We are in a climate where people expect debate within our two party system to produce policy alternatives.

However both major political parties have fallen short. People who ask ``Where is the Democratic Party?'' and expect to hear debate may be disappointed. When peace is not on the agenda of our political parties or our governments then it must be the work and the duty of each citizen of the world. This is the time to organize for peace. This is the time for new thinking. This is the time to conceive of peace as not simply being the absence of violence, but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness.

This is the time to conceive of peace as respect, trust, and integrity. This is the time to tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness which compels violence at a personal, group, national or international levels. This is the time to develop a new compassion for others and ourselves.

It is necessary that we do so, for at this moment our world is being challenged by war and premonitions of nuclear annihilation. When terrorists threaten our security, we must enforce the law and bring terrorists to justice within our system of constitutional justice, without undermining the very civil liberties which permits our democracy to breathe.

Our own instinct for life, which inspires our breath and informs our pulse, excites our capacity to reason. Which is why we must pay attention when we sense a threat to survival. That is why we must speak out now to protect this planet and: Challenge those who believe in a nuclear right. Challenge those who would build new nuclear weapons. Challenge those who seek nuclear re-armament. Challenge those who seek nuclear escalation. Challenge those who would make of any nation a nuclear target. Challenge those who would threaten to use nuclear weapons against civilian populations. Challenge those who would break nuclear treaties. Challenge those who think and think about nuclear weapons, to think about peace.

It is practical to work for peace. I speak of peace and diplomacy not just for the sake of peace itself. But, for practical reasons, we must work for peace as a means of achieving permanent security. It is similarly practical to work for total nuclear disarmament, particularly when nuclear arms do not even come close to addressing the real security problems which confront our nation, witness the events of September 11, 2001.

It is practical to work to make war archaic. That is the purpose of HR 2459. It is a bill to create a Department of Peace. HR 2459 seeks to make non-violence an organizing principle in our society. It envisions new structures to help create peace in our homes, in our families, in our schools, in our neighborhoods, in our cities, and in our nation. It aspires to create conditions for peace within and to create conditions for peace worldwide. It considers the conditions which cause people to become the terrorists of the future, issues of poverty, scarcity and exploitation. It is practical to make outer space safe from weapons, so that humanity can continue to pursue a destiny among the stars. HR 3616 seeks to ban weapons in space, to keep the stars a place of dreams, of new possibilities, of transcendence.

We can achieve this practical vision of peace, if we are ready to work for it. People worldwide need to be meet with likeminded people, about peace and nuclear disarmament, now. People worldwide need to gather in peace, now. People worldwide need to march and to pray for peace, now. People worldwide need to be connecting with each other on the web, for peace, now.

We are in a new era of electronic democracy, where the world wide web, numerous web sites and bulletin boards enable new organizations, exercising freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, to spring into being instantly.

We need web sites dedicated to becoming electronic forums for peace, for sustainability, for renewal and for revitalization. We need forums which strive for the restoration of a sense of community through the empowerment of self, through commitment of self to the lives of others, to the life of the community, to the life of the nation, to the life of the world.

Where war making is profoundly uncreative in its destruction, peacemaking can be deeply creative. We need to communicate with each other the ways in which we work in our communities to make this a more peaceful world. I welcome your ideas. We can share our thoughts and discuss ways in which we have brought or will bring them into action. Now is the time to think, to take action and use our talents and abilities to create peace: in our families, in our block clubs, in our neighborhoods, in our places of worship, in our schools and universities, in our labor halls, in our parent-teacher organizations.

Now is the time to think, speak, write, organize and take action to create peace as a social imperative, as an economic imperative, and as a political imperative. Now is the time to think, speak, write, organize, march, rally, hold vigils and take other nonviolent action to create peace in our cities, in our nation and in the world. And as the hymn says, ``Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.''

This is the work of the human family, of people all over the world demanding that governments and non-governmental actors alike put down their nuclear weapons. This is the work of the human family, responding in this moment of crisis to protect our nation, this planet and all life within it. We can achieve both nuclear disarmament and peace, as we understand that all people of the world are interconnected, we can achieve both nuclear disarmament and peace. We can accomplish this through upholding an holistic vision where the claims of all living beings to the right of survival are recognized. We can achieve both nuclear disarmament and peace through being a living testament to a Human Rights Covenant where each person on this planet is entitled to a life where he or she may consciously evolve in mind, body and spirit.

