Congressional Record Weekly UpdateNovember 17-21, 2003Return to the Congressional Report Weekly. 1A) Energy Policy Act of 2003, H.R. 6 - Excerpted Language from Conference Report TITLE VI--NUCLEAR MATTERS Subtitle A--Price-Anderson Act Amendments SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE. This subtitle may be cited as the ``Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2003''. SEC. 602. EXTENSION OF INDEMNIFICATION AUTHORITY. (a) INDEMNIFICATION OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSEES.--Section 170 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(c)) is amended-- (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``LICENSES'' and inserting ``LICENSEES''; and (2) by striking ``December 31, 2003'' each place it appears and inserting ``December 31, 2023''. (b) INDEMNIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CONTRACTORS.--Section 170 d.(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2004'' and inserting ``December 31, 2023''. (c) INDEMNIFICATION OF NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.--Section 170 k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(k)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 2002'' each place it appears and inserting ``December 31, 2023''. SEC. 603. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) is amended-- (1) in the second proviso of the third sentence of subsection b.(1)-- (A) by striking ``$63,000,000'' and inserting ``$95,800,000''; and (B) by striking ``$10,000,000 in any 1 year'' and inserting ``$15,000,000 in any 1 year (subject to adjustment for inflation under subsection t.)''; and (2) in subsection t.(1)-- (A) by inserting ``total and annual'' after ``amount of the maximum''; (B) by striking ``the date of the enactment of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988'' and inserting ``August 20, 2003''; and (C) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``such date of enactment'' and inserting ``August 20, 2003''. SEC. 604. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LIABILITY LIMIT. (a) INDEMNIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CONTRACTORS.--Section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: ``(2) In an agreement of indemnification entered into under paragraph (1), the Secretary-- ``(A) may require the contractor to provide and maintain financial protection of such a type and in such amounts as the Secretary shall determine to be appropriate to cover public liability arising out of or in connection with the contractual activity; and ``(B) shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such liability above the amount of the financial protection required, in the amount of $10,000,000,000 (subject to adjustment for inflation under subsection t.), in the aggregate, for all persons indemnified in connection with the contract and for each nuclear incident, including such legal costs of the contractor as are approved by the Secretary.''. (b) CONTRACT AMENDMENTS.--Section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)) is further amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following-- ``(3) All agreements of indemnification under which the Department of Energy (or its predecessor agencies) may be required to indemnify any person under this section shall be deemed to be amended, on the date of enactment of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2003, to reflect the amount of indemnity for public liability and any applicable financial protection required of the contractor under this subsection.''. (c) LIABILITY LIMIT.--Section 170 e.(1)(B) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(1)(B)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``the maximum amount of financial protection required under subsection b. or''; and (2) by striking ``paragraph (3) of subsection d., whichever amount is more'' and inserting ``paragraph (2) of subsection d.''. SEC. 605. INCIDENTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. (a) AMOUNT OF INDEMNIFICATION.--Section 170 d.(5) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)(5)) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''. (b) LIABILITY LIMIT.--Section 170 e.(4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(e)(4)) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000'' and inserting ``$500,000,000''. SEC. 606. REPORTS. Section 170 p. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(p)) is amended by striking ``August 1, 1998'' and inserting ``December 31, 2019''. SEC. 607. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT. Section 170 t. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(t)) is amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following: ``(2) The Secretary shall adjust the amount of indemnification provided under an agreement of indemnification under subsection d. not less than once during each 5-year period following July 1, 2003, in accordance with the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index since-- ``(A) that date, in the case of the first adjustment under this paragraph; or ``(B) the previous adjustment under this paragraph.''. SEC. 608. TREATMENT OF MODULAR REACTORS. Section 170 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(5)(A) For purposes of this section only, the Commission shall consider a combination of facilities described in subparagraph (B) to be a single facility having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more. ``(B) A combination of facilities referred to in subparagraph (A) is 2 or more facilities located at a single site, each of which has a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more but not more than 300,000 electrical kilowatts, with a combined rated capacity of not more than 1,300,000 electrical kilowatts.''. [Page: H11246]
SEC. 609. APPLICABILITY. The amendments made by sections 603, 604, and 605 do not apply to a nuclear incident that occurs before the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 610. PROHIBITION ON ASSUMPTION BY UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN FOREIGN INCIDENTS. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``u. PROHIBITION ON ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN FOREIGN INCIDENTS.--Notwithstanding this section or any other provision of law, no officer of the United States or of any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government may enter into any contract or other arrangement, or into any amendment or modification of a contract or other arrangement, the purpose or effect of which would be to directly or indirectly impose liability on the United States Government, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government, or to otherwise directly or indirectly require an indemnity by the United States Government, for nuclear incidents occurring in connection with the design, construction, or operation of a production facility or utilization facility in any country whose government has been identified by the Secretary of State as engaged in state sponsorship of terrorist activities (specifically including any country the government of which, as of September 11, 2001, had been determined by the Secretary of State under section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371(a)), section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), or section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(d)) to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism). This subsection shall not apply to nuclear incidents occurring as a result of missions, carried out under the direction of the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of State, that are necessary to safely secure, store, transport, or remove nuclear materials for nuclear safety or nonproliferation purposes.''. SEC. 611. CIVIL PENALTIES. (a) REPEAL OF AUTOMATIC REMISSION.--Section 234A b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(b)(2)) is amended by striking the last sentence. (b) LIMITATION FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS.--Subsection d. of section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282a(d)) is amended to read as follows: ``d.(1) Notwithstanding subsection a., in the case of any not-for-profit contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, the total amount of civil penalties paid under subsection a. may not exceed the total amount of fees paid within any 1-year period (as determined by the Secretary) under the contract under which the violation occurs. ``(2) For purposes of this section, the term ``not-for-profit'' means that no part of the net earnings of the contractor, subcontractor, or supplier inures to the benefit of any natural person or for-profit artificial person.''. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this section shall not apply to any violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) occurring under a contract entered into before the date of enactment of this section. ******************** Subtitle B--General Nuclear Matters SEC. 633. MEDICAL ISOTOPE PRODUCTION. Section 134 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2160d) is amended-- (1) in subsection a., by striking ``a. The Commission'' and inserting ``a. IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subsection b., the Commission''; (2) by redesignating subsection b. as subsection c.; and (3) by inserting after subsection a. the following: ``b. MEDICAL ISOTOPE PRODUCTION.-- ``(1) DEFINITIONS.--In this subsection: ``(A) HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM.--The term `highly enriched uranium' means uranium enriched to include concentration of U-235 above 20 percent. ``(B) MEDICAL ISOTOPE.--The term `medical isotope' includes Molybdenum 99, Iodine 131, Xenon 133, and other radioactive materials used to produce a radiopharmaceutical for diagnostic, therapeutic procedures or for research and development. ``(C) RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL.--The term `radiopharmaceutical' means a radioactive isotope that-- ``(i) contains byproduct material combined with chemical or biological material; and ``(ii) is designed to accumulate temporarily in a part of the body for therapeutic purposes or for enabling the production of a useful image for use in a diagnosis of a medical condition. ``(D) RECIPIENT COUNTRY.--The term `recipient country' means Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. ``(2) LICENSES.--The Commission may issue a license authorizing the export (including shipment to and use at intermediate and ultimate consignees specified in the license) to a recipient country of highly enriched uranium for medical isotope production if, in addition to any other requirements of this Act (except subsection a.), the Commission determines that-- ``(A) a recipient country that supplies an assurance letter to the United States Government in connection with the consideration by the Commission of the export license application has informed the United States Government that any intermediate consignees and the ultimate consignee specified in the application are required to use the highly enriched uranium solely to produce medical isotopes; and ``(B) the highly enriched uranium for medical isotope production will be irradiated only in a reactor in a recipient country that-- ``(i) uses an alternative nuclear reactor fuel; or ``(ii) is the subject of an agreement with the United States Government to convert to an alternative nuclear reactor fuel when alternative nuclear reactor fuel can be used in the reactor. ``(3) REVIEW OF PHYSICAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.-- ``(A) IN GENERAL.--The Commission shall review the adequacy of physical protection requirements that, as of the date of an application under paragraph (2), are applicable to the transportation and storage of highly enriched uranium for medical isotope production or control of residual material after irradiation and extraction of medical isotopes. ``(B) IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.--If the Commission determines that additional physical protection requirements are necessary (including a limit on the quantity of highly enriched uranium that may be contained in a single shipment), the Commission shall impose such requirements as license conditions or through other appropriate means. ``(4) FIRST REPORT TO CONGRESS.-- ``(A) NAS STUDY.--The Secretary shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to determine-- ``(i) the feasibility of procuring supplies of medical isotopes from commercial sources that do not use highly enriched uranium; ``(ii) the current and projected demand and availability of medical isotopes in regular current domestic use; ``(iii) the progress that is being made by the Department of Energy and others to eliminate all use of highly enriched uranium in reactor fuel, reactor targets, and medical isotope production facilities; and ``(iv) the potential cost differential in medical isotope production in the reactors and target processing facilities if the products were derived from production systems that do not involve fuels and targets with highly enriched uranium. ``(B) FEASIBILITY.--For the purpose of this subsection, the use of low enriched uranium to produce medical isotopes shall be determined to be feasible if-- ``(i) low enriched uranium targets have been developed and demonstrated for use in the reactors and target processing facilities that produce significant quantities of medical isotopes to serve United States needs for such isotopes; ``(ii) sufficient quantities of medical isotopes are available from low enriched uranium targets and fuel to meet United States domestic needs; and ``(iii) the average anticipated total cost increase from production of medical isotopes in such facilities without use of highly enriched uranium is less than 10 percent. ``(C) REPORT BY THE SECRETARY.--Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2003, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that-- ``(i) contains the findings of the National Academy of Sciences made in the study under subparagraph (A); and ``(ii) discloses the existence of any commitments from commercial producers to provide domestic requirements for medical isotopes without use of highly enriched uranium consistent with the feasibility criteria described in subparagraph (B) not later than the date that is 4 years after the date of submission of the report. ``(5) SECOND REPORT TO CONGRESS.--If the study of the National Academy of Sciences determines under paragraph (4)(A)(i) that the procurement of supplies of medical isotopes from commercial sources that do not use highly enriched uranium is feasible, but the Secretary is unable to report the existence of commitments under paragraph (4)(C)(ii), not later than the date that is 6 years after the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2003, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that describes options for developing domestic supplies of medical isotopes in quantities that are adequate to meet domestic demand without the use of highly [Page: H11248]
