingly, my legislation would require the Attorney General to survey law enforcement agencies nationwide to assess the extent of the backlog of rape kits waiting to undergo DNA testing. To combat the problem of rape kit backlogs, it is imperative to know the real numbers, and how best to utilize Federal resources.

Second, how can existing Federal law be strengthened to make sure that State crime labs have the funds for the critical DNA analysis needed to solve sex assault cases? To fight crime most effectively, we must both test rape kits and enter convicted offender DNA samples into the DNA database. There has been explosive growth in the use of forensic sciences by law enforcement. A government survey found that in 2000 alone, crime labs received 31,000 cases--a 47 percent increase from almost 21,000 cases in 1999. In addition, the labs received 177,000 convicted offender DNA samples, an almost 77 percent increase from 100,242 samples in 1999.

The backlog in DNA testing is found all across the country. Last month a Michigan newspaper reported that its State police forensic unit is expected to have a 10-year backlog of items in need of DNA testing. Similar news reports are elsewhere. The Florida crime lab system is facing a backlog of more than 2,400 rape, murder and assault and burglary cases with DNA evidence waiting for testing. In North Carolina, up to 20,000 rape kit tests sit on evidence shelves because the lab does not have the resources to conduct timely DNA testing.

Many crime laboratories report personnel shortages in the face of this overwhelming work. According to a government survey, on average, there are 6 employees in a State crime lab, a lab that must not only conduct DNA testing for hundreds of cases, but also run forensic tests on blood, footprints or ballistic evidence.

The bill I'm introducing would: 1. Increase current funding levels to both test rape kits and to process and upload offender samples; and 2. allow local governments to apply directly to the Justice Department for these grants. I thank my colleagues Senators Kohl and DeWine who began this effort with the DNA Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 and acknowledge their ongoing interest in this area.

Third, what assistance does the FBI need to keep up with the crushing number of DNA samples which need to be tested or stored in the national database? I am told that the current national DNA database, ``CODIS'', is nearing capacity of convicted offender DNA samples. My bill would provide funds to the FBI to 1. Upgrade the national DNA computer database to handle the huge projections of samples; and 2. process and upload Federal convicted offender DNA samples into the database.

Efforts to include more Federal and State convicted offenders in our database just makes plain sense to fight crime. We know that sexual assault is a crime with one of the highest rates of recidivism, and that many sexual assault crimes are committed by those with past convictions for other kinds of crime. Their DNA samples from prior convictions help law enforcement efforts enormously. We cannot wait; the 2001 FBI crime records show that one forcible rape occurs every 5.8 minutes, and the most recent reports from the first six months of 2002 indicate a 1.8 percent increase in the number of rapes as compared to 2001 statistics.

Fourth, what additional tools are needed to help treat victims of sexual assault? One group that understands the importance of gathering credible DNA evidence are forensic sexual assault examiners, who are sensitive to the trauma of this horrible crime and make sure that patients are not revictimized in the aftermath. These programs should be in each and every emergency room and play an integral role in police departments to bridge the gap between the law and the medicine.

I first recognized the importance of sexual assault nurse examiners in solving rape cases when I authored the Violence Against Women Act. A key provision in the Violence Against Women Act requires the Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards for training and practice for licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault forensic exams. So I knew that any DNA bill aimed at ending sexual assault must include resources for sexual forensic examiners, and not just one type. My bill ensures that sexual forensic nurses, doctors, and response teams are all eligible for assistance.

Tapping the power of DNA requires well-trained law enforcement who know how to collect and preserve DNA evidence from the crime scene. Training should be a matter of course for all law enforcement. No rape kit evidence will lead to the perpetrator if the DNA evidence is collected improperly.

The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act would create a new grant program to carry out sexual assault examiner programs and training. And it would train law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in the handling of sexual assault cases, including drug-facilitated assaults, and the collection and use of DNA samples for use as forensic evidence at trial.

Fifth, what can be done to ensure that sexual assault offenders who cannot be identified by their victim are nevertheless brought to justice?

Profound injustice is done to rape victims when delayed DNA testing leads to a ``cold hit'' after the statute of limitations has expired. For example, Jeri Elster was brutally raped in her California home, and for years the police were unable to solve the crime. Seven years later, DNA from the rape matched a man in jail for an unrelated crime. Yet the rapist was never charged, convicted or sentenced because California's statute of limitations had expired the previous year.

The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003 would change current law to authorize Federal ``John Doe/DNA indictments'' that will permit Federal prosecutors to issue an indictment identifying an unknown defendant by his DNA profile within the five year statute of limitations. Once outstanding, the DNA indictment would permit prosecution at anytime once there was a DNA ``cold hit'' through the national DNA database system.

John Doe/DNA indictments strike the right balance between encouraging swift and efficient investigations, recognizing the durability and credibility of DNA evidence and preventing an injustice if a cold hit happens years after the crime. Criminal law must catch up with DNA technology without the wholesale eradication of prevailing statutes of limitations.

I started looking at the issue of improved prosecution of sexual assault crimes almost two decades ago when I began drafting the Violence Against Women Act. The DNA Sexual Justice Act of 2003 is the next step, a way to connect the dots between the extraordinary strides in DNA technology and my commitment to ending violence against women. We must ensure that justice delayed is not justice denied.

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