Nuclear disarmament and peace are the signposts toward the uplit path of an even brighter human condition wherein we can through our conscious efforts evolve and reestablish the context of our existence from peril to peace, from revolution to evolution. Think peace. Speak peace. Act peace. Peace.

2A) Missile Defense Testing and the Ballistic Missile Threat
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, there have been two important events relating to missile defense programs that occurred last week, which I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate.

   First is the successful test last Friday night of our Nation's long-range missile defense system. This was the fourth successful test against an intercontinental ballistic missile and it was much more complicated than earlier tests have been, in that the target warhead was accompanied by three decoys. Despite the presence of these countermeasures, the interceptor was able to destroy the ICBM warhead.

   The target warhead was launched on a missile from California, nearly 5,000 miles from the interceptor. The target warhead itself was a cone about 4 feet high and 2 feet wide at its base. The decoys were about the same size. Sensors were able to track these objects along their flightpath and give their location to a battle management system. The battle management system computed an intercept point and launched the interceptor. The interceptor missile received information about the target's position and characteristics, and while it was still several hundred miles from the target warhead, the kill vehicle separated from its booster rocket, its infrared sensors then detected the target, and its guidance system fired small rocket motors to guide the vehicle into a collision with the warhead. The target was destroyed by the force of this collision. All of this took place in just a few minutes in outer space, at closing speeds in excess of 20,000

   miles an hour.

   This impressive event cannot be considered routine, but it is becoming regular. The regularity with which our missile defense testing is succeeding is very encouraging. Although slowed down by uncertain funding and ABM Treaty restrictions in the past, the missile defense program is now showing the benefits of the support provided by Congress over the past few years and of the new seriousness with which President Bush has attacked this problem.

   There is still much technical work to be done, and problems are bound to occur, as they do in all weapons programs. But the continued testing success of our ground-based missile defense system--as well as in other missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC-3 and the sea-based midcourse system--suggests that we are steadily making progress and moving toward the time when we will no longer be defenseless against ballistic missile attack.

   The other event I want to mention in this context was last week's testimony before our Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security by Mr. Robert Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs at the CIA. Mr. Walpole testified on an unclassified CIA report published last December entitled ``Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015.'' Compared with the 1999 version of this report, Mr. Walpole said the missile threat to the United States had increased in significant ways. He also said specifically, where it was previously judged that the United States would probably face an intercontinental ballistic missile threat from Iran by 2015, it is now said by our intelligence community to be most likely the same level of threat assigned to North Korea. And North Korea's Taepo Dong-2 missile, which previously was assessed at having a range of up to 6,000 kilometers, is now judged to have a range of 10,000 kilometers

   if configured with two rocket stages, and 15,000 kilometers if it is equipped with a third stage, as was its predecessor.

   A 15,000 kilometer range is sufficient, according to Mr. Walpole, to reach all of North America with a payload large enough to carry a nuclear weapon. The report notes that the proliferation of missile technology also has become worse. The witness said Iran was now assuming a more significant role as a supplier of this technology to other nations. Finally, Mr. Walpole noted that the United States needs to be vigilant against both terrorism and long-range missile threats, saying:

   We've got to cover both threats.

   As we fight a war against terrorism, we cannot lose sight of the fact that other threats are just as serious. The CIA's report on the missile threat is a timely reminder of that, and last Friday's successful missile defense test is an encouraging sign that we are making progress in preparing to answer that threat.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

3A) Do Not Initiate War on Iraq
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I was recently asked why I thought it was a bad idea for the President to initiate a war against Iraq. I responded by saying that I could easily give a half a dozen reasons why; and if I took a minute, I could give a full dozen. For starters, here is a half a dozen.

   Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.

   Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden Third World nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security.

   Number three, a war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. Arguing that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative.

   Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair's prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran.

   Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Viet Nam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous.

   Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibited. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored. Already we hear cries for resurrecting the authoritarian program of constriction in the name of patriotism, of course.

   Could any benefit come from all this war mongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual's right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus without rejecting internationalism on principle, as we should.

   The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today's international government, the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court, with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.