enriched uranium consistent with the cost increase described in paragraph (4)(B)(iii). ``(6) CERTIFICATION.--At such time as commercial facilities that do not use highly enriched uranium are capable of meeting domestic requirements for medical isotopes, within the cost increase described in paragraph (4)(B)(iii) and without impairing the reliable supply of medical isotopes for domestic utilization, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a certification to that effect. ``(7) SUNSET PROVISION.--After the Secretary submits a certification under paragraph (6), the Commission shall, by rule, terminate its review of export license applications under this subsection.''. ******************** SEC. 635. SAFE DISPOSAL OF GREATER-THAN-CLASS C RADIOACTIVE WASTE. (a) DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBILITY.--The Secretary of Energy shall designate an Office within the Department of Energy to have the responsibility for activities needed to develop a new, or use an existing, facility for safely disposing of all low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Class C radioactive waste (referred to in this section as ``GTCC waste''). (b) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.--The Secretary of Energy shall develop a comprehensive plan for permanent disposal of GTCC waste which includes plans for a disposal facility. This plan shall be transmitted to Congress in a series of reports, including the following: (1) REPORT ON SHORT-TERM PLAN.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a plan describing the Secretary's operational strategy for continued recovery and storage of GTCC waste until a permanent disposal facility is available. (2) UPDATE OF 1987 REPORT.-- (A) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress an update of the Secretary's February 1987 report submitted to Congress that made comprehensive recommendations for the disposal of GTCC waste. (B) CONTENTS.--The update under this paragraph shall contain-- (i) a detailed description and identification of the GTCC waste that is to be disposed; (ii) a description of current domestic and international programs, both Federal and commercial, for management and disposition of GTCC waste; (iii) an identification of the Federal and private options and costs for the safe disposal of GTCC waste; (iv) an identification of the options for ensuring that, wherever possible, generators and users of GTCC waste bear all reasonable costs of waste disposal; (v) an identification of any new statutory authority required for disposal of GTCC waste; and (vi) in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an identification of any new regulatory guidance needed for the disposal of GTCC waste. (3) REPORT ON COST AND SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION.--Not later than 180 days after the date of submission of the update required under paragraph (2), the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report containing an estimate of the cost and schedule to complete a draft and final environmental impact statement and to issue a record of decision for a permanent disposal facility, utilizing either a new or existing facility, for GTCC waste. SEC. 636. PROHIBITION ON NUCLEAR EXPORTS TO COUNTRIES THAT SPONSOR TERRORISM. (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2158) is amended-- (1) by inserting ``a.'' before ``No nuclear materials and equipment''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``b.(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including specifically section 121 of this Act, and except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), no nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology, including items and assistance authorized by section 57 b. of this Act and regulated under part 810 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, and nuclear-related items on the Commerce Control List maintained under part 774 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, shall be exported or reexported, or transferred or retransferred whether directly or indirectly, and no Federal agency shall issue any license, approval, or authorization for the export or reexport, or transfer, or retransfer, whether directly or indirectly, of these items or assistance (as defined in this paragraph) to any country whose government has been identified by the Secretary of State as engaged in state sponsorship of terrorist activities (specifically including any country the government of which has been determined by the Secretary of State under section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371(a)), section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), or section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(d)) to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism). ``(2) This subsection shall not apply to exports, reexports, transfers, or retransfers of radiation monitoring technologies, surveillance equipment, seals, cameras, tamper-indication devices, nuclear detectors, monitoring systems, or equipment necessary to safely store, transport, or remove hazardous materials, whether such items, services, or information are regulated by the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, except to the extent that such technologies, equipment, seals, cameras, devices, detectors, or systems are available for use in the design or construction of nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons. ``(3) The President may waive the application of paragraph (1) to a country if the President determines and certifies to Congress that the waiver will not result in any increased risk that the country receiving the waiver will acquire nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, or any materials or components of nuclear weapons and-- ``(A) the government of such country has not within the preceding 12-month period willfully aided or abetted the international proliferation of nuclear explosive devices to individuals or groups or willfully aided and abetted an individual or groups in acquiring unsafeguarded nuclear materials; ``(B) in the judgment of the President, the government of such country has provided adequate, verifiable assurances that it will cease its support for acts of international terrorism; ``(C) the waiver of that paragraph is in the vital national security interest of the United States; or ``(D) such a waiver is essential to prevent or respond to a serious radiological hazard in the country receiving the waiver that may or does threaten public health and safety.''. (b) APPLICABILITY TO EXPORTS APPROVED FOR TRANSFER BUT NOT TRANSFERRED.--Subsection b. of section 129 of Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall apply with respect to exports that have been approved for transfer as of the date of the enactment of this Act but have not yet been transferred as of that date. SEC. 637. URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITIES. (a) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.-- (1) IN GENERAL.--In order to facilitate a timely review and approval of an application in a proceeding for a license for the construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility under sections 53 and 63 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093) (referred to in this subsection as a ``covered proceeding''), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall, not later than 30 days after the receipt of the application, establish, by order, the schedule for the conduct of any hearing that may be requested by any person whose interest may be affected by the covered proceeding. (2) FINAL AGENCY DECISION.--The schedule shall provide that a final decision by the Commission on the application shall be made not later than the date that is 2 years after the date of submission of the application by the applicant. (3) COMPLIANCE WITH SCHEDULE.-- (A) IN GENERAL.--The Commission shall establish a process to assess compliance with the schedule established under paragraph (1) on an ongoing basis during the course of the review of the application, including ensuring compliance with schedules and milestones that are established for the conduct of any covered proceeding by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. (B) REPORT.--The Commission shall submit to Congress on a bimonthly basis a report describing the status of compliance with the schedule established under paragraph (1), including a description of the status of actions required to be completed pursuant to the schedule by officers and employees of-- (i) the Commission in undertaking the safety and environmental review of applications; and (ii) the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the conduct of any covered proceeding. (4) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.-- (A) IN GENERAL.--In evaluating an application under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for licensing of a facility in a covered proceeding, the Commission shall limit the consideration of need to whether the licensing of the facility would advance the national interest of encouraging in the United States-- (i) additional secure, reliable uranium enrichment capacity; (ii) diverse supplies and suppliers of uranium enrichment capacity; and (iii) the deployment of advanced centrifuge enrichment technology. (B) COMMENT.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Commission shall consider and solicit the views of other affected Federal agencies. (C) ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.-- (i) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in clause (ii), in any covered proceeding, the Commission shall allow the litigation and resolution by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), on the basis of information submitted by the applicant in its environmental report, prior to publication of any required environmental impact statement. [Page: H11249]
(ii) EXCEPTIONS.--On the publication of any required environmental impact statement, issues may be proffered for resolution by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board only if information or conclusions in the environmental impact statement differ significantly from the information or conclusions in the environmental report submitted by the applicant. (D) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.--In a covered proceeding, the Commission shall apply the criteria in Appendix C of the final report entitled ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs'' (NUREG-1748), published in August 2003, in any required review of environmental justice. (5) LOW-LEVEL WASTE.--In any covered proceeding, the Commission shall-- (A) deem the obligation of the Secretary of Energy pursuant to section 3113 of the USEC Privitization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297 h-11) to constitute a plausible strategy with regard to the disposition of depleted uranium generated by such facility; and (B) treat any residual material that remains following the extraction of any usable resource value from depleted uranium as low-level radioactive waste under part 61 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. (6) ADJUDICATORY HEARING ON LICENSING OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITIES.--Section 193(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2243(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: ``(2) TIMING.--On the issuance of a final decision on the application by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Commission shall issue and make immediately effective any license for the construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility under sections 53 and 63, on a determination by the Commission that the issuance of the license would not cause irreparable injury to the public health and safety or the common defense and security, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of any appeal or petition for review of any decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.''. (b) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESPONSIBILITIES.-- (1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 180 days after a request is made to the Secretary of Energy by an applicant for or recipient of a license for a uranium enrichment facility under section 53, 63, or 193 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ((42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2243), the Secretary shall enter into a memorandum of agreement with the applicant or licensee that provides a schedule for the transfer to the Secretary, not later than 5 years after the generation of any depleted uranium hexafluoride, of title and possession of the depleted uranium hexafluoride to be generated by the applicant or licensee. (2) COST.-- (A) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the memorandum of agreement shall specify the cost to be assessed by the Secretary for the transfer to the Secretary of the depleted uranium hexafluoride. (B) NONDISCRIMINATORY BASIS.--The cost shall be determined by the Secretary on a nondiscriminatory basis. (C) COST.--Taking into account the physical and chemical characteristics of such depleted uranium hexafluoride, the cost shall not exceed the cost assessed by the Secretary for the acceptance of depleted uranium hexafluoride under-- (i) the memorandum of agreement between the United States Department of Energy and the United States Enrichment Corporation Relating to Depleted Uranium, dated June 30, 1998; and (ii) the Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Energy and USEC Inc., dated June 17, 2002. SEC. 638. NATIONAL URANIUM STOCKPILE. (a) STOCKPILE CREATION.--The Secretary of Energy may create a national low-enriched uranium stockpile with the goals to-- (1) enhance national energy security; and (2) reduce global proliferation threats. (b) SOURCE OF MATERIAL.--The Secretary shall obtain material for the stockpile from-- (1) material derived from blend-down of Russian highly enriched uranium derived from weapons materials; and (2) domestically mined and enriched uranium. (c) LIMITATION ON SALES OR TRANSFERS.--Sales or transfer of materials in the stockpile shall occur pursuant to section 3112 of the USEC Privitization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-10), as amended by section 630 of this Act. ********************
Subtitle D--Nuclear Security SEC. 661. NUCLEAR FACILITY THREATS. (a) STUDY.--The President, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (referred to in this subtitle as the ``Commission'') and other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and private entities, shall conduct a study to identify the types of threats that pose an appreciable risk to the security of the various classes of facilities licensed by the Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). Such study shall take into account, but not be limited to-- (1) the events of September 11, 2001; (2) an assessment of physical, cyber, biochemical, and other terrorist threats; (3) the potential for attack on facilities by multiple coordinated teams of a large number of individuals; (4) the potential for assistance in an attack from several persons employed at the facility; (5) the potential for suicide attacks; (6) the potential for water-based and air-based threats; (7) the potential use of explosive devices of considerable size and other modern weaponry; (8) the potential for attacks by persons with a sophisticated knowledge of facility operations; (9) the potential for fires, especially fires of long duration; (10) the potential for attacks on spent fuel shipments by multiple coordinated teams of a large number of individuals; (11) the adequacy of planning to protect the public health and safety at and around nuclear facilities, as appropriate, in the event of a terrorist attack against a nuclear facility; and (12) the potential for theft and diversion of nuclear materials from such facilities. (b) SUMMARY AND CLASSIFICATION REPORT.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to Congress and the Commission a report-- (1) summarizing the types of threats identified under subsection (a); and (2) classifying each type of threat identified under subsection (a), in accordance with existing laws and regulations, as either-- (A) involving attacks and destructive acts, including sabotage, directed against the facility by an enemy of the United States, whether a foreign government or other person, or otherwise falling under the responsibilities of the Federal Government; or (B) involving the type of risks that Commission licensees should be responsible for guarding against. (c) FEDERAL ACTION REPORT.