Congressional Record Weekly UpdateSeptember 8-12, 2003Return to the Congressional Report Weekly. In conclusion, I am going to support every single dollar requested that will support the troops we have sent abroad to fight for this country. However, that does not mean I am going to support every dollar the President requests for the Pentagon. For example, I expect we will soon have the opportunity to offer some amendments to save money by cancelling some new nuclear weapons that the administration has proposed in the budget. Let me describe a couple of them. These are things I will not support and hope to cut funding for. We have some people downtown in the administration who believe nuclear weapons should be treated like any other weapon and that we should have a policy to use them in certain circumstances. That is a very dangerous way of thinking. We have never used nuclear weapons, with the exception of at the end of the Second World War. Up to now, American policy has been to have nuclear weapons in order to prevent nuclear weapons from ever being used. That is called the mutually assured destruction concept, which we have lived with for 40 to 50 years. Now we have people who see them as any other weapon. They talk about using them, and they are suggesting we might need to use them first. Some would like to begin testing nuclear weapons again. We have not tested nuclear weapons for over a decade. The President's budget requests research and development money for the development of new earth penetrator, bunker buster nuclear weapons. The President has requested money for what are called low-yield nuclear weapons. Apparently, they are designer nuclear weapons that can be used more easily on the battlefield. I think this is horribly dangerous for this country. What kind of a signal do we send to other countries that have or want to acquire nuclear weapons? That nuclear weapons can be usable if you just design them in a different way? That if you want to find somebody holed up in a cave, you should just build a designer bunker buster nuclear weapon--not so little really--that you can lob in to destroy the cave. This is terribly destructive to this country's public policy. I think it is hard for me to find the adjectives to describe how shortsighted and dangerous I think this is. I intend to offer an amendment--and I know some of my colleagues will as well--to take some of that money out that would produce these designer nuclear weapons. We don't need them. After all, there are around 30,000 nuclear weapons on the face of this earth. A couple of years ago, there was a flurry of anxiety in the government when there was a rumor that terrorists had stolen one nuclear weapon. One stolen weapon would cause a seizure, and there are roughly 30,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons on the face of the Earth. We don't need to build more nuclear weapons. And, as the leader in the world, we ought to be striving to use our prestige to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. The last thing we ought to do is undermine nonproliferation efforts by saying that we need to build nuclear weapons to bust bunkers and for other uses. I think that is horribly dangerous and destructive. That is one area where
we might save a little money and begin ratcheting down this deficit that we and
the President have to come to grips with. 1B) Energy and Water Development Appropriations Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, while we are now on this energy-water appropriations bill, let me first thank my friend, Senator HARRY REID from Nevada, as the ranking member of this subcommittee, for the hard work he and his staff put into this bill. We have a great bill. The Senate will find that out in the next 2 or 3 days. I am hopeful there will only be a few amendments. We kind of know what they are. We do not intend to discuss them until those proponents come to the floor and offer them, but we know about them and we think we can have a serious debate Monday. I understand maybe we can't vote on Monday. If we can, we will, and dispose of that serious nuclear amendment--antinuclear development amendment. If not, we would do it on Tuesday. But I hope nobody intends to use this bill as a Christmas tree for authorizations. I can assure them they will meet great resistance from this Senator. This is not an authorization bill for electricity. That is somewhere else, another bill. It is in the conference. We have already voted. We will not consider that, and if we do, it will not matter because I will not bring back from conference any energy amendments that belong on the authorization bill, creating the policy for the energy future of our country. With that, I move now to the business before the Senate. Today the Senate is going to consider one of the 13 appropriations bills. It is a small one, but it is a very important one. We worked very hard this year to put together what we think is a fair bill under extremely difficult circumstances. This fiscal 2004 allocation to the subcommittee is $27 billion, an amount that is only $367 million over the President's request. This situation posed a daunting challenge to the subcommittee. Let me put that in context. All of the Members here know the President's request dramatically cut water projects. The occupant of the Chair knows that--it cut water projects well below the current year level and left out many projects we had to do. Furthermore, the President proposed to fund a portion of the Corps of Engineers budget, an amount of $145 million, in a way the Congressional Budget Office says is not permissible. If it is not permissible and we did it, it would be subject to a point of order--even though the Congressional Budget Office gives the President credit for the mechanism in this scoring request. Thus, we have included a provision that will make an additional $145 million available to the Corps to spend on the enactment of the provision in authorizing legislation that is required under the rules of the Congressional Budget Office. We think that is the way to do it. But for now, the long and the short of all of this is that the President's request was $530 million below the current year level for water projects, and we only received an increase from the appropriations process of $367 million. There is nothing that Senators and House Members are more aware of than water projects in their home States. I do not know if they are as important as the Members think. But I only can tell you that if you are chairman of this committee, you cannot get by without Senators stuffing your pockets with the requests and sending them to your office, saying: Don't forget; don't forget. We have a pile of them. I didn't bring them to the floor. There are more than a few hundred. The bill spreads the increased allocation generally as follows: [Page: S11403]
An additional $233 million to the Corps water projects; an additional $67 million to the Bureau of Reclamation water projects; an additional $80 million to independent regional commissions which were badly cut in the President's request, such as the Denali Regional Commission of Alaska, the Appalachia Regional Commission, and the Delta Regional Commission; and we held the Department of Energy at just about the President's request level. I believe--and I think Senator Reid will agree with me--that this was the fairest way to distribute the very limited resources. It was the fairest in any sense of the word, and also in the sense of the word of what our Members expect of us and what they can expect of us in doing our job correctly. The bill provides $4.43 billion for the Corps of Engineers. That is $233 million above the President's request but $212 million below the current year's level. We have included no new construction projects and have focused our resources on restoring the cuts to existing construction projects. For the Bureau of Reclamation and related activities, the bill provides $990 million, which is $67 million above the President's request but only $17 million above the current year level. For nuclear weapons activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration--known as NNSA--the bill provides $6.47 billion, which is $96 million more than the President's request and $492 million over the current year level. The budget increases are consistent with a major Defense Department initiative to restore our nuclear weapons complex. Mr. President, I told you when we opened the bill that it was a small bill. But it has a lot in it. It pays for the National Nuclear Security Administration. That is the laboratories and the administration. Among its charges is making sure scientifically, with the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program--meaning these laboratories have to engage in all kinds and varieties of science--that they tell us our weapons are valid without testing them. For most of our adult life we tested them, so we had no doubt. Great scientists hooked them up and the great desert provided the test site. And we tested them. But we voted to quit it. We didn't vote to stop having nuclear weapons; we just voted not to test them. Somebody has the responsibility when you stop testing them to be in a position of reporting to the Chief Executive and, thus, then to us whether the weapons are still valid. Some of them are 30 or 35 years old. I don't know whether they are 40 years old yet. But they are pretty old for nuclear weapons. So somebody has to do that. That is the work of the National Nuclear Security Administration and the laboratories, and this bill has to pay for that. For nuclear nonproliferation activities, it is important that we understand this little bill funds $1.34 billion, which is the same as the President's request, and $171 million above the current level. The committee continues its leadership role in countering nuclear terrorism. The budget request, coupled with $148 million added in last year's supplemental, gives a strong boost to this highly important program. When we speak of terror in the world, we now have almost stopped talking about nuclear terrorism because we speak so much about biological terrorism and chemical terrorism. But we cannot forget that the granddaddy of all terrorist activities is a nuclear terrorist activity. Nonproliferation is the effort of our Government to try to keep the things that people might use for nuclear weapons or to keep them out of the hands of those who might put them together and use them. That is a big job. This is a little bill with a lot of money--$1.34 billion for that effort. We have great laboratory people engaged in that. Then there is the ``Isn't good news provision.'' We have been paying to clean up energy sites for many years. These are the sites that remained from the cold-war era in the development of nuclear weapons and plutonium in various parts of America, such as the Savannah River area, areas in the west coast and Washington--environmental cleanup sites. This bill provides an incredible amount of money--$7.6 billion. But believe it or not, that is $62 million below the President's request. For the first time in many years, it is less than the previous year--$238 million less. The subcommittee was not required to add huge additional amounts to maintain cleanup budgets around the country. This is an unknown--almost secret--success of this Department of Energy. They said they would do it when they took office, but they have been saying it as they took office in that Department for 12 years, that I am aware of, and each year it was more--not less. We finally have a couple of projects--led by one in Colorado--which have timeframes for completion which is credible and near at hand. There are some that are going to go on for a long time. But at least since this money comes out of the defense of our country, the Defense Department might be hopeful that as they increase their defense dollars we will not have to suck away large amounts to pay for this cleanup, although I am not yet making that as a promise because there are a few of these sites for which we are not absolutely certain how long it will take and how much it will cost. But they have become extremely, extremely expensive sites with thousands of people employed. The frustration level for a Senator such as me paying for it year after year is very high. I didn't think the cleanup sites were supposed to be public works projects. I thought they were supposed to be cleanup sites. But there is a lot of justification and a lot of reasoning, and we are not responsible for all of them. But some of them we have to fix, and we are trying. Then there is a great issue in the State of my friend, HARRY REID, of Yucca Mountain. The project at Yucca causes the Senate to provide $425 million for 2004 construction. That is $166 million below the President's request, and $32 million less than the current level. But this project will be a major point of contention in conference with the House, which has increased the project by $180 million over the request. This is a very important matter to many members of the subcommittee, each for various reasons, and it will require additional work as we move through the process. For renewable energy research and development, believe it or not, we even found the money--$459 million, which is $15 million more than the President's request and $40 million more than this year--for renewables. The committee funds the President's new hydrogen technology initiative. For nuclear energy research and development, the bill provides $437 million, which is $447 million above the President's request and $63 million over a comparable current bill level. The Members know this is a great priority of mine as we continue to make investments. I believe it will eventually result in the construction of a new commercial power reactor, or more than one, in the United States. We will provide a total of $35 million toward the development of a new reactor in Idaho that could produce both electricity and hydrogen. We are not alone in this goal and in this kind of project. Japan is on the way. Japan is substantially ahead in terms of a timeframe for hydrogen engines in automobiles. Yet it is not something that will happen quickly. It is a few years away even for them, like 10, and, who knows, more than that for us. But we had better get started since we know we are hugely dependent upon oil from foreign countries. Basic research for the Department of Energy: $3.36 billion, which is $50 million above the President and $88 million above this year. We talk about research. We had a big debate last night about research at the National Institutes of Health, a huge debate. We are researching the human body and the ways we might give health where the bodies are sick and find solutions to illnesses that besiege us. We are spending a huge amount of money in that field. I think the figure was well over the $25 billion mark. The other agency that does research, but in physics and other sciences, is the Department of Energy. We do not treat it right; we only have $3.36 billion. That is $88 million more than last year for all of their research. The bill provides $48.5 million for the Denali Commission, $58 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and $7 million for the Delta Regional Authority, an increase of $5 million over the President's request and $1 million below the current year level. The bill also provides a total budget of $619 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the same as the budget request and an increase of $41 million over the current year level. Given the overall constraints, we worked hard but were unfortunately limited to accommodating only the highest priority requests of Members where possible. This is going to be a difficult year, but I look forward to the recommendations of other Members. Finally, the Senate should be fully aware that the committee reported bill includes a provision regarding the Middle Rio Grande River in New Mexico. The provision does two things. First it prohibits the use of outer-basin water for endangered species purposes. Second, it establishes how the Endangered Species Act will be complied with for this river and the affected fish. This is a very important provision that has the bipartisan support in the New Mexico delegation and at the state level. Before I yield to the floor and my Ranking Member for his statement, I would like to thank him and his excellent staff for all the effort he has put forth in getting this bill put together.