   The last thing this world needs is the development of more nuclear weapons, as is now being planned in a pretense for ensuring the peace. We would need more than an office of strategic information to convince the world of that.

   What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others.

   Indeed, we live in challenging and dangerous times.

3B) Next Steps in US Policy Towards Iran
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a very thoughtful speech by my colleague, Mr. BIDEN, on U.S. policy toward Iran, which he delivered before the American-Iranian Council on March 13, 2002.

   Mr. BIDEN offers a realistic assessment of the challenges of dealing with a divided government in Iran, where an unelected, ``hardcore clique'' holds the key levers of power and thwarts the democratic will of the vast majority of Iranians.

   More significantly, he lists five specific steps that the United States can take to increase Iran's international linkages and reach out to those in Iran who take risks to bring about change and reform. Mr. BIDEN'S speech has touched off a spirited debate in Iran about how to respond to his initiative.

   Like my colleague from Delaware, I do not believe that our many differences with the Islamic Republic of Iran should close off opportunities to influence Iranian behavior and work together constructively when we may share common interests, such as in Afghanistan; assisting with and re-locating refugees displaced by the Afghan war; controlling the international narcotics trade; and, perhaps, regarding the future of Iraq.

   Our policies must also assist those in Iran advocating reform and change in the Iranian government. Supporting Iranian admittance to the World Trade Organization, for example, would strengthen the hands of reformers in the Iranian parliament and elsewhere who seek to undertake the structural economic reforms that, over time, could lead to more open political and economic systems for the Iranian people.

   I strongly support Mr. BIDEN'S recommendations, including his invitation to meet with members of the Iranian parliament. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to read Mr. BIDEN'S speech when considering next steps in U.S. policy toward Iran.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator BIDEN'S speech be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Remarks by Joseph R. Biden, Jr.--``Prospects for Progress: America and Iran After 9-11''

   It is an honor to be invited to speak before such a distinguished gathering.

   The number of accomplished individuals in the audience today is a testament to the extraordinary achievements of the thriving Iranian-American community. You have enriched the United States with your many talents, and your cultural traditions have strengthened the diversity of our country.

   You also have a critical role to play in serving as a bridge between Iran and the United States.

   Today, I would like to share with you my views on United States policy toward Iran and the kind of relationship I believe Iran and the United States should have. To save you the suspense, the short answer is--a much better relationship than we currently enjoy.

   I say this for one simple reason--I believe that an improved relationship with Iran is in the naked self-interest of the United States of America.

   Iran sits in the geo-political heart of a region that has long been important to our security concerns.

   On its Eastern frontier sits a newly-liberated Afghanistan where the military mission is far from over. Farther East is a nuclear -armed Pakistan that just a short while ago

[Page: S2246]  GPO's PDF

   To the West is a recalcitrant Iraq, with a dangerous leader who Iranians grew to know all too well during the long and bloody Iran-Iraq war. To the North are the undemocratic, potentially energy-rich states of Central Asia and the conflict-ridden Caucasus.

   To the South are several American allies that sit atop the largest known oil reserves on the face of the earth.

   So it is not an understatement to say that the direction Iran takes in the coming years will have a significant impact upon American strategic interests in this region.

   Clearly, we cannot speak of Iran's direction without addressing its internal political dynamics. Since President Khatami's election in 1997, Iran has been embroiled in a gradually escalating power struggle that the outside world has watched with considerable interest.

   While elections haven't been perfect, the Iranian people have made clear in four separate ballots over four years that they are demanding fundamental change.

   The result of these elections has been the creation of a divided government. An elected branch consisting of the parliament and the Presidency that, by definition, is more in touch with the will of the people.

   Juxtaposed to that is an appointed branch which holds many of the key levers of power including the judiciary, security organizations, and other bodies populated by those whose vision largely revolves around the perpetuation of their own authority.

   It is this hardcore clique which refuses to give way to the will of the people. Over the past few years they have thwarted the goals of Iranian reformers. They've arrested journalists. They've imprisoned close allies of the President, and often resorted to violence.

   They've harassed and persecuted minorities in Iran--Jews and the Baha'i.

   They direct policies that pose a threat to our interests. Not the least of which is that Iran continues to support terrorism and the escalation of violence in the Middle East.