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which a report is transmitted under subsection (b), the President shall transmit to Congress a report on actions taken, or to be taken, to address the types of threats identified under subsection (b)(2)(A), including identification of the Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for carrying out the obligations and authorities of the United States. Such report may include a classified annex, as appropriate. (d) REGULATIONS.--Not later than 180 days after the date on which a report is transmitted under subsection (b), the Commission may revise, by rule, the design basis threats issued before the date of enactment of this section as the Commission considers appropriate based on the summary and classification report. (e) PHYSICAL SECURITY PROGRAM.--The Commission shall establish an operational safeguards response evaluation program that ensures that the physical protection capability and operational safeguards response for sensitive nuclear facilities, as determined by the Commission consistent with the protection of public health and the common defense and security, shall be tested periodically through Commission approved or designed, observed, and evaluated force-on-force exercises to determine whether the ability to defeat the design basis threat is being maintained. For purposes of this subsection, the term ``sensitive nuclear facilities'' includes at a minimum commercial nuclear power plants and category I fuel cycle facilities. (f) CONTROL OF INFORMATION.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission may undertake any rulemaking under this subtitle in a manner that will fully protect safeguards and classified national security information. (g) FEDERAL SECURITY COORDINATORS.-- (1) REGIONAL OFFICES.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall assign a Federal security coordinator, under the employment of the Commission, to each region of the Commission. (2) RESPONSIBILITIES.--The Federal security coordinator shall be responsible for-- (A) communicating with the Commission and other Federal, State, and local authorities concerning threats, including threats against such classes of facilities as the Commission determines to be appropriate; (B) ensuring that such classes of facilities as the Commission determines to be appropriate maintain security consistent with the security plan in accordance with the appropriate threat level; and (C) assisting in the coordination of security measures among the private security forces at such classes of facilities as the Commission determines to be appropriate and Federal, State, and local authorities, as appropriate. (h) TRAINING PROGRAM.--The President shall establish a program to provide technical assistance and training to Federal agencies, the National Guard, and State and local law enforcement and emergency response agencies in responding to threats against a designated nuclear facility. SEC. 662. FINGERPRINTING FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD CHECKS. (a) IN GENERAL.--Subsection a. of section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2169(a)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``a. The Nuclear'' and all that follows through ``section 147.'' and inserting the following: ``a. IN GENERAL.-- ``(1) REQUIREMENTS.-- ``(A) IN GENERAL.-- The Commission shall require each individual or entity-- ``(i) that is licensed or certified to engage in an activity subject to regulation by the Commission; ``(ii) that has filed an application for a license or certificate to engage in an activity subject to regulation by the Commission; or ``(iii) that has notified the Commission, in writing, of an intent to file an application for licensing, certification, permitting, or approval of a product or activity subject to regulation by the Commission, to fingerprint each individual described in subparagraph (B) before the individual is permitted unescorted access or access, whichever is applicable, as described in subparagraph (B). ``(B) INDIVIDUALS REQUIRED TO BE FINGERPRINTED.--The Commission shall require to be fingerprinted each individual who-- ``(i) is permitted unescorted access to-- ``(I) a utilization facility; or ``(II) radioactive material or other property subject to regulation by the Commission that the Commission determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or the common defense and security as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks; or ``(ii) is permitted access to safeguards information under section 147.''; (2) by striking ``All fingerprints obtained by a licensee or applicant as required in the preceding sentence'' and inserting the following: ``(2) SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.--All fingerprints obtained by an individual or entity as required in paragraph (1)''; (3) by striking ``The costs of any identification and records check conducted pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be paid by the licensee or applicant.'' and inserting the following: ``(3) COSTS.--The costs of any identification and records check conducted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be paid by the individual or entity required to conduct the fingerprinting under paragraph (1)(A).''; and (4) by striking ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General may provide all the results of the search to the Commission, and, in accordance with regulations prescribed under this section, the Commission may provide such results to licensee or applicant submitting such fingerprints.'' and inserting the following: ``(4) PROVISION TO INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY REQUIRED TO CONDUCT FINGERPRINTING.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General may provide all the results of the search to the Commission, and, in accordance with regulations prescribed under this section, the Commission may provide such results to the individual or entity required to conduct the fingerprinting under paragraph (1)(A).''. (b) ADMINISTRATION--Subsection c. of section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2169(c)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``, subject to public notice and comment, regulations--'' and inserting ``requirements--''; and (2) by striking, in paragraph (2)(B), ``unescorted access to the facility of a licensee or applicant'' and inserting ``unescorted access to a utilization facility, radioactive material, or other property described in subsection a.(1)(B)''. (c) BIOMETRIC METHODS.--Subsection d. of section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2169(d)) is redesignated as subsection e., and the following is inserted after subsection c.: ``d. USE OF OTHER BIOMETRIC METHODS.--The Commission may satisfy any requirement for a person to conduct fingerprinting under this section using any other biometric method for identification approved for use by the Attorney General, after the Commission has approved the alternative method by rule.''. SEC. 663. USE OF FIREARMS BY SECURITY PERSONNEL OF LICENSEES AND CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE COMMISSION. Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201) is amended by adding at the end the following subsection: ``(z)(1) notwithstanding section 922(o), (v), and (w) of title 18, United States Code, or any similar provision of any State law or any similar rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision of a State prohibiting the transfer or possession of a handgun, a rifle or shotgun, a short-barreled shotgun, a short-barreled rifle, a machinegun, a semiautomatic assault weapon, ammunition for the foregoing, or a large capacity ammunition feeding device, authorize security personnel of licensees and certificate holders of the Commission (including employees of contractors of licensees and certificate holders) to receive, possess, transport, import, and use 1 or more of those weapons, ammunition, or devices, if the Commission determines that-- ``(A) such authorization is necessary to the discharge of the security personnel's official duties; and ``(B) the security personnel-- ``(i) are not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State laws pertaining to possession of firearms by certain categories of persons; ``(ii) have successfully completed requirements established through guidelines implementing this subsection for training in use of firearms and tactical maneuvers; ``(iii) are engaged in the protection of-- ``(I) facilities owned or operated by a Commission licensee or certificate holder that are designated by the Commission; or ``(II) radioactive material or other property owned or possessed by a person that is a licensee or certificate holder of the Commission, [Page: H11251]
or that is being transported to or from a facility owned or operated by such a licensee or certificate holder, and that has been determined by the Commission to be of significance to the common defense and security or public health and safety; and ``(iv) are discharging their official duties. ``(2) Such receipt, possession, transportation, importation, or use shall be subject to-- ``(A) chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, except for section 922(a)(4), (o), (v), and (w); ``(B) chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code, except for section 5844; and ``(C) a background check by the Attorney General, based on fingerprints and including a check of the system established under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) to determine whether the person applying for the authority is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law. ``(3) This subsection shall become effective upon the issuance of guidelines by the Commission, with the approval of the Attorney General, to govern the implementation of this subsection. ``(4) In this subsection, the terms ``handgun'', ``rifle'', ``shotgun'', ``firearm'', ``ammunition'', ``machinegun'', ``semiautomatic assault weapon'', ``large capacity ammunition feeding device'', ``short-barreled shotgun'', and ``short-barreled rifle'' shall have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.''. SEC. 664. UNAUTHORIZED INTRODUCTION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS. Section 229 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2278a(a)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``or subject to the licensing authority of the Commission or to certification by the Commission under this Act or any other Act'' before the period at the end. SEC. 665. SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL. (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 236 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284(a)) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``storage facility'' and inserting ``storage, treatment, or disposal facility''; (2) in paragraph (3)-- (A) by striking ``such a utilization facility'' and inserting ``a utilization facility licensed under this Act''; and (B) by striking ``or'' at the end; (3) in paragraph (4)-- (A) by striking ``facility licensed'' and inserting ``, uranium conversion, or nuclear fuel fabrication facility licensed or certified''; and (B) by striking the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following: ``(5) any production, utilization, waste storage, waste treatment, waste disposal, uranium enrichment, uranium conversion, or nuclear fuel fabrication facility subject to licensing or certification under this Act during construction of the facility, if the destruction or damage caused or attempted to be caused could adversely affect public health and safety during the operation of the facility; ``(6) any primary facility or backup facility from which a radiological emergency preparedness alert and warning system is activated; or ``(7) any radioactive material or other property subject to regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that, before the date of the offense, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines, by order or regulation published in the Federal Register, is of significance to the public health and safety or to common defense and security,''. (b) PENALTIES.--Section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284) is amended by striking ``$10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life'' both places it appears and inserting ``$1,000,000 or imprisoned for up to life without parole''. SEC. 666. SECURE TRANSFER OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS. (a) AMENDMENT.--Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201-2210b) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ``SEC. 170C. SECURE TRANSFER OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS. ``a. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall establish a system to ensure that materials described in subsection b., when transferred or received in the United States by any party pursuant to an import or export license issued pursuant to this Act, are accompanied by a manifest describing the type and amount of materials being transferred or received. Each individual receiving or accompanying the transfer of such materials shall be subject to a security background check conducted by appropriate Federal entities. ``b. Except as otherwise provided by the Commission by regulation, the materials referred to in subsection a. are byproduct materials, source materials, special nuclear materials, high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, and low-level radioactive waste (as defined in section 2(16) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(16))).''. (b) REGULATIONS.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and from time to time thereafter as it considers necessary, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall issue regulations identifying radioactive materials or classes of individuals that, consistent with the protection of public health and safety and the common defense and security, are appropriate exceptions to the requirements of section 170C of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as added by subsection (a) of this section. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect upon the issuance of regulations under subsection (b), except that the background check requirement shall become effective on a date established by the Commission. (d) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.--Nothing in this section or the amendment made by this section shall waive, modify, or affect the application of chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code, part A of subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, part B of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, and title 23, United States Code. (e) TABLE OF SECTIONS AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by adding at the end the following new item: ``Sec. 170C. Secure transfer of nuclear materials.''. SEC. 667. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CONSULTATION. Before issuing a license for a utilization facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall consult with the Department of Homeland Security concerning the potential vulnerabilities of the location of the proposed facility to terrorist attack. SEC. 668. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. (a) IN GENERAL.--There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle. (b) AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CHARGES.--Section 6101(c)(2)(A) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 2214(c)(2)(A)) is amended-- (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and'' and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(iii) amounts appropriated to the Commission for homeland security activities of the Commission for the fiscal year, except for the costs of fingerprinting and background checks required by section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2169) and the costs of conducting security inspections.''.