CHEM/ BIO WEAPONS ************************************* 3A) Health Care for Veterans of Project 112/Project SHAD Act of 2003 Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2433) to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide veterans who participated in certain Department of Defense chemical and biological warfare testing to be provided health care for illness without requirement for proof of service-connection, as amended. The Clerk read as follows: H.R. 2433 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Health Care for Veterans of Project 112/Project SHAD Act of 2003''. SEC. 2. PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE TO VETERANS WHO PARTICIPATED IN CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE TESTING. Section 1710(e) of title 38, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(E) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), a veteran who participated in a test conducted by the Department of Defense Deseret Test Center as part of a program for chemical and biological warfare testing from 1962 through 1973 (including the program designated as `Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD)' and related land-based tests) is eligible for hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care under subsection (a)(2)(F) for any illness, notwithstanding that there is insufficient medical evidence to conclude that such illness is attributable to such testing.''. (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking out ``paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (1)''; and (3) in paragraph (3)-- (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B); (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and''; and (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(D) in the case of care for a veteran described in paragraph (1)(E), after December 31, 2005.''. SEC. 3. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS. (a) PROMOTION STANDARDS FOR HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL.--Subsection (c) of 7403 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ``Promotions'' and inserting ``Consistent with subsection (a) of section 7422 of this title, and notwithstanding subsection (b) of that section, promotions''. (b) PROMOTIONS FOR NURSES WHO DO NOT HAVE BACCALAUREATE DEGREES.--Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(h) In a case in which a registered nurse has accomplished the performance elements required for promotion to the next grade, the lack of a baccalaureate degree in nursing shall not be a bar to promotion to that grade, and in such a case the registered nurse shall not be denied a promotion on that basis.''. SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL PAY FOR SATURDAY TOURS OF DUTY FOR ADDITIONAL HEALTH CARE WORKERS IN THE VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 7454(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(3) Employees appointed under section 7408 of this title shall be entitled to additional pay on the same basis as provided for nurses in section 7453(c) of this title.''. (b) APPLICABILITY.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 5. COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES OF VETERANS' CANTEEN SERVICE UNDER ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWS. (a) COVERAGE.--Paragraph (5) of section 7802 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the semicolon a period and the following: ``An employee appointed under this section may be considered for appointment to a Department position in the competitive service in the same manner that a Department employee in the competitive service is considered for transfer to such position. An employee of the Service who is appointed to a Department position in the competitive service under the authority of the preceding sentence may count toward the time-in-service requirement for a career appointment in such position any previous period of employment in the Service''. (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.--Such section is further amended-- (1) by striking the semicolon at the end of each of paragraphs (1) through (10) and inserting a period; (2) by striking ``The Secretary '' and all that follows through ``(1) establish,'' and inserting ``(a) LOCATIONS FOR CANTEENS.--The Secretary shall establish,''; (3) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (11) as subsections (b) through (k), respectively, and by realigning those subsections (as so redesignated) so as to be flush to the left margin; (4) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``WAREHOUSES AND STORAGE DEPOTS.--The Secretary shall'' before ``establish''; (5) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``SPACE, BUILDINGS, AND STRUCTURES.--The Secretary shall'' before ``furnish''; (6) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``EQUIPMENT, SERVICES, AND UTILITIES.--The Secretary shall'' before ``transfer''; (7) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated and as amended by subsection (a)), by inserting ``PERSONNEL.--The Secretary shall'' before ``employ''; (8) in subsection (f) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS.--The Secretary shall'' before ``make all''; (9) in subsection (g) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``PRICES.--The Secretary shall'' before ``fix the''; (10) in subsection (h) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``GIFTS AND DONATIONS.--The Secretary may'' before ``accept''; (11) in subsection (i) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``RULES AND REGULATIONS.--The Secretary shall'' before ``make such''; (12) in subsection (j) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``DELEGATION.--The Secretary may'' before ``delegate such''; and [Page: H8095]
(13) in subsection (k) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``AUTHORITY TO CASH CHECKS, ETC.--The Secretary may'' before ``authorize''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2433, as amended, the Health Care for Veterans of Project 112/Project Shad Act of 2003. Project SHAD stands for ``shipboard hazard and defense.'' It was a program that was conducted in the 1970s. I will get into that in a moment. I do want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and the subcommittee's ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), for their work and cooperation in moving this very bipartisan bill forward. I want to thank them for their leadership on it. This bill would authorize the VA to provide higher priority health care to veterans who participated in Project 112/SHAD. These tests, which involved exposure of servicemembers to simulated chemical and biological agents and in some cases, Mr. Speaker, actual poisons, were conducted by the Department of Defense at their Desert Test Center from 1962 through 1973. In the past year, DOD has released information about all of these secret Cold War-era tests and has worked with the Department of Veterans Affairs and our committee to identify and notify veterans who participated in the tests, some of them unknowingly. This legislation will ensure that those veterans who did participate in those tests are able to receive medical evaluations and treatment if necessary at VA health care facilities on a higher priority basis without being required to establish service connection for these illnesses they believe were caused by those exposures. H.R. 2433 also includes several measures designed to help the VA to maintain a quality workforce in all of its health care facilities. There is a well-documented shortage of trained registered nurses, for example, in the United States; and this shortage affects the VA's ability to deliver care to veterans. Our committee has expressed concern about a VA policy that requires VA-registered nurses to obtain baccalaureate degrees in nursing in order to advance beyond entry nurse-grade levels. The VA's continuation of this policy in the face of high demand and scarcity of nursing personnel discourages qualified nurses from seeking VA employment and makes the VA's ability to retain current nurses more challenging than it needs to be. H.R. 2433 will help keep the VA competitive with the private sector so that when a VA-registered nurse is otherwise eligible for a promotion, the lack of a specific educational degree may not be used to deny that promotion from nurse grade 1 to grade 2. Mr. Speaker, section 4 of the bill expands the number of health care workers entitled to extra pay for working weekends. Most private hospitals provide extra pay for weekend work. Many VA health care workers already receive extra compensation for working on weekends. Section 4 is an effort to eliminate current disparities between VA employees working side by side to care for sick veterans. The legislation also gives the approximately 3,000 Veterans' Canteen Service hourly workers the right to be considered for other VA positions on a competitive basis. This right was given to VCS managers in 1979. There is no reason whatsoever to impede good VA workers from seeking career advancement to more demanding, higher-paying positions for which they are qualified. This is a good bill. I hope that Members will support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for recognizing the need to assure health care for veterans who participated, often unwittingly at times, in the tests of Deseret Test Center. I also want to acknowledge the commitment of Mr. Mike Thompson, whose persistence in uncovering the truth about these tests has been extraordinarily noteworthy. It is remarkable to think that the military would have knowingly exposed troops to some of the agents we now know were involved in these tests. I am pleased that we will be offering these veterans an opportunity to receive health care services in order to address some of the conditions they believe may have been involved in this exposure. There are other important personnel issues addressed in this legislation. For several years, the VA has been committed to converting to an all-bachelor's degree program. While this goal may be admirable, it may also be unattainable, particularly on the cusp of the severe nursing shortage confronting the whole health care industry, both private and public. It also fails to acknowledge the very real contributions of associate degree-trained nurses who receive similar practical training. It is also appropriate to give nursing assistants the same access to Saturday premium pay as their nursing counterparts. Mr. Speaker, I hope all the Members will join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Time: 10:45]