   Its recent involvement with the Karine-A arms smuggling incident is a reminder of the policies that Iran must abandon if there is to be a true rapprochement. And many questions remain unanswered about the role played by some Iranians in the Khobar Towers attack that left 19 US servicemen dead.

   But shortly after September 11, ordinary Iranians held a spontaneous candlelight vigil in Tehran in solidarity with the victims. Yet some of Iran's leaders don't appear to understand how drastically the world has changed after September 11.

   Their continuing support for groups such as Islamic Jihad puts them on the wrong side of the new fault-line separating civilization and those who seek chaos. As you all know, Iran is continuing an aggressive drive to develop weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile systems. In these efforts, it receives considerable foreign assistance, especially from Russia.

   While support for terrorism appears to be directed by those in the hard-line branch of the government, the support for Iran's missile and nuclear weapons programs is more broad-based.

   The reason is a combination of three main factors: first, fears over Iraq and to a far lesser degree, Pakistan. Second, the belief that nuclear weapons will enhance Iran's stature. Finally, we cannot dismiss the fact that some elements within the government see a potential blackmail value in the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile capability.

   Whatever the motivation, the United States must place the highest priority on preventing Iran from gaining such dangerous and destabilizing capabilities. There are a number of options for doing so.

   We cannot simply dismiss Iran's security concerns. They've been the victims of chemical weapons attacks by Iraq. But the neighborhood has the potential to change for the better.

   Already, the Taliban menace no longer threatens Iran. Next door, Pakistan's President is reigning in religious extremism.

   And I believe that the U.S. will ultimately have to facilitate a regime-change in Iraq.

   These three developments alone would dramatically alter Iran's security environment for the better.

   We must also be willing to hold discussions with Iran to develop creative solutions as we did in North Korea. And we must step up our efforts to end support by Russian entities for Iranian nuclear and missile efforts. In my view, this hasn't received enough attention over the past year.

   Clearly, although we must combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction to any country, the threat from Iran is not simply a function of capability, but of intention as well.

   If Iran evolves in a more democratic direction and the U.S.-Iranian relationship improves, then the threat it poses certainly will be reduced.

   This, then, raises the question of the ongoing power struggle underway in Iran.

   The United States is not in a position to have a major impact on this struggle. Nor should we intervene in any direct way.

   We should be mindful of the painful history between our two countries, which includes reported CIA support for a coup in 1953. And it still resonates with many Iranians, and it should counsel us to be extra-cautious.

   Nonetheless, we should be clear about where we stand. We are squarely with the Iranian people in their desire for a democratic government and a democratic society.

   Iran has a disproportionately young population. Half of its people were born after the Revolution.

   These young people and many of their parents and grandparents have grown wary of Iran's isolation.

   They want Iran to take its rightful place in the international community and to embrace a rapidly-changing world. They want the same kinds of social, political, and economic freedoms that others enjoy. And they deserve to have these aspirations fulfilled. As I said, we should have a better relationship with Iran. Unfortunately, that is not for us to decide. And it is unlikely to come about absent a change in the attitude or composition of the present Iranian regime.

   While the Bush Administration continues the policy of its predecessors by seeking dialogue with Iran, some in Tehran have a different view.

   Part of the government clearly wants to talk to us and has talked to us over Afghanistan for example. But hard-liners regard us as a useful bogeyman to continue to stir up the passions of their most zealous and ardent stalwarts.

   So the question is what can we do from the outside to help the Iranian people realize their aspirations.

   In my judgment, we must direct our policies in a way that they do not rest on the principle of reciprocity.

   In other words, we should assume that the continuing power struggle will prevent Iran from responding to any particular American gestures. And take steps that are carefully calibrated with the aim of assisting those who seek change within Iran.

   How do we do it? First, we must recognize that the most entrenched elements in Iran seek to perpetuate Iran's isolation through confrontation with the outside world.

   Those who seek change want to increase Iran's international linkages.

   Let me outline five specific steps the United States can take.

   First, the Bush Administration should issue a general license to permit American non-governmental organizations to financially support a broad range of civil society, cultural, human rights, and democracy-building activities in Iran. Such funding is currently banned by Executive Order.