1B) Energy and Water Development Appropriations, H.R. 2754 - Excerpted Floor Debate Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that has a conference agreement of $27.3 billion. This is a good bill. We worked very hard on it, and we have had a very tough conference; and I hope everybody will vote for the bill. At this time I would like to make a few remarks concerning the committee staff on both sides. We worked together very diligently to prepare this bill and this conference report. I guess this is my second time to conference the bill, but my first time to be involved in the writing of the bill, which is a rather unusual circumstance. During that period of time, and for the last number of years, our clerk has had different people being the chairman. And I do not know whether it is because I became the chairman that he is leaving or not. He has had a different chairman about the last five times, and so I said I was going to stay awhile, and then suddenly I heard he was going to retire. So I hope it is not because of the conference we have had that he is leaving, because he has done a great job. He has been 15 years here in this committee. He likes apparently the challenge of breaking in a new chairman, but I am not sure that he likes the continuation of that. But he will have to speak afterwards about that. I really want to thank him because he has been a great help to me and a great help to the staff as we have worked on this bill. He was dubbed ``Silent Bob'' in one of the reports that was out, I think it was in one of what we call local political rags here around Washington. While most people might say he is silent, I can tell you when he is in the room and Silent Bob speaks, we all listen. He has done a great job for this committee. He has been a great resource to me and to the committee over these years. So I want to thank him, and I hope he can go out and work on his golf game because he tells me his game is about as bad as mine, and that is really bad. So now he will have plenty of time to learn how to play golf better and also to probably earn a lot more money, as he can come back and lobby us about a lot of issues because he is a real authority, especially on the water part of this bill. So, again, thanks to you, Bob, for being the clerk for all these years and for leading us during this period of time. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the RECORD a document detailing the specifics of this appropriation bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the conference report on H.R. 2754, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. We had a challenging conference with the Senate this year, but we were able to resolve our differences and reach a fair compromise. Most importantly, I believe we did the right thing for the Nation in this conference report in a number of important areas, from rebuilding our water infrastructure, to dealing with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, to advancing the frontiers of our scientific knowledge. The total amount of funding included in the conference agreement is $27.3 billion. This represents an increase of $1.1 billion over the current fiscal year and approximately $380 million over the budget request. Title I of this conference report provides funding for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and for the Corps' Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The conference agreement provides the Corps with $4.6 billion, slightly below the current year but nearly $400 million over the inadequate budget request. The Administration does not seem to comprehend that underfunding the Corps of Engineers ultimately costs the country more in the long run, as projects that are strung out over multiple years always cost more than they would if constructed on an efficient schedule. I have already initiated a dialog with the Administration in an attempt to convince them of the need to increase funding to support the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers in future fiscal years. In fiscal year 2004, we opted to focus our available resources on completing ongoing projects, and therefore limited the number of new starts in this conference agreement. Funding for Title II of the bill, which includes the Central Utah Project Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of Reclamation, is $986.5 million, $14 million above the amount appropriated last year and $64 million above the budget request. The Committee did not provide the $15 million requested by the Administration for the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The authorization for this program expired in fiscal year 2000 and it has not been reauthorized. Total funding for Title III, the Department of Energy is $22 billion, $1.2 billion above fiscal year 2003 and $120 million below the budget request. In many ways, I am most proud of our accomplishments in this part of the conference agreement. My top priority in the Energy and Water bill this year was to provide sufficient funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, and I believe we succeeded. This conference agreement provides a total of $580 million for Yucca Mountain, only $11 million below the request but an increase of $123 million compared to the current fiscal year. This project has been significantly underfunded in prior years, and we are finally starting to reverse that trend. Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we keep the Department of Energy on schedule to submit the repository license application late next year and to begin repository operations in 2010. The Yucca Mountain repository is essential for both energy security and homeland security. We have provided the necessary funding in this conference agreement, and I have the commitment of the Secretary of Energy to move forward aggressively on the repository program during this coming fiscal year. Another priority of mine, and of many other Members in this chamber, is the subject of advanced scientific computing. By a number of key measures of computing power, the United States is now in second place behind Japan. For the sake of our scientific leadership, of our national security, and for economic competitiveness, we cannot afford to stay in second place for very long. We have provided an additional $30 million for the Department of Energy to procure additional state-of-the-art computers in the near term and to begin an interagency effort to develop next-generation computer architectures. Another area where there is significant Member interest in this conference agreement is the portion of DOE's budget that deals with several new nuclear weapons initiatives proposed by the Administration. I strongly believe that we need to take a hard look at our existing Cold War nuclear arsenal before we start down the path of designing new weapons and new weapons infrastructure. As President Bush said when he announced reductions to the nuclear stockpile on November 13, 2001, ``The United States and Russia have overcome the legacy of the Cold War.'' At that time, he pledged that the United States would reduce our stockpile to 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads over the next ten years. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the Department to Defense, and the Department of energy, to deliver a revised nuclear stockpile plan that reflects the President's commitment of two years ago. It is time for DOD and DOE to take a hard look at our nuclear weapon stockpile and on the infrastructure we are maintaining to support that stockpile. Mr. Speaker, the funding provided in this conference agreement maintains our strong support for DOE's nonproliferation programs in Russia and other countries. This agreement also makes a key change in DOE's contracting culture, as we require the competition of five laboratory contracts that we awarded without competition back in the 1940s and have never been competed since. Most Members are shocked to learn we have contracts that have never been competed in the past half century. We are fixing that situation. Funding for Title IV, Independent Agencies, is $229.3 million, an increase of $22.6 million from last year and $81.4 million above the budget request. We have funded the Appalachian Regional Commission at $66 million, $33 million above the request, in recognition of the strong interest in this chamber and in the Senate in the work of the ARC. I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman PETE DOMENICI, and his Ranking Minority Member, Senator HARRY REID, for their [Page: H11397]
hard work during this conference. They may view me as a relatively junior Member by Senate standards, but rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I fought long and hard to defend the House priorities during this conference. My Ranking Member, the Honorable PETE VISCLOSKY, was at my side during this process, and I truly value his support and advice. Mr. Speaker, before I conclude I would also like to thank the staff for their help in getting me up to speed on the complex issues we have in this bill. The Subcommittee staff includes Bob Schmidt, Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, Tracy LaTurner, and our detailee from the Corps of Engineers, Robert Pace. I also want to thank Kenny Draft of my staff, and Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg of the minority staff. I urge the unanimous support of the house for adoption of this conference report. I would hope we could quickly conclude action on this conference report so that we can get this bill to the White House for signature. ******************** Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to as, I always do on these occasions, thank the staff because in the end they are the ones who have done the very hard work. I want to thank Kevin Cook, I want to thank Scott Burnison, I want to thank Dennis Kern, Tracey La Turner, Rob Pace, Kenny Kraft, Rob Nabors, Dixon Butler, Peder Maarbjerg, Leslie Phillips, and I would also like to add my voice of thanks to Bob Schmidt. Bob has done an incredible job as a staff member of the Committee on Appropriations. As a former staffer myself, I truly appreciate the work everyone has done on this bill, and in this case particularly the work of Bob. It is no surprise to me the quality of work he has done since he is a graduate of the University of the Notre Dame. The second set of thank you's goes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman HOBSON). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and I serve together on the Subcommittee on Defense. As mentioned, this is his first full round with the energy and water bill, and he has done an exceptional job. He has been completely bipartisan. He has been a gentleman. He has made decisions. Our Department of Energy and our energy policy in the United States of America is better off because of the work the gentleman has done on this bill. I have now served with five chairmen; they have all been very able. They have all done very good work; this is the best bill which has been brought to the floor while I have been a ranking member. Mr. Speaker, on the substance of the bill, I would want to simply say that I think the committee has done a very good job on the nuclear weapons program. On the issue of water infrastructure, we have done our very best. We have added $377 million, and put back into the process 80 programs that were eliminated by the administration under budget requests. Any failings here are not because of lack of effort by the committee.