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Health. Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for their terrific work on this legislation. I also thank my colleague and ranking member of the Veterans Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), for all of his work. These are bipartisan products. These are legislative products that have been worked on on both sides of the aisle by all of us working together for the common good of our veterans and for those who serve them. I am sure my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) will talk quite a bit about the SHAD portion of this legislation, and I will leave that to him, but I want to highlight two other parts of this legislation that I think are so important. The first one is the one that guarantees that a qualified VA registered nurse is not denied promotion to a higher job because that nurse fails to have a certain educational degree. During my period of service on active duty in the U.S. Army, I went to infantry OCS, and at infantry OCS, I trained with a lot of enlisted personnel, sergeants, E-5s, E-6s and E-7s who decided to go to infantry OCS to get that commission to get that lieutenant's bar and to lead men in combat in Vietnam. A number of those highly qualified enlisted persons who went to OCS did not have college degrees, and yet they accumulated awards for valor in service and led their men successfully in the war zone. When the war was over, they lost their commissions. They were given the choice of getting out of the service or going back to enlisted rank. That made no sense to me. It made no sense to me that somebody who had been successful in leading men in combat and in battle in an infantry assignment would be denied that commission at a future date simply because they did not have the educational qualifications. The same principle is at stake here. Why should a qualified VA registered nurse be denied a promotion on the basis of the fact that that nurse does not have a specific educational degree? We can do better than that. This bill fixes that problem. Let me refer also to one other portion of this legislation that I think is so important, and that I think establishes fairness for those who serve us in the VA. Veterans Canteen Service food workers are not eligible currently for career service or competitive service positions because of their current position within the Canteen Service. Well, low and behold, I began my Army career as an Army cook. I began my Army career as an Army cook. Nobody said at the time you cannot go on to go to OCS, officer candidate school, and get a commission and go up [Page: H8096]
through the ranks and eventually retire as a colonel. Nobody said that at the time. So why do we say that to the canteen workers? Why do we say we are going to offer you a job as a Canteen Service worker, but it is a dead-end job. You are never going to be able to aspire to anything higher. That does not make any sense to me, and I do not think it makes any sense to the men and women who work in these positions. So I thank my leaders in the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith), the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and I also thank my colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), for their hard work on this legislation, which brings about reforms into the system that are so long overdue. Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for yielding me time. I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership as ranking member. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) for his leadership and I want to thank, of course, our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) on this bipartisan effort. I think there is no doubt that this particular piece of legislation is needed, so I want to personally express my gratitude on this bipartisan effort to the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and the ranking Member the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). Project 112, as we know, was a series of military tests that began in the early 1960s and continued throughout much of the Cold War to assess the effects of chemical and biological weapons on military assets under various environmental conditions. I introduced this piece of legislation after we had become aware of it. I also want to take note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) worked hard on this particular issue. I also want to indicate that many of these tests happened at sea and it is also referred to as Project SHAD, but others were land-based. The tests were designed to identify the military vulnerabilities to various types of attacks, whether these attacks could be adequately detected or whether some protection measures were effective against these attacks. The Department of Defense has admitted that it has no evidence that the test participants were informed of the risk of their participation in these tests or that, in most cases, they received appropriate protection gear while conducting these tests. Some veterans are justly concerned, and have been informed that they were exposed to hazardous material. In order to restore the trust and confidence of the American people, and particularly the American veterans in the Federal Government's response to these kinds of exposures-related controversies, we must act, and H.R. 2433 does that exactly. It is impossible to believe that the military exposed our own troops to such potent agents such as VX nerve gas and sarin. Veterans are naturally concerned about the long-term effects of exposure to those poisons in terms of their health. Project 112 veterans have complained of various forms of ailments such as cancer and hypertension. Given the amount of time that has passed and the relatively small number of veterans involved in such tests, veterans may never fully understand the effects of these tests. The VA has requested legislation, and that is why we are doing this, to begin to examine the participants and the ailments and the conditions of these veterans that participated in these experiments. This authority will allow this opportunity for veterans involved in these exams and suffering from possible ailments to be able to get tested and be able to look in terms of how they might have been impacted by it. It may also give the VA a chance to see if there are discernible patterns of veterans' health outcomes. This information may help VA identify whether particular operations or exposures were particularly harmful. It is time for us to make at least some amends to our veterans involved in these experiments, often without their consent, knowledge or adequate protection. We owe it to them for us to move in this protection. I also appeal to veterans that might be informed or might be listening for them to become abreast of what has transpired, because a lot of the veterans are not aware that these particular tests had taken place. So, once again, I ask for your support for H.R. 2433, and I thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the leading Democrat on the committee. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, who held hearings on Project SHAD. Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for their work on this important piece of legislation. I also would like to recognize the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), my ranking member during the time I chaired the subcommittee, in which our subcommittee focused a lot of attention toward the issue of Project SHAD and its effect upon our veterans today and upon servicemen and women back in the 1960s. I am pleased to be here today, these months later, in support of passage of H.R. 2433. During my time as the subcommittee chairman, we worked with a number of our colleagues on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to highlight, to encourage the Department of Defense to provide information, the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide a higher priority in care and concern for the veterans who participated in Project SHAD, those tests conducted by the Department of Defense in the 60s. These tests were conducted over water and on land. They were designed to ascertain the damage and dangers chemicals might have to ships and equipment, beginning a study upon the effects of weapons of mass destruction, something we hear about a lot today. Thousands of veterans, as a result of those tests, now have reason to believe that their health may have been adversely affected by exposure to dangerous substances. In the 107th Congress, our subcommittee held those hearings on this project, upon the tests. We had a number of meetings with Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs officials. We visited with veterans organizations and began the process of seeking answers to the many questions that now linger some 60 years later. Our subcommittee concentrated also on the state of deployment health. Having been through the Persian Gulf War Syndrome, we wanted to see if we could find ways to get the Department of Defense to deploy our forces in ways that protected those forces, the equipment, vaccinations, health records and other policies that DOD utilizes today to protect the health of active duty servicemen and women who are deployed in areas of conflict. Congress does need to focus our concern on the veterans of the past, because they teach us lessons about the veterans of our future, and we need to use history as a tool to create effective and proactive policies for our current and future servicemen and women who may be exposed at some time to dangerous poisons and other hazards of military deployment. We have seen those exposures in Vietnam, in the first Gulf War, and we may see many more in the future. U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, are overseas today defending the freedoms we enjoy here at home, and we in Congress are responsible for ensuring their health, that it is protected, both in and out of the service. The record is clear: The tests that involved Project SHAD were not intended to harm U.S. service members, they were intended to aid the U.S. in protecting ships at sea and soldiers and their equipment on the field of battle from enemy attacks using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. But, clearly, we have a responsibility to [Page: H8097]
those soldiers who were affected by those tests. I would like to especially commend a Kansan from Topeka, Kansas, Jim Druckmiller, and the USS Power Association, as well as the Vietnam Veterans of America, their organization, for bringing this issue to the subcommittee and Congress. Citizens from my home State of Kansas and many other states were affected by these tests, and we must honor them and support them by seeking passage of this legislation. I again commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) for giving this legislation the high priority it is due, and urge its passage by the House today. Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, you would think that we would have learned from the experience in Vietnam and Agent Orange, which the gentleman from Illinois (Marine Corporal EVANS) taught us as he led the charge to uncover what happened with Agent Orange and to give our servicemen and women some protection later on. If we learned anything, it is that our veterans must be informed of the risks of exposure that they experience on the battlefield. We did not learn that in Persian Gulf War I, and we are left with the Persian Gulf War illness. I do not think we have learned it with Persian Gulf War II, and who knows what we are going to have after this war. Veterans must know about the agents to which they were exposed and whether these agents are likely to produce any health consequences, and they must be taken care of if they become ill due to the exposures during their service. That is what this bill does, based on this project that took place in the 1960s. We have thanked a lot of people in the Congress for bringing this bill up, but I have to thank our veterans for their own diligence in bringing this matter to our attention. Once again, it was veterans who became ill who had to advocate on their own behalf to get their government, to get our government, to release information about harmful exposures so they could understand their own health issues and assert the legitimacy of their claims. One of these veterans is Jack B. Anderson, a retired Navy man and a constituent of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), and that is what brought the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) into this, and we thank him for his leadership, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) also for bringing this bill to us. This project, Project 112, was a $4 billion testing effort.
[Time: 11:00]
It would translate into a $40 billion effort today. That is a massive undertaking. And there were tests at sea called Project SHAD to identify vulnerabilities to various types of attacks. Now, that is a legitimate function of our Defense Department, but they did not inform those who were tested that they were even participating in the test or that they have the right equipment to protect themselves or that their exposure might lead to later problems, this exposure to nerve gas and sarin. Once again, it took veterans and it took Members of Congress to force the Department of Defense to admit that they were at fault and to make sure that the veterans received health care and proper compensation. So I thank all those who took part in this to finally bring some justice to this case. This Project 112 and Project SHAD, the Vietnam situation with agent orange, the Persian Gulf War illness, all of these are part of a pattern. One would think that we would learn that by now. I do not think that we have learned yet, however, our lesson, and we are going to see it again after this war in Iraq. So, ladies and gentlemen, I urge support for H.R. 2433. Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, I want to again thank all of my colleagues and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), especially, for his leadership on this bill. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), who spoke earlier, held the really landmark hearings that helped catapult this issue into the forefront in people's thought. Let us not forget what we are talking about. The Department of Defense in some 41 tests aboard ships used agents like anthrax, VX, sarin gas. Yes, they used simulants in many cases, but they actually used the real deal. They actually used real contaminants. We are not sure, even to this day, whether or not the protective suits that were worn by our sailors aboard those ships actually protected them from these very caustic and poisonous agents. We need to get to the bottom of it. I am convinced, having been at the hearings, having had several conversations with people at the DOD and the VA, that they are really going to go all out to make sure that every veteran who is malaffected or could have been malaffected by this gets the kind of health care and compensation that is necessary if, indeed, they have been contaminated by it. So this is a very important bill. I hope that the full body will embrace it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2433, as amended. The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed. The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide veterans who participated in certain Department of Defense chemical and biological warfare testing with health care for their illness without requirement for proof of service-connection, and for other purposes.''. A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table. 3B) Health Care for Veterans of Project 112/Project SHAD Act of 2003 [Page: E1780] GPO's PDF --- SPEECH OF HON. DENNIS MOORE OF KANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
WMD TERRORISM ************************************ 4B) Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2003 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on a bill that I will introduce to increase the criminal penalties relating to terrorist murders and to deny Federal benefits to terrorists, and for other purposes. I authored the Terrorist Prosecution Act of 1986, which provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction to try in United States courts anyone who assaults, maims, or murders a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. And that bill, which provides for the death penalty, has been enacted into law and has been very helpful. I have been trying to extradite Palestinian Authority terrorists who have murdered United States citizens abroad. This bill would go beyond existing law to provide for the death penalty in all terrorist offenses resulting in death. It adds the death penalty as a punishment in a number of situations that do not currently provide for the death penalty, such as sabotage of a national defense installation, sabotage of a nuclear facility, or destroying an energy facility. In addition, this legislation includes conspiracy and attempt to commit terrorist acts in the list of terrorism offenses subject to the death penalty. It would enable prosecutors to seek the death penalty for terrorist fundraisers, for example. Another important aspect of this legislation would be to remove the so-called gateway factors to impose the death penalty for terrorist offenses. It adds terrorism to the list of offenses, espionage and treason, for which the death penalty can be imposed without the gateway factors being met. For other offenses, the death penalty can only be imposed if there is a direct link between the criminal act and the death of a victim and prosecutors do not believe they can establish such a link in the case of a terrorist fundraiser. There are Supreme Court decisions which preclude the imposition of the death penalty, for example, on the driver of a getaway car in a felony murder or robbery murder. Someone in the getaway car cannot get the death penalty because the Supreme Court has said it is too remote. And when I have pressed the Department of Justice to proceed with criminal prosecutions and to seek the death penalty for terrorists, for people who contribute to organizations such as Hamas, where they know there are terrorist branches and instigation of the murdering of U.S. citizens, as they did some months ago at Hebrew University and in other situations, the prosecutors have said to me they are concerned that the analogy to the driver of a getaway car might prevent the imposition of the death penalty. Frankly, I disagree with that assessment because the driver of a getaway car may not be considering the consequence of death. And the contributors to terrorist organizations, knowing what those organizations do, are really on notice and are accessories before the fact to murder. I think they ought to be held liable under existing law. But to clear up any ambiguity, this legislation would remove those limitations and would make such contributors to terrorist organizations liable for the death penalty as accessories before the fact. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2003''. SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST MURDERS. (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: [Page: S11241]
``§2339D. Terrorist offenses resulting in death ``(a) PENALTY.--A person who, in the course of committing a terrorist offense, engages in conduct that results in the death of a person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. ``(b) TERRORIST OFFENSE DEFINED.--In this section, the term `terrorist offense' means-- ``(1) international or domestic terrorism as defined in section 2331; ``(2) a Federal crime of terrorism as defined in section 2332b(g); ``(3) an offense under this chapter; ``(4) section 175, 175b, 229, or 831 of this title; ``(5) section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284); or ``(6) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5).''. (b) CHAPTER ANALYSIS.--The chapter analysis of chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``2339D..Terrorist offenses resulting in death.''. (c) AGGRAVATING FACTORS.-- (1) IN GENERAL.--Section 3591(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or section 2381'' and inserting ``2339D, or 2381''. (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--Section 3592(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (A) in the heading, by striking ``AND TREASON'' and inserting ``, TREASON, AND TERRORISM''; and (B) in paragraph (1)-- (i) in the heading, by striking ``OR TREASON'' and inserting ``, TREASON, OR TERRORISM''; and (ii) by striking ``or treason'' and inserting ``, treason, or terrorism''. SEC. 3. DENIAL OF FEDERAL BENEFITS TO TERRORISTS. (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:``§2339E. Denial of Federal benefits to terrorists ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Any individual who is convicted of a Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b(g)) shall, as provided by the court on motion of the Government, be ineligible for any or all Federal benefits for any term of years or for life. ``(b) FEDERAL BENEFIT DEFINED.--As used in this section, `Federal benefit' has the meaning given that term in section 421(d) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 862(d)).''. (b) CHAPTER ANALYSIS.--The chapter analysis of chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``2339E..Denial of Federal benefits to terrorists.''.
4C) ABC Primetime - Nuclear Terrorism Much other work remains to be done. We know all of our ports, all 361 one of them, are the soft underbelly of homeland security. To emphasize this point, ``ABC News Primetime'' tonight will have a segment announcing the results of an investigation that shows just how porous our borders are. As a test, they shipped a suitcase with 15 pounds of depleted uranium from Jakarta to Singapore to Hong Kong to mainland China, and finally to the port of Los Angeles--all without being detected. The suitcase was in a 20-foot container filled with teak furniture. This investigation demonstrates how easily a terrorist could put a dirty bomb on a container, ship that container to a port in the United States, then place the container on a train unopened, and move it out anywhere into the heartland of our country. To help solve this sort of problem, earlier this year, Senator Kyl and I introduced the Antiterrorism and Port Security Act of 2003. This bill is still pending. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Schumer, is a cosponsor, and we are grateful for his support. This legislation would close loopholes in our criminal laws that would allow terrorists to strike against our ports to escape appropriate punishment. Many criminal laws don't deal appropriately with port security and were never even contemplated as deterring and punishing a terrorist attack on a port, so there are enormous loopholes in them. The bill would also help safeguard ports by strengthening security standards and requirements and ensuring greater coordination, and it would better focus our limited cargo inspection resources by improving the existing shipment profiling system and substantially bolstering container security. The ``ABC News'' show airing tonight will show that our container risk profiling and inspection system is inadequate. Today, the administration is putting a handful of Customs agents in other countries, to try to push the borders out, and using a risk profiling system that includes much less information and intelligence that it could. Moreover, fewer than 2 or 3 percent of the containers that come into our country are searched. I would add that over 40 percent of all imported containers in the U.S. come through two big ports in my State. I would hate to see a dirty bomb come in through the port of Los Angeles, the port of Long Beach, or the port of Oakland and be detonated somewhere in the United States. That is all too easy to do still today. Rather than criticize ABC for this show, we should be grateful to them because, once again, their investigative efforts have shown dramatically a loophole in the homeland security of this great, free society.
S. 1612. A bill to establish a technology, equipment, and information transfer within the Department of Homeland Security; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the terrorist attacks of 2 years ago, and to remember those who lost their lives or their loved ones on that tragic day. We also pause to honor the heroes who came to the rescue that day: our firefighters, police officers, and emergency workers.
Two years ago, a brilliant late-summer Tuesday morning turned without warning into a horror of fire, smoke and chaos. Just another workday suddenly became a day of unimaginable loss, courage and sacrifice. What happened in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania 2 years ago ensured that September 11 would be forever a solemn anniversary we will observe with reverence and reflection. It is a date we will keep in our places of worship, in our streets and public parks, certainly in our hearts.
This second anniversary also is an appropriate time for assessment. While the terrorist attacks told us much about the strength of our people, they also revealed many weaknesses--in planning, cohesiveness and cooperation--in our government. The question we in government must answer today is whether our planning is more comprehensive, preparedness more effective, and the interactions among the various agencies of government more cohesive and cooperative.
Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has worked to forge a new relationship with State and local governments. During the past 2 years, Congress has provided $11 billion to States and localities to help equip and train their police, fire, and emergency personnel. Federal experts have trained more than 450,000 State and local first responders and conducted nearly 450 training exercises throughout the country. These efforts have better equipped our communities and first responders to respond to a terrorist attack.
But we must do more to help first responders become first preventers--to help them apprehend terrorists and thwart attacks before they happen. Our communities requires more than decontamination equipment to treat those affected by a dirty bomb--we need to give our law enforcement agencies innovative monitoring technologies to thwart terrorists before they strike.
As the Portland Press Herald reported just last week, ``While [Maine] is better equipped to respond to a chemical strike or ``dirty'' radioactive bomb, little has been spent to prevent such an attack.'' The legislation I am introducing today is aimed squarely at prevention.
The Homeland Security Act established a framework to research and develop new advanced counter-terrorism technologies. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill passed by the Senate just a few months ago will provide the millions needed to fund this effort. Many other agencies, both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security, are developing technologies that could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks.