   It is unfortunate that it is our own government, not hard-line clerics in Tehran, that have prevented practitioners of democracy in America from aiding their struggling counterparts in Iran.

   Second, we should continue to work with Iran on matters of mutual interest as we did on Afghanistan.

   It is true that some hard-line elements in Iran are clearly interested in stirring up trouble in Afghanistan, but the story that many don't know is that Iran and the United States coordinated their efforts on Afghanistan closely over the past several months.

   The dialogue on Afghanistan should serve as a model and should be extended to other areas of mutual interest, like the future of Iraq another topic for discussion and cooperation.

   Third, the United States should acquiesce to Iran's bid to begin accession talks to the World Trade Organization. The process of accession would take several years, but Iran would have to make structural changes that would increase transparency and undermine the key power bases of the hard-liners.

   Fourth, we should be willing to indirectly assist Iran on refugee and narcotics matters. Iran has a huge population of Afghan and Iraqi refugees. American non-governmental organizations that assist refugees are willing to help and should be supported in their efforts by our government.

   Likewise, Iran has paid a heavy price in blood and treasure in battling narcotics traffickers on its eastern frontier. Iran has asked the international community for help and it makes sense to assist them through the United Nations.

   Fifth, we should continue to encourage citizen exchanges. A track-two circuit has developed in recent years and it is important to keep it going. Organizations such as the American Iranian Council, the Open Society Institute, and the Nixon Center have played a critical role, and I applaud them.

   I also applaud the President for his view that there should be a direct dialogue with Iran. In that regard, let me also extend an invitation in my capacity as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I am prepared to receive members of the Iranian Majlis whenever its members would like to visit. If Iranian parliamentarians believe that's too sensitive, I'm prepared to meet them elsewhere.

   Without speaking for any of my colleagues, I am confident that many of them would join in such an historic meeting. Indeed, some--including my friend Senator Arlen Specter--did participate in an earlier brief encounter at the Metropolitan Museum of Art organized by the American Iranian Council.

   We should be under no illusions that these steps will by themselves have a decisive impact. The direction that Iran takes the form of government it chooses are ultimately matters for the Iranian people to settle.

   As we all know, Nowruz marks the start of Spring. Let us hope that in this season of renewal that Iranians and Americans can find a way to build on shared interests and work constructively to overcome their differences peacefully.

   I pledge to do my part and I know that all of you will lend your energies to this critical effort.

   Thank you.

4A) Homeland Security and Biological Weapons
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, in order to maintain our position in the world economy America's border security must be highly efficient, posing little or no obstacle to legitimate trade and travel. Yet, America's borders--land, air or sea--are our first line of defense in the war on terrorism. Our budget makes a bold step toward establishing the border of the future. It begins the process of integrating active measures abroad to screen goods and people, inspections at the border, and measures within the United States to ensure compliance with entry and import permits. Federal border control agencies are provided more resources to establish a seamless information-sharing system that allows for coordinated communication with the broader law enforcement and intelligence gathering communities. Funding the use of advanced technology to track the movement of cargo and the entry and exit of individuals is essential to the task of managing the movement of hundreds of millions of individuals, conveyances, and vehicles.

Customs: The 2003 Budget increases the inspection budget of the Customs Services by $619 million, for a total of $2.3 billion. This additional funding increases the ability of the Customs Service to fulfill its critical border security role. Specifically, the additional resources in the 2003 Budget will allow the Customs Service to achieve two key objectives:

Acquisition of Additional Personnel and New Technology.
Coast Guard: The 2003 Budget increases funding for the Coast Guard's homeland security-related missions (protecting ports and coastal areas, as well as interdiction activities) by $282 million, to an overall level of $2.9 billion. After September 11, the Coast Guard's port security mission grew from approximately 1-2 percent of daily operations to between 50-60 percent today. However, we must recognize that the Coast Guard's other important missions, such as suppressing illegal immigration, drug interdiction and search and rescue remain vital to our constituents and coastal communities.

INS: We have also included sense of the House language that the $380 million in Function 750 will be used by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to implement a visa tracking system.

SUPPORTING FIRST RESPONDERS America's first line of defense in any terrorist attack are our ``first responders''--local police, firefighters, and emergency medical professionals. Properly trained and equipped first responders have the greatest potential to save lives and limit casualties after a terrorist attack. The FY 2003 Budget directs $37.7 billion to homeland security, up from $19.5 billion in 2002.