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the staff that worked to put this bill together, Bob Schmidt, Kevin Cook, Scott Burnison, Dennis Kern, Tracey La Turner, Rob Pace, Kenny Kraft, Peder Maarbjerg, Leslie Phillips, Rob Nabors, and Dixon Butler, all put in countless hours to produce this fine product. I would also like to thank my Chairman, Chairman HOBSON, who guided the House priorities through a very tough Conference, and led us to produce a very good bill. He has been one of the best Chairmen I have ever work with, and I look forward to working with him in future years. Now, no bill is perfect Mr. Speaker, but this bill was a product of a truly bipartisan effort. Mark Twain once said that ``Common Sense is not that Common'' but this Conference Report advances some very common sense ideas, and though I don't want to take up much time, I would be remiss if I did not mention a few. In the area of Nuclear Weapons, this Conference Report directs the Dept. of Energy to focus on management of our aging weapons stockpile before moving forward with new concepts and designs. The Report fenced two-thirds of the money going to Advanced Concepts, or weapons research, until DOE produces a Nuclear Weapons Stockpile plan. This plan is needed to better deal with our aging war-heads and to dispose of many of those systems. Due to advances in technology many warheads are no longer practical or feasible with current Department of Defense technology and strategies. In addition, the Conference Report, funds the Modern Pit Facility program and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or Bunker Buster at, $10M and $7.5M respectively, half of the President's and Senate's Requests in both cases. This is because we should not be looking forward to new weapons until we have a solid plan for the weapons and technology we already have. Mr. Speaker, we should be especially wary of the nuclear waste stored in many sites across this country in this unfortunate time of terrorist threats. The compromise we came to with the other body, funded the Yucca Mountain Repository at it's highest level ever, $580M, and fully supports the submission of the December 2004 license application. I appreciate the Chairman's leadership on this issue. Finally, Mr. Speaker our funding for the Corps of Engineers was the best that we could do within the money provided. Many important projects could not be fully funded, completed, or started. This under-funding was not the fault of the Chairman or this committee, which funded the Corps approximately $377 million over the President's Request and restored approximately 80 ongoing studies that the Administration did not include in their budget. Unfortunately, this Administration, and previous Administrations, in a bipartisan failure, have not made the infrastructure of this country a priority. Currently, the Corps O&M program reflects a high priority backlog of $1 billion and an additional $1.9 billion in unfunded work. Though the conference report added $29 million to the President's request, we are still behind. For on going construction, the backlog was $44 Billion for FY 2002 and $45 billion in FY 2003. The Conference Report added $372 million to the President's request of $1.35 billion to help this situation; this is just a drop in the bucket, and I suspect this backlog will continue to grow in FY 2004. We need to invest in our future, by creating jobs, advancing the efficiency of commerce and transportation, while improving the environmental outlook and quality of life for people in this country. This can all be done through better investment in our domestic infrastructure. ******************** Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to two provisions in this energy and water conference report. First, this bill provides $7.5 million for study of a new-generation, earth-penetrating nuclear warhead and $6 million for research on advanced nuclear weapons concepts such as low-yield mini nukes. Supporters of these new nuclear weapons argue the current funding is limited to weapons research and development in DOE labs, but this argument ignores the obvious end results of these studies, and that is that they will have to be tested. These weapons will be tested most likely at the Nevada test site. That will once again expose Utah and the rest of this Nation to fallout from those tests. High-yield weapons present an additional problem, unacceptable amounts of fallout would endanger U.S. troops approaching the target to confirm the weapons' success. No one is going to argue about pursuing new technologies to address the threats posed by terrorists hiding in hardened or deeply-buried sites, but we should ask and answer this question about whether nuclear weapons, regardless of yield, can even get the job done. I oppose this bill that would once again move toward exposing Utahans to nuclear testing in Nevada. That brings me to a second point I also raise in opposition to the bill, and that is there is a provision that would reclassify radioactive waste from two Department of Energy sites as a type of waste that can be shipped to commercial facility. This language was included in the conference report without the knowledge of States like Utah that had commercial facilities where the DOE has suggested shipping such highly-concentrated radioactive waste. This waste has much higher radioactive levels than other radioactive waste that commercial facilities are currently regulated to accept under this classification. This is unacceptable to Utah, and I am fundamentally opposed to language that makes Utah into a dumping ground not only for waste from Ohio and New York, but waste from other east coast States as well. Some Members argue this waste is not that bad. Mr. Speaker, if the waste is not that bad, then Ohio and New York should not be in such a rush to get rid of it. Utah has a history on this issue, a history of being downwinders. My family comes from southern Utah. I would not put Utah into a back seat to anyone when it comes to their patriotism and commitment to this country, but we need to make sure when we move ahead and potentially expose our citizens to radiation, that we make sure we make these decisions in the clear light of day, and we look out for the health and safety of all Americans. ******************** Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work in producing an Energy and Water Appropriations bill that funds a number of important programs This legislation includes significant increases over the President's request for Basic Energy Research and for Energy Supply programs. Sadly, this bill also marks a watershed in U.S. nuclear policy that will have dire consequences for us and for our children. Indeed, by funding research on adapting nuclear weapons for new uses against hard and deeply buried targets and funding work on new low yield nukes, Congress has given its stamp of approval to a persistent effort by this administration to put the United States back in the business of making nuclear weapons. The funding of these two initiatives has been the culmination of the work of nuclear hawks in the administration who had produced a Nuclear Posture Review in December of 2001 that places a strong emphasis on the use of nuclear weapons for both offensive and defensive purposes and a misguided National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction in December 2002 that outlines new scenarios when the United States would consider using nuclear weapons. The development not only marks a new chapter in American national security policy that directly invites a nuclear arms race with any power that wishes to compete, but also a shameful moment for Congress when elected officials have been too willing to embrace a new weapons program without challenging what have been very lightweight justifications. Mr. Speaker, nuclear weapons will remain a crucial part of America's arsenal for the foreseeable future. They provide a hedge against potentially hostile nuclear powers and underpin security commitments to our allies. But today, the United States is addressing the threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and a growing list of counties. The Director of the CIA, George Tenet, warned last February that the ``desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge ``among small countries'' and that ``we have entered a new world of proliferation.'' Even Russia, our former Cold War rival whom we fought in a conflict that almost brought the world to the brink of annihilation, on noting the administration's current intent to pursue a new generation of nuclear weapons, has responded by making plans to strengthen its nuclear deterrent by modernizing delivery vehicles and keeping a number of heavy ballistic missiles previously slated for dismantlement. Instead of working to build an equitable global regime that actively devalues nuclear weapons and creates incentives for their elimination, the administration would rather develop new battlefield nuclear capabilities, leading us into a world where nuclear weapons are seen as legitimate alternatives for all nations and the taboo on their use is severely eroded. The administration's intent to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons of any size makes a mockery of the President's claim that the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) he signed with Russian President Putin marked the true end of the Cold War. Indeed, if you combine the repeal of the ban on development of low yield nuclear weapons contained in the Defense Authorization Bill with the funding of these same weapons in this bill and the flexibility in the SORT which allows both Russia and the United States too keep all their weapons rather than dismantle them, we actually have the makings of a nuclear arms buildup in this country for the first time since the end of the Cold War. While this bill cuts funds in half for the Robust Earth Penetrator and ties $4 million of the $6 million requested for advanced concepts to an important reporting requirement, there is no such thing as opening Pandora's box part way. With this bill, the United States has crossed a major threshold and entered a new nuclear era. By approving the administration's request for plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, Congress has failed the American people by adopting policies that potentially make the United States less secure. The justifications the administration offered for its nuclear agenda--the need to maintain the knowledge of our nuclear designers and the need to strengthen our nulcear deterrent by developing more usable nuclear weapons--were paper thin. [Page: H11403]
The first justification deserves little comment. The argument that Congress needs to create a jobs program for scientists to help hone their skills doesn't hold water. Second, the proposition that nuclear weapons can somehow be engineered to be smarter and cause less collateral damage is simply false. Nuclear weapons will never surgically destroy hardened targets. They offer no guarantee of destroying chemical and biological agents without releasing them into the atmosphere. Detonated in an urban area, even a 1-kiloton nuclear bomb with a yield much lower than the nuclear warheads under consideration for an RNEP would kill tens of thousands of civilians and hinder friendly troops. Our warfighters do not have a military requirement for new nuclear weapons, and we have not exhausted research on conventional alternatives. I am deeply concerned that by preaching the rhetoric of disarmament and nonproliferation, and on the other hand, developing a new generation of weapons of mass destruction, we are making the world a more dangerous place. Perhaps the most alarming thing this Congress has done is to trivialize nuclear weapons and their destructive power. The prohibition on low yield weapons not only was necessary, it reinforced the notion that nuclear weapons should always be considered the most destructive weapons known to man. By lifting the ban on research and funding their development in this bill, it is much easier to believe that they are just like any other usable weapons system, rather than a horrific weapon of last resort. The American people are poorly served when the executive branch does not engage them on policies that may have catastrophic consequences for them in the future and when their elected officials are reluctant to ask the hard questions or thoroughly review the administration's national security propositions. I am going to vote for this bill because it contains a number of important provisions for our economy. It will be up to this Congress and subsequent Congresses however, to ensure that the administration's quest for new and more usable nuclear capabilities does not take us closer to the day when we decide to use them again. We did not heed the protests of the current mayor of the city of Hiroshima who wrote the President on the anniversary of the bombing of his city this summer that ``this clear indication that the United States intends to develop small nuclear weapons raises the horrifying specter that nuclear weapons will actually be used'' and represents a ``frontal attack on the process of nuclear disarmament.'' If today we are unwilling to listen to those who have the only experience of the consequences of nuclear war, I hope that in the very near future we can at least start giving proper attention to this development in future hearings and debates.
1D) Conveyance of Decommissioned Ship to Utrok Atoll Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2584) to provide for the conveyance to the Utrok Atoll local government of a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship, as amended. The Clerk read as follows: H.R. 2584 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--UTROK ATOLL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING SUPPORT SEC. 101. UTROK ATOLL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING SUPPORT. (a) In support of radiological monitoring, rehabilitation, and resettlement of Utrok Atoll, whose residents were affected by United States nuclear testing, the Secretary of Commerce may convey to the Utrok Atoll local government without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship in operable condition. (b) The Government of the United States shall not be responsible or liable for any maintenance or operation of a vessel conveyed under this section after the date of the delivery of the vessel to Utrok.