I am pleased to introduce legislation with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator PRYOR, which would help the Department quickly identify and transfer cutting edge counter-terrorism technologies and equipment to the front lines. Under our legislation, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, working with State and local law enforcement officials, the Science and Technology Directorate, and other Federal agencies will identify counter-terrorism technologies with the potential to significantly assist the law enforcement community.
Once these technologies have been identified, State and local law enforcement agencies can apply to receive these technologies and equipment directly from the Department of Homeland Security. For example, those law enforcement agencies protecting borders, cargo ports, and other freight transportation links will be able to secure advanced detection and monitoring equipment that may not be purchased using other Office for Domestic Preparedness funds. This program, then, will fill in the technology gaps between traditional homeland security assistance programs.
This is not another open-ended grant program. Rather, the counter-terrorism technologies and equipment themselves will be available from a catalog of items proven to work. Transferring the technology, instead of providing a monetary grant, will enable ODP to provide the appropriate training to law enforcement officials.
Our legislation is modeled after a program that works--the successful Technology Transfer Program within the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. Since 1998, this program has provided nearly five thousand pieces of equipment to roughly twenty percent of the Nation's State and local law enforcement agencies. It has also operated efficiently: administrative costs run less than 10 percent of the total funding per year.
I commend Secretary Ridge for his outstanding efforts on the monumental challenge of incorporating nearly two-dozen agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security. But just as it is our first responders who are on the front lines when terrorism strikes, it is our law enforcement community, our ``first preventers,'' who can best thwart terrorism before it occurs. We must build on Secretary Ridge's efforts by helping to ensure that our state and local law enforcement agencies have the equipment and training they need.
I am pleased to have the support from police chiefs and sheriffs across America. In fact, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Major City Policy Chiefs have already voiced their support for this legislation.
A few weeks ago, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released transcripts of the 911 tapes from that awful day, more than 1,800 tragic pages that tell an inspiring story of everyday people responding as extraordinary heroes. We in government must not forget that story as we proceed with the difficult task we have undertaken, one that may never be finished but that must progress. Let every September 11, then, be both a day of remembrance and a day when we commit ourselves to better protect the citizens of this great Nation.
IRAQ AND NORTH KOREA **************************** Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, September 11, 2001, was a day of infamy that will rank down with the very worst, most cowardly and vile actions ever taken against this Nation or any other nation on this planet, a sneak attack, murdering thousands--innocent children, women, and men--with no provocation, no forewarning, with no justification or rational reason, just the demented ravings and rantings of a fanatic who has perverted the principal teachings of his professed faith, of its greatest prophet, Mohammad. He twisted Mohammad's words into support for wars, with himself to play God and decide who deserved mercy and who did not. Innocent civilians died in the United States as a result of that fanaticism. His soldiers died on September 11. And he is off somewhere hiding in a cave. Ten Minnesotans or Minnesota natives lost their lives in the attacks that terrible day: Gordon Aamoth, Jr., whose parents are good friends of my parents, an investment banker with offices on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center; as did Ann Nelson, a bond trader. Others were killed at work at the Pentagon: Captain Charles Burlingame, III, was the pilot of the hijacked American airlines plane which struck the World Trade Center. Tom Burnet was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 93, and one who led the counterattack against the hijackers on that plane. Tom and the other American heroes could not save themselves, but they may have saved us, as that plane's target was reportedly this very Capitol in which I stand with you today--alive, all of us, thanks, possibly, to Tom Burnet and the other American heroes. These were good, hard-working Minnesotans, good, hard-working American citizens, who had the terrible misfortune to be living their lives in the wrong places on that day, September 11, 2001. They have been forever taken away from their families and friends, from their lives. So to those families and friends I express my very deepest condolences. I remember leaving the Russell Senate Office Building that morning, going over to a hotel just a couple of blocks away from the Capitol where I was residing at the time, and I was asked by the general manager if I wanted to go up on the roof of the hotel, which I did, about 10:30 in the morning. The sky was totally clear except for a dark plume of cloud coming up from the Pentagon. There was no air traffic in the sky, no planes going in and out of National Airport, no helicopters, as is usually the case, going across the river. All was quiet there until suddenly this one F-16 fighter plane came streaking down The Mall, seemingly just a few hundred feet right over the top of the Capitol. I thought to myself, I just never imagined in my worst nightmares I would ever see a day where a U.S. fighter jet was flying over our Capitol to defend it from whatever foreign enemy was attacking us. I pray to God I will never, ever see it again--never again. George W. Bush became our President that week. He hadn't been elected our President, not in the traditional way of a democracy, by getting the most votes in the election, but that week he became our President. He rose magnificently to the enormous challenges and burdens which a President of the United States must bear, and must often bear alone, for all the rest of us. President Bush did that and he did it well, very well. He gained the good will of our entire Nation, and our Nation gained the good will of almost the entire world. What priceless silver linings there were for all of us who survived those dark, terrible, black clouds which engulfed us on that terrible day. What opportunities those 10 Minnesotans and [Page: S11407] GPO's PDF their fellow citizens gave to their country, at the terrible cost of their own lives. We gained the support, the good will, and the alliance of practically the entire world. The President said, just 4 months later in his State of the Union Address to Congress and the American people, on January 29, 2002:
As we gather tonight, our Nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the State of our Union has never been stronger.