As a first step in our commitment to improving ``consequence management'' we passed H.R. 3448, the Public Health Security and Bio-terrorism Response Act of 2001. H.R. 3448 is intended to better prepare America for bio-terrorist threats or other public health emergencies by improving America's ability to respond effectively and quickly to such threats. This sweeping legislation will cover everything from public health preparedness and improvements, to enhancing controls on deadly biological agents, to protecting our food, drug and drinking water supplies. Our Budget proposes to spend $3.5 billion on enhancing the homeland security response capabilities of America's first responders--a greater than 10-fold increase in Federal resources to ensure that the people on the frontline of our defense have the training, equipment and technology necessary to protect them and protect our homeland.

DEFENDING AGAINST BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM One of the most important missions we have as a Nation is to be prepared for the threat of biological terrorism--the deliberate use of disease as a weapon. An effective bio-defense will require a long-term strategy and significant new investment in the U.S. health care system to defend against attacks on our population and economic attacks against our agricultural infrastructure. The President's Budget for 2003 devotes $2.4 billion to jump-starting the research and development process needed to provide America with the medical tools needed to support an effective response to bio-terrorism.

This new funding will focus on: (1) Infrastructure. Strengthen the State and local health systems, including by enhancinl medical communications and disease surveillance capabilities, to maximize their contribution to the overall bio-defense of the Nation. (2) Response. Improve specialized Federal capabilities to respond in coordination with State and local governments, and private capabilities in the event of a bioterrorist incident and build up the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile. (3) Science. Meet the medical needs of our bio-terrorism response plans by developing specific new vaccines, medicines, and diagnostic tests through an aggressive research and development program. (4) Agriculture. I introduced HR 3198 because I believe threats of agricultural bioterrorism should receive the same level of priority as other terrorist threats. The FY 2003 budget makes important steps in this direction by calling for $74.4 billion in spending, an increase of $11 billion over the FY 2002 budget, and $6 billion above actual budget outlays in FY 2001. Significant funding increases in the agriculture budget that relate to homeland security and the protection of agriculture are a $48 million increase for animal health monitoring, a $19 million increase in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) program for improved point-of-entry inspection programs and a $12 million increase for programs to expand diagnostic, response, management and other technical services within the Animal Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS).

NON-PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Nuclear weapons technology is now almost 70 years old, chemical and biological weapons technology is almost 100 years old. Nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, are no longer the exclusive province of the major powers of the First World. Since the Soviet Union became a nuclear power in 1949 five countries have established significant arsenals of nuclear weapons; China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. India, Pakistan, Israel, and possibly North Korea are also reported to have nuclear weapons.

With the break up of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons materials and production equipment may be available on the international black-market or may be transferred from one state to another. Additional countries may therefore be able to develop nuclear weapons if they are able to obtain fissile material. Even terrorist groups may acquire and use radiological weapons that use a conventional explosive to disperse deadly radioactive material, evidence of such intentions has reportedly been found in Afghanistan.

Our Budget recognizes the importance of non-proliferation to our Homeland Security effort. The resolution accommodates the President's request for $1.12 billion for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in fiscal year 2003, a 39 percent increase over pre-September 11th funding: including International Nuclear Materials Protection, (increased 67 percent, to $233 million) Nonproliferation Research and Development, (increased 38 percent to $284 million) and Fissile Materials Disposition, (accommodates the President's funding request of $350 million, a 40-percent increase above the previous year).

While much of our past focus has been on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons we must recognize that other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological weapons, also pose a very real and present threat. Earlier this week, President Bush articulated his administration's doctrine for dealing with this threat, ``Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death. Against such an enemy, there is no immunity, and there can be no neutrality.'' Our Budget provides the President with the resources he needs to continue our non-proliferation efforts and, if necessary, confront any nation posing a threat with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

[Top]

Center for Nonproliferation Studies 460 Pierce Street, Monterey, CA 93940, USA Telephone: +1 (831) 647-4154; Fax: +1 (831) 647-3519 E-mail: cns@miis.edu; Web: http://cns.miis.edu Copyright © 2002 Monterey Institute of International Studies. All rights reserved.