TITLE II--RATIFICATION OF CERTAIN NOAA APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTIONS, AND ACTIONS SEC. 201. RATIFICATION OF CERTAIN NOAA APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTIONS, AND ACTIONS. All action in the line of duty by, and all Federal agency actions in relation to (including with respect to pay, benefits, and retirement) a de facto officer of the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who was appointed or promoted to that office without Presidential action, and without the advice and consent of the Senate, during such time as the officer was not properly appointed in or promoted to that office, are hereby ratified and approved if otherwise in accord with the law, and the President alone may, without regard to any other law relating to appointments or promotions in such corps, appoint or promote such a de facto officer temporarily, without change in the grade currently occupied in a de facto capacity, as an officer in such corps for a period ending not later than 180 days from the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REAUTHORIZATION SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``International Fisheries Reauthorization Act of 2003''. SEC. 302. EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967. Section 7(e) of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1977(e)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2008''. SEC. 303. REAUTHORIZATION OF YUKON RIVER SALMON ACT OF 2000. Section 208 of the Yukon River Salmon Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 5727) is amended by striking ``2000'' and all that follows through ``2003'' and inserting ``2004 through 2008''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). GENERAL LEAVE Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2584, as amended. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2584 will transfer a decommissioned NOAA vessel to the Utrok Atoll local government in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The Utrok Atoll is one of 29 low coral atolls in the Marshall Islands that is inhabited by 600 people. This small atoll has been exposed to the horrible effects of radioactive pollution during our nuclear bomb testing period. These citizens require ongoing tests, monitoring and medical care; and it is currently difficult for them to obtain access to that care. The fundamental goal of this legislation is to provide these citizens with a reliable, safe means of transportation to the city of Majuro. This city is the capital of the Marshall Islands and is more than 300 miles from the Utrok Atoll. The NOAA vessel likely affected by this measure is the McArthur. The ship is 175 feet long, has a cruising speed of 10 knots, a cruising range of over 6,000 nautical miles and a draft of 12 feet. It was commissioned as a NOAA research vessel in 1966 and decommissioned on May 20, 2003. Under the terms of H.R. 2584, all rights, title, and interest in the ship are transferred to the Utrok Atoll government. The vessel must be in operable condition prior to the actual transfer; but in the future, all maintenance, responsibility, and liabilities are conveyed to the Utrok Atoll government.
[Time: 11:15]
Title II of the bill is a corrective measure for the Department of Commerce which may approve appointments and confirmations made for the NOAA Corps in the Clinton and Bush administrations. This measure has been unanimously adopted by the other body. Title III of the bill reauthorizes two important laws dealing with international fisheries, the Fisherman's Protective Act and the Yukon River Salmon Act. Identical language was incorporated in H.R. 2048 which unanimously passed the House of Representatives on October 20 of this year. This [Page: H12126] GPO's PDF title is noncontroversial and simply extends these two acts for an additional 5 years at existing funding levels. Madam Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for sponsoring this bill, and urge my colleagues to support this important humanitarian effort. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, as stated by the previous speaker, H.R. 2584 is noncontroversial legislation that would convey a decommissioned research vessel formerly operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the local government of Utrok Atoll located in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Congress should do whatever we can to help the residents of Utrok Atoll. It is imperative that they receive the critical medical testing and treatment necessary to address the increased rates of thyroid cancer and birth defects that have arisen as a result of the U.S. nuclear testing program we conducted in the Northern Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958. The conveyance of this former NOAA vessel will allow more convenient and less expensive transportation for these residents who have to make a 265-mile trip to the neighboring islands of Majuro where the medical facilities are located. I commend the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for introducing this legislation to help the residents of this very remote atoll in the Pacific Ocean. This legislation also contains a very important amendment to address a problem regarding serious lapses in procedure affecting past appointments and promotions for NOAA's Uniformed Corps of Officers. It is important that the chain of command of the NOAA Corps not be disrupted. And while any future repeat of these procedural lapses may not be tolerated, this matter must be addressed expeditiously to prevent any operational or command dysfunction from arising. I urge all Members to support this legislation.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2584, a bill I introduced to assist our friends from Utro 6k Atoll as they continue efforts to resettle and rehabilitate their islands as a result of the effects of the United States nuclear testing in the Marshal Islands. I would like to express my gratitude to Chairman RICHARD POMBO and Ranking Member NICK RAHALL of the Resources Committee for their continued support of Pacific Island issues. I would also like to thank my distinguished colleagues and co-sonsors--Congressmen ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA (PR), DAN BURTON (IN), JOHN DOOLITTLE (CA), ELTON GALLEGLY (CA), JEFF FLAKE (AZ) and Congresswoman MADELEINE BORDALLO (Guam). The purpose of this proposed legislation is simply to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to convey a decommissioned, operable NOAA vessel to the Government of Utro 6k. The vessel would be used to provide support for radiological monitoring, rehabilitation and resettlement of Utro 6k, an atoll that is part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. As you know, many of the Marshall Islands atolls were devastated by the effects of the U.S. Nuclear Testing activities during the 1940's and 50's. Utro 6k was one of four atolls acknowledged by the U.S. Government and suffering unsafe radiologicval exposure and its residents were forced to evacuate 72 hours after the miscalculated Bravo shot. Two months later, the people of Utro 6k were assured it was safe to return home. We know now that this was a grave mistake because Utro 6k residents have since suffered increased radiological illnesses and birth defects. Today, the people of Utro 6k are seeking to rehabilitate their home island so that it is a safe place to live. Last year a comprehensive scientific report recommended a potassium fertilizer treatment to accompany the ongoing resettlement process on Utro 6k, a treatment which would suppress the remaining radioactive Cesium-137 in the soil and prevent its further uptake in the food supply. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy concluded a MOU with Utro 6k that committed the DOE to build a Whole body Counting (WBC) facility in order to monitor radioactivity levels in the people of Utro 6k. This new facility is located about 265 miles away in Majuro and will be used to ensure that the potassium fertilizer regime is effective and the administration of the fertilizer treatment is done properly. However, Utro 6k residents are responsible for their own transportation to Majuro. Transportation by plane is expensive and available only once per week, and is unreliable, as the Utro 6k runway is in disrepair and the airline often declines to land. Travel by commercial ships, although less expensive, is infrequent and unfeasible. One solution to help facilitate transportation between Utro 6k and Majuro is to transfer a decommissioned NOAA vessel to the Utro 6k Atoll Local Government. In addition to transport of Utro 6k residents to the WBC facility, the vessel will be used for moving several tons of potassium fertilizer, transporting equipment and materials for radiological remediation, and transporting USDA food supplies. Because of the Cesium-137 contamination is locally grown food, at least 50% of the diet of Utro 6k residents must be imported to limit the risk of radiological poisoning. The Utro 6k Atoll Local Government also fully supports this measure and adopted are solution (022-03) on July 4th 2003 stating that the NOAA vessel transfer would be ``one of the crucial needs that will fully support our future goals to develop, rehabilitate and resettle the atoll after the aftermath of the `Bravo' fallout''. The Utro 6k Government also expects the ship to be available for use by other atolls for their respective communities, who will help pay for the ongoing maintenance of the vessel. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this bill will remind the Congress of our ongoing responsibility to the people of RMI for the mistakes the United States made regarding its nuclear testing activities in the Asia Pacific region. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I thank my colleagues for their support.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2584, 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 provide for the conveyance to the Utrok Atoll local government of a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship, and for other purposes.''. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
1E) Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program TITLE VI: EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RADIATION DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Current Law Section 3.311 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, sets out procedures for the adjudication of claims by VA for benefits premised on a veteran's exposure to ionizing radiation in service. For veterans who claim radiation exposure due to participation in nuclear atmospheric testing from 1945 through 1962, or due to occupation duty in Hiroshima and Nagasaki prior to July 1, 1946, dose data are requested from the Department of Defense (``DOD''). DOD's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (``DTRA'') pays a private contractor to estimate radiation exposure through a process called radiation dose reconstruction. There is no entity under existing law which provides independent oversight of DTRA's radiation dose reconstruction process. House Bill The House Bill contains no comparable provision. Senate Bill Section 331 of S. 1132, as amended, would require VA and DOD to review, and report on the mission, procedures, and administration of the radiation dose reconstruction program. It would also require VA and DOD to establish an advisory board to oversee the program. Compromise Agreement Section 601 of the Compromise Agreement follows the Senate language.
1F) National Defense Authorization SPEECH OF HON. ELLEN O. TAUSCHER OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2003
2A) National Defense Authorization SPEECH OF HON. MARK UDALL OF COLORADO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003
[Page: E2355] GPO's PDF protect national security. The Pentagon has never sought to take advantage of this flexibility, so it strains belief that these laws are undermining our national security. Indeed, the General Accounting Office has found that training readiness remains high at military installations notwithstanding our environmental laws. I am not persuaded that the changes to these acts proposed by the military are justified.