I recall all of us rising up in the House Chamber where we were witnessing that speech, and being stirred--shivers down my spine--by those words: ``Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger.'' Today, 2 years later, the U.S. Government, the same Bush administration, does not have the support nor the trust nor the respect of the nations of the world--not their governments and not the majority of their citizens. That is not surprising. For most of the past year, the administration has scorned most of the rest of the world. It has denounced the United Nations, derided allies of ours who disagreed with us, has berated others in order to try to compel their support. And it has proclaimed repeatedly the right of the United States, and the intention of the Bush administration, to take whatever military action it deems necessary--whenever, against whomever, who threatened or might at some time in the future threaten our national security. No one in this country who cares about this country could question our right to protect our Nation's or our citizens' safety, not before September 11, 2001, and not after September 11, 2001. No one in the world who wishes us well would question our doing so. In fact, the vast majority of the world's governments and people supported our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and against al-Qaida, and our stated intention to attack terrorists and terrorist organizations and their bases of operation wherever they were throughout the world. But instead, the administration chose to go to war against Iraq. That action most of the rest of the world did not support. Other governments and the United Nations were skeptical about the Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which U.N. inspectors could not find last fall and this year. They didn't believe they constituted an imminent threat to our National Security. The Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, called the evidence the U.S. gave him about Iran's weapons of mass destruction ``pretty pathetic.'' The rest of the world was skeptical, and the rest of the world would be proven right to be skeptical. There were no weapons of mass destruction used, thank God, against U.S. troops when they invaded Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction were found unused on battlefields or command posts or stored in caches anywhere in that country. Not even biological, chemical, or nuclear materials that could have been used to make those weapons have been found. Not even top level Iraqi scientists or former government officials, some of whom have been incarcerated for months now, denied any legal representation, denied chances to visit with their families--in some cases the families don't even know where they are or even if they are alive--not even interrogations under those conditions have produced information leading to weapons of mass destruction or supplies of weapons of mass destruction materials of the kinds and in the amounts that were claimed by the President and Vice President and Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser. The rest of the world didn't believe our fears, but the American people did. The American people trusted our leaders. They believed them. They supported their decisions. They sent their sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, their friends and neighbors halfway around the world to fight for, and some to die for, that stated threat, that urgent threat that was asserted again and again by our leaders. On August 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney said in a speech:
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. One month later, on September 26, 2002, President Bush stated after meeting with Members of Congress:
All of us are united in our determination to confront an urgent threat to America. The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as minutes after the order were given. Ten days later, just before Congress voted on his desire for a resolution, the President added that ``Iraq is exploring ways of using UVAs--unmanned aerial vehicles--for missions targeting the United States''. Later, the administration officials admitted those vehicles had a maximum range of only about 300 miles and couldn't have been used against the United States. During the same speech, the President asserted Saddam Hussein could have ``a nuclear weapon in less than a year''. Supposedly the evidence cited and leaked to the press before that speech was that Saddam Hussein was secretly buying aluminum tubes for use in producing nuclear fissile materials. But when our own Department of Energy concluded they were the wrong tubes to use for such a purpose, the State Department's intelligence bureau concluded and pointed out they weren't even secret buys and that the purchase orders were posted on the Internet. The question was not made known to Congress nor made known to the American people. In two reports to the Secretary of State, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research concluded there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program at all. That was, in fact, what Saddam Hussein's own son-in-law had told the United States and United Nations officials when he defected in 1995. As the Washington Post reported on August 10 of this year, a year previously--on August 7, 2002--the Vice President volunteered in a question-and-answer session at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, speaking of Hussein, that ``left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not-too-distant future, he will acquire nuclear weapons.'' On August 26, the Vice President described Hussein as a ``sworn enemy of our country'' who constituted a ``mortal threat'' to the United States. He foresaw a time in which Hussein could ``subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.'' Continuing to quote: We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law.
But as the Washington Post goes on to say, the son-in-law's testimony was the reverse of the Vice President's description; the opposite of what the American people, were told and what Congress was told. But those contradictions were never disclosed to the American people nor to Congress. In fact, the President and the Vice President continued to insist right up until the invasion that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear threat that was an imminent and urgent danger to the United States. The Vice President said on a network show on March 16 of 2003 that ``We believe he--Saddam Hussein--has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' The President, in his address to the Nation on March 17, 2003, cited intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves ``no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'' If the Vice President of the United States asserts there is no doubt, and if the President of the United States asserts there is no doubt, then what is there to doubt? If you can't trust your own President and Vice President to tell you the truth about matters of life and death, such as nuclear threats, wars, and the future of this Nation, then what can you trust? Another thing the American public believes is that Saddam Hussein is directly linked to al-Qaida and to the terrible events of September 11, 2001. According to the national surveys, over two-thirds of the American public believes that. Why? Because that assertion has been made repeatedly by this administration. In fact, in the President's speech to the Nation last Sunday, he mentions [Page: S11408] GPO's PDF the word ``terrorists'' or ``terrorist organizations'' 27 times--27 times. He cited the weapons of mass destruction once, in a rhetorical reference. The fundamental basis on which we went into Iraq as proclaimed before the war began was only cited one time in that entire address to the Nation. But ``terrorism,'' or the connection of terrorists to Iraq, al-Qaida, and the West dominated the President's remarks, and his continued assertions to the American people of what the real situation is in that country for which Americans are still giving their blood, bodies, and lives. On the other hand, as reported in the Washington Post recently, key administration figures have largely abandoned any claim that Iraq was involved in the 2001 attacks. ``I am not now sure that Iraq had something to do with it,'' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said on August 1. The CIA's report--the administration's main source of information about these connections or lack of them--to the President and the administration, as reported in the New York Times on February 2 of 2002, found ``no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida or related terrorist groups.'' Maybe former Marine General Anthony Zinni, who has been on missions representing the administration and the President in the Middle East, has the best analysis of this changing rationale for our actions. He said:
Initially, there was at least an implication that Iraq was linked to terrorism. When that link couldn't be made, it was possession of weapons of mass destruction. When that link couldn't be made, it was lack of cooperation. Right now it is about ``we will not let you talk to our scientists,'' and it is the reason we will go to war. We know what the Iraqis have, and we can't tell you. I just think it is too confusing.
What is not confusing is the casualties mount. The number of Americans being wounded or killed in action in Iraq last month exceeded the previous month by over a third. Director Tenent told us this week that they are averaging 15 attacks a day on United States forces after the victory we won so courageously and magnificently in 3 weeks over 4 months ago. But we in the Senate owe the American people and those soldiers over there our continued search for and insistence that the truth be told to us and to the American people about the circumstances that got us into this war, the circumstances that exist in this war, and how we are going to get out of this war preserving the victory which was won but also bringing our men and women home. They have performed and continue to perform with patriotism that goes beyond anything I can imagine. But they want to come home. Their families want them home. They deserve to come home. In his Gettysburg address, recognizing and paying tribute to other American heroes who lost their lives, President Lincoln concluded that ``we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a government that tells the truth to its citizens. If it doesn't, it is not a government of them, not by them, and certainly not for them. It is imperative. Today, in commemoration of those who did not die in vain 2 years ago, there should be once again a rebirth of our freedom and our assertion to this Government or any Government of the United States of America to tell us the truth. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
|