2B)
Conference
Agreement on the Defense Authorization SPEECH OF HON. BETTY McCOLLUM OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2003
CHEM/ BIO AND WMD TERRORISM ************************************ 3A) Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 686) to provide assistance for poison prevention and to stabilize the funding of regional poison control centers, as amended. The Clerk read as follows: S. 686 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 ``Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act Amendments of 2003''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following: (1) Poison control centers are our Nation's primary defense against injury and deaths from poisoning. Twenty-four hours a day, the general public as well as health care practitioners contact their local poison centers for help in diagnosing and treating victims of poisoning and other toxic exposures. (2) Poisoning is the third most common form of unintentional death in the United States. In any given year, there will be between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000 poison exposures. More than 50 percent of these exposures will involve children under the age of 6 who are exposed to toxic substances in their home. Poisoning accounts for 285,000 hospitalizations, 1,200,000 days of acute hospital care, and 13,000 fatalities annually. (3) Stabilizing the funding structure and increasing accessibility to poison control centers will promote the utilization of poison control centers, and reduce the inappropriate use of emergency medical services and other more costly health care services. (4) The tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax cases of October 2001, have dramatically changed our Nation. During this time period, poison centers in many areas of the country were answering thousands of additional calls from concerned residents. Many poison centers were relied upon as a source for accurate medical information about the disease and the complications resulting from prophylactic antibiotic therapy. (5) The 2001 Presidential Task Force on Citizen Preparedness in the War on Terrorism recommended that the Poison Control Centers be used as a source of public information and public education regarding potential biological, chemical, and nuclear domestic terrorism. (6) The increased demand placed upon poison centers to provide emergency information in the event of a terrorist event involving a biological, chemical, or nuclear toxin will dramatically increase call volume. SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT. Title XII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Part G--Poison Control ``SEC. 1271. MAINTENANCE OF A NATIONAL TOLL-FREE NUMBER. ``(a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall provide coordination and assistance to regional poison control centers for the establishment of a nationwide toll-free phone number to be used to access such centers. ``(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the establishment or continued operation of any privately funded nationwide toll-free phone number used to provide advice and other assistance for poisonings or accidental exposures. ``(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2009. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall not be used to fund any toll-free phone number described in subsection (b). [Page: H11575]
``SEC. 1272. NATIONWIDE MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE POISON CONTROL CENTER UTILIZATION. ``(a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall establish a national media campaign to educate the public and health care providers about poison prevention and the availability of poison control resources in local communities and to conduct advertising campaigns concerning the nationwide toll-free number established under section 1271. ``(b) CONTRACT WITH ENTITY.--The Secretary may carry out subsection (a) by entering into contracts with 1 or more nationally recognized media firms for the development and distribution of monthly television, radio, and newspaper public service announcements. ``(c) EVALUATION.--The Secretary shall-- ``(1) establish baseline measures and benchmarks to quantitatively evaluate the impact of the nationwide media campaign established under this section; and ``(2) prepare and submit to the appropriate congressional committees an evaluation of the nationwide media campaign on an annual basis. ``(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $600,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005 and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009. ``SEC. 1273. MAINTENANCE OF THE POISON CONTROL CENTER GRANT PROGRAM. ``(a) REGIONAL POISON CONTROL CENTERS.--The Secretary shall award grants to certified regional poison control centers for the purposes of achieving the financial stability of such centers, and for preventing and providing treatment recommendations for poisonings. ``(b) OTHER IMPROVEMENTS.--The Secretary shall also use amounts received under this section to-- ``(1) develop standardized poison prevention and poison control promotion programs; ``(2) develop standard patient management guidelines for commonly encountered toxic exposures; ``(3) improve and expand the poison control data collection systems, including, at the Secretary's discretion, by assisting the poison control centers to improve data collection activities; ``(4) improve national toxic exposure surveillance by enhancing activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; ``(5) expand the toxicologic expertise within poison control centers; and ``(6) improve the capacity of poison control centers to answer high volumes of calls during times of national crisis. ``(c) CERTIFICATION.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the Secretary may make a grant to a center under subsection (a) only if-- ``(1) the center has been certified by a professional organization in the field of poison control, and the Secretary has approved the organization as having in effect standards for certification that reasonably provide for the protection of the public health with respect to poisoning; or ``(2) the center has been certified by a State government, and the Secretary has approved the State government as having in effect standards for certification that reasonably provide for the protection of the public health with respect to poisoning. ``(d) WAIVER OF CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary may grant a waiver of the certification requirement of subsection (c) with respect to a noncertified poison control center or a newly established center that applies for a grant under this section if such center can reasonably demonstrate that the center will obtain such a certification within a reasonable period of time as determined appropriate by the Secretary. ``(2) RENEWAL.--The Secretary may renew a waiver under paragraph (1). ``(3) LIMITATION.--In no instance may the sum of the number of years for a waiver under paragraph (1) and a renewal under paragraph (2) exceed 5 years. The preceding sentence shall take effect as if enacted on February 25, 2000. ``(e) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.--Amounts made available to a poison control center under this section shall be used to supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, or local funds provided for such center. ``(f) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.--A poison control center, in utilizing the proceeds of a grant under this section, shall maintain the expenditures of the center for activities of the center at a level that is not less than the level of such expenditures maintained by the center for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the grant is received. ``(g) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.--The Secretary may impose a matching requirement with respect to amounts provided under a grant under this section if the Secretary determines appropriate. ``(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and $27,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009. ``SEC. 1274. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. ``Nothing in this part may be construed to ease any restriction in Federal law applicable to the amount or percentage of funds appropriated to carry out this part that may be used to prepare or submit a report.''. SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. The Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act (42 U.S.C. 14801 et seq.) is hereby repealed. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). GENERAL LEAVE Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 686. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 686, the Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act amendments. This bill, Mr. Speaker, amends the Poison Control Enhancement and Awareness Act to provide additional assistance for poison prevention and to stabilize the funding of regional poison control centers. I would like to extend my thanks first to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), for all of his work on this important legislation and also add to that list the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), who has been very interested in this subject for a long time, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), Senator DeWine, and, of course, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the others who have been so very cooperative. Poisoning is the third most common form of unintentional death in the United States. Many of these exposures involve children. Poison control centers are a primary defense against injury and death from poisoning. In the events since September 11, poison centers have taken on the additional role, Mr. Speaker, of providing medical information about biological, chemical, and nuclear domestic terrorism. S. 686 would authorize funds to maintain national toll-free poison control hotlines and the Poison Control Center Grant Program. Additionally, the legislation would create a nationwide media campaign to promote poison control center utilization and to allow the Secretary to assist in the implementation and maintenance of continuous national surveillance of poison control center data to detect new hazards from toxic substances, household products and pharmaceuticals.
[Time: 16:45]
I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support this important legislation that the Senate has passed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), my friend, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), for their hard work on this bill, as well as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), with whom we have worked so well. Every day these specially trained staff of pharmacists and nurses at poison control centers across the country field calls from frantic parents concerned that their child ingested a poisonous substance. They field calls from an elderly couple with questions about whether one medication might cause an adverse reaction if taken with another; and as the events of September 11 and the cases of anthrax have shown us, poison control centers field calls from concerned residents uncertain about the danger they have been exposed to. Handling an average of one poison exposure call every 15 seconds across the country, these men and women answer questions about poisonings, about drug abuse, about product contents, about adverse reactions. Legislation we are considering today will enhance the work of poison control centers through improved maintenance of a national toll-free number that is linked to regional poison control centers. This bill will help promote the nationwide media campaign to promote [Page: H11576]
poison control center utilization. If a person has a problem, they need to know whom to call and they need to know the number, and they need to know that they are reliable. Every parent, every baby-sitter, every coworker, every household, and every office should know how to contact the poison control center closest to them. This bill from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) will help develop standardized prevention and poison control centers and will improve national surveillance of toxic exposures. It will improve the collection of data to help detect new hazards, including those found in our homes. Mr. Speaker, every year roughly 120 children under 14 needlessly die from unintentional poisoning, 120 children under the age of 14. The bill we are considering today can save the lives of many of them. It is an important step towards reversing that trend and saving more children from poison exposure. I urge my colleagues to support S. 686. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might require to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the father of this act. Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good chairman who has been instrumental in getting this important piece of legislation to the floor. Again, he has done yeoman's work with so many others here in this body. Mr. Speaker, as the lead sponsor of the bipartisan House version of the Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act Amendments of 2003, it is my pleasure to help manage this bill, S. 686, the Senate version of the legislation on the floor today. What we are doing today is taking up the Senate-passed bill and inserting updated language from our bill. We are doing so because we determined that it was the best way to expedite the final passage of this much-needed legislation reauthorizing and strengthening our Federal commitment to ensuring that our Nation's poison control centers can continue to provide life-saving services to all of our constituents, particularly in these last throes of this session of the Congress. I want to take this opportunity to particularly acknowledge Senator DeWine's tremendous leadership on this legislation in the other body and to thank our original cosponsor and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), who is on the floor; the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), committee chairman; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the House subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member; and also for the many staff who have helped. I am grateful for their hard work, particularly Cheryl Jaeger and John Ford, and for the assistance that we have received from the American Association of Poison Control Centers and Jane Williams on my staff who helped shepherd this through so many juggernauts; and if we had a parking place for the staff member of the month in front of the Capitol, her name would be the first inscribed on that plate. Mr. Speaker, poison control centers provide vital, very cost-effective services to the American public. Each year, more than 2 million poisonings are reported to poison control centers throughout this country. More than 90 percent of these poisonings occur in the home, and 50 percent of poisoning victims are children under the age of 6. For every dollar spent on poison control services, we save $7 in medical costs. We prevent a nightmare from happening in virtually any house that uses the phone number and uses these particular facilities. The horrific events of 9/11 and the anthrax cases the next month brought home the vital role that our Nation's poison control centers must be prepared to play in the event of further terrorist attacks. The 2001 Presidential Task Force on Citizen Preparedness in the War on Terrorism recommended that poison control centers be used as a source of public information and public education regarding potential biological, chemical, and nuclear domestic terrorism. Mr. Speaker, the passage and enactment of this bill will ensure that our Nation's poison control centers have the resources that they need to fulfill their vital mission as the first line of defense against accidental poisonings and the response to biological, chemical, and nuclear terrorism. I ask that all of the Members join us in voting for this legislation. It will indeed save lives for many Americans. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), who has worked so hard on this bill. Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the committee; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member; of course, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the Subcommittee on Health chair; and of course, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who worked very closely with me and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Poison control centers have always had broad bipartisan support, and I was delighted once again to join my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), in sponsoring the House version of the reauthorization. The role of these centers in basic public health care continues to grow. For example, the Academy of Pediatrics recently urged parents to contact the local poison control centers rather than using the time-honored method of inducing vomiting in children where poisoning is suspected. Our action today will ensure that poison control centers will be there to answer the call for those frightened parents. Continued strong Federal funding will help to establish new centers as well. This effort is particularly critical at a time when we are increasingly concerned about poison being used as an element of bioterrorism. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that language was included to ensure that funds under this bill would go directly to the centers for their work and not diverted to costly and unnecessary studies. I would like to thank the committee leadership and committee staff on both sides of the aisle for moving this legislation expeditiously, and I would urge our Senate colleagues to ensure that the bill is passed with the House modifications prior to our adjournment. As a result of what we are doing here today, the lives of people will be saved. Not only that, we will save a lot of money because it is cost-productive. Many times we have youngsters in particular who end up in the emergency room, and it costs a whole lot more to treat a person in the emergency room than to pick up the phone and call the poison control center and for them to tell that mother who has already panicked that all they have to do is take this and let their son or daughter go to sleep. Therefore, I am excited about this because it is cost-saving, and that is something that we should not forget. Anywhere, anytime we can cut corners and save lives at the same time, then I think we should not hesitate to do it. Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commending my good friend from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for his excellent leadership on this and my friends on the Democratic side, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). The very fact that we have this Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act Amendments on the floor is helping to depoison the atmosphere of this House. It is good to be on the floor this afternoon working with our friends on the other side of the aisle instead of throwing bricks back and forth. So the very fact that we are bringing this piece of legislation to the floor is helping depoison the atmosphere in the House. This is a piece of legislation that builds on what was done back in 1999 when we authorized these poison control centers. Former Senator Dave Karnes, a former White House Fellow friend of mine from Nebraska, called me on this piece of legislation several weeks ago, asked if I would touch base with the House leadership and encourage them to move it, as it had already [Page: H11577]
passed the Senate and was awaiting floor time. I went to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and they were very willing to put this on a fast track; and, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for making this part of the package of the bill that is on the floor this afternoon. There are somewhere between 2 million and 4 million poison exposures each year to our Nation's children. Thankfully, in many cases of those cases, it does not end up in a catastrophic situation; but unfortunately, on occasion, it does. The bill before us today, when the President signs it, is going to minimize the possibility or the probability that those exposures will result in a catastrophic situation. As a father of three children, when they were at home, we took advantage of many of the programs that are in this act in terms of labeling our household goods and chemicals and medicines so that our younger children saw the little smiley face turned upside down, the little green poison control, and of course, it had the message on it and the phone number to call locally or regionally if one had a problem. So I rise in strong support of this. I am assured that we are going to have bipartisan endorsement; and, again, I want to thank the leadership for their strong work, and on our side the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and on the Democrat side, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their excellent work. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) has one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) was here earlier, before even the votes. He wanted to really speak on this subject because he has a great interest in it, and I appreciate that interest. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for their help and leadership on this vital legislation; and I rise in strong support of S. 686, the Poison Control Enhancement and Awareness Act, and urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support final passage. As a cosponsor of the House version of H.R. 1819, I am pleased we are considering this critical legislation for approval today. Mr. Speaker, the Poison Control Enhancement and Awareness Act provides essential support to our Nation's poison control centers. A critical component of the legislation would reauthorize a grant program to keep our poison control centers running and prepared for everyday emergencies. This grant program is vital for the Carolinas Poison Center, which serves all of North Carolina. Carolinas Poison Center provides life-saving help to parents whose children have swallowed something dangerous, physicians who have unexplained illnesses, hospital emergency rooms which know what the toxic exposure was to a patient but need instructions on how to treat it, and many others in need of critical information about toxic exposure. Carolinas Poison Center's ability to continue these essential services depends on the continuation of the essential grant program as provided in Senate 686, which funds approximately one-fourth of its budget. The tragic events of September 11 and the anthrax cases of October 2001 have dramatically changed our Nation. During this time, the Carolinas Poison Center, as well as poison centers throughout the country, answered thousands of additional calls from concerned residents. The Carolinas Poison Center was utilized by many citizens as the primary source for accurate medical information about anthrax and other potential bioterrorism diseases but also for the complications resulting from prophylactic antibiotic therapy.
[Time: 17:00]
Poison control centers throughout the country have become critical sources of local, State and regional bioterrorism response and information in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control. The Carolinas Poison Center recently completed an analysis of the 2000-2002 human exposure and information call volume, as well as reported human exposure clinical effects in order to determine daily volume and effects baselines, and threshold limits for detection of possible biochemical and disease outbreaks. These results were reported to State public health officials, and software capabilities that enabled Carolinas Poison Control Center were funded, in part, by Federal Prison Control Center grant funds. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce for their work on this critical legislation, and our leadership for helping to move it forward today. I urge my colleagues to join me in securing passage for this essential legislation. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) that the House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 686, as amended. The question was taken. The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative. Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. END
3B) Forfeiture of Benefits for Subversive Activities FORFEITURE OF BENEFITS FOR SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES Current Law Section 6105 of title 38, United States Code, provides that an individual convicted after September 1, 1959, of any of several specified [Page: S15139]
offenses involving subversive activities shall have no right to gratuitous benefits (including the right to burial in a national cemetery) under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. No other person shall be entitled to such benefits on account of such individual. House Bill Section 20 of H.R. 2297, as amended, would amend current law to supplement the list of serious Federal criminal offenses for which a veteran's conviction results in a bar to VA benefits, including burial in a national cemetery. The following criminal offenses from title 18, United States Code, would be added: section 175, prohibited activities with respect to biological weapons; section 229, prohibited activities with respect to chemical weapons; section 831, prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials; section 1091, genocide; section 2332a, use of certain weapons of mass destruction; and section 2332b, acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries. All of these offenses, which involve serious threats to national security, were added to title 18, United States Code, after the enactment of the provisions in section 6105 of title 38, United States Code. Senate Bill Section 313 of S. 1132, as amended, contains an identical provision. Compromise Agreement Section 705 of the Compromise Agreement contains this provision.
IRAQ/IRAN/SYRIA AND WMD ***************************** 4A) S. Con. Res 81 Iran and the NPT At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the names of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CRAPO) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. MCCONNELL) were added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 81, a concurrent resolution expressing the deep concern of Congress regarding the failure of the Islamic Republic of Iran to adhere to its obligations under a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the engagement by Iran in activities that appear to be designed to develop nuclear weapons. ******************** At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the names of the Senator from Maryland (Ms. MIKULSKI) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. CORZINE) were added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 81, a concurrent resolution expressing the deep concern of Congress regarding the failure of the Islamic Republic of Iran to adhere to its obligations under a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the engagement by Iran in activities that appear to be designed to develop nuclear weapons. ******************** At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. MILLER) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 81, a concurrent resolution expressing the deep concern of Congress regarding the failure of the Islamic Republic of Iran to adhere to its obligations under a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the engagement by Iran in activities that appear to be designed to develop nuclear weapons. ******************** At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. VOINOVICH) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 81, a concurrent resolution expressing the deep concern of Congress regarding the failure of the Islamic Republic of Iran to adhere to its obligations under a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the engagement by Iran in activities that appear to be designed to develop nuclear weapons.
4B)
Syria Accountability Act Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, the
Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act takes important
and valuable steps, and I would have voted for it had I been present, but I am
concerned that it may not go far enough. Syria has long been recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism. In fact,
the Syrians themselves openly speak of their support for terrorist organizations
such as Hezbollah,
Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Intelligence
reports and terrorism experts tell us that the next generation of terrorists is
being trained in a network of training facilities that exist in Syria and the
Syrian-controlled parts of Lebanon. These international terrorist organizations
that run these camps already have the capacity to kill Americans, and they have
state sponsors with access to weapons of mass destruction. Prior to 9/11,
Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any other
terrorist group. On September 18, 2001, the Senate passed
S.J.
Res 23, which authorized the
President to use ``all necessary and appropriate force'' against those
responsible for the attacks of 9/11. This authorization for the use of force is
therefore limited to al-Qaeda. We ignore other terrorist networks at our
peril--and at one point, President Bush recognized that. Nine days after the
terrorist attack of September 11, the President declared: ``Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda but it does not end there. It
will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped
and defeated.'' In his State of the Union speech on January 29, 2002, President bush
re-stated our priorities: Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the
pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps,
disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must
prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons from threatening the
United States and the world. I supported those statements and hoped to help the President carry out his
pledge. Last October, Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq. I voted
against this authorization because I believed it was a distraction from the war
on terrorism. At that time, I attempted to amend the resolution to provide the
president the authorization to use force against other terrorist organizations
that met the following criteria: they have a state sponsor with access to
weapons of mass destruction; they have a history of killing Americans; and they
have the ability to strike inside the United States. I remain concerned that the President does not have the necessary
authorization to use force against these additional terrorist organizations.
Without such authorization, he cannot fulfill the commitment he made in his
January 2002 State of the Union speech. I hope the administration will take this occasion to review its existing
authorities and report back to Congress on where there may be deficiencies in
its authorities to carry out the war on terrorism. Only then will we be able to
hold Syria and similar states that sponsor or harbor terrorists truly
accountable. 4C)
The Relationship Between Al Qaeda and Iraq
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Pursuant to the order of the House of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5
minutes. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, with each passing day, the President's critics
become more emboldened in their attacks on what they decry as a misleading
impetus to go to war. According to the information they are able to ascertain
from 24-hour news channels and the New York Times, they continue to condemn the
President's claim that Saddam Hussein had links to al
Qaeda.
We have all heard their diatribes accusing the President of invading Iraq
with little or no evidence that Saddam Hussein worked along
Osama bin Laden. I
recommend the recent article in the Weekly Standard's current issue that details
the memo written in response to the administration's prewar intelligence. It is
clear evidence of the nexus of terrorism with terrorist-sponsoring states that
many antiwar advocates deny exists at all. According to this memo, dated October 27, 2003, bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that
involved training in explosives, weapons
of mass
destruction , logistical support for terrorist attacks, al
Qaeda training
camps, safe haven in Iraq, and Iraq financial support for al
Qaeda.
Mr. Speaker, the findings put forth in the memo come from a variety of
domestic and foreign agencies including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence
Agency, the CIA, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is
detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in interviews with high-level Al
Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials and some reaches back a decade. Not
surprisingly, the picture that emerges is one of long-standing collaboration
between two of America's most grave enemies. According to the memo which lays
out the intelligence in 50 numbered points, Iraq-al
Qaeda contacts began in 1990
and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq war began. So in
effect, Mr. Speaker, this information has been accumulated over three
administrations. The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to the
memo, bin Laden sent emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government
officials. At some unspecified point in 1991, according to CIA analysis, Iraq
sought Saddam's assistance to establish links to al
Qaeda. Both parties were
equally interested in developing that relationship and according to the CIA
reporting memo, bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's abilities through
ties in Iraq. The cumulative weight of the intelligence is compelling. Even The
Washington Post recommends that its readers examine the evidence and decide for
themselves. The notion that the pragmatic Saddam Hussein, who had grown closer
and closer to extreme terrorists in the 1990s, would avoid any contact with al
Qaeda and
Osama bin Laden is not a reasonable conclusion to draw. The alliance
is a natural one. With al Qaeda now claiming responsibility for the recent
attacks on synagogues in Turkey, we are reminded of our duty to respond. Were the President to have completely ignored this information, the world
would have to face potentially horrifying consequences. Yet today's critics seem
eager to claim even after 9/11 the administration should only have acted against
Saddam if it has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he, Saddam, was in
league with al Qaeda.
Hopefully, this report provides the evidence that is needed to make this
link. This information is reaffirming our need to topple Saddam. After so many
years of complacency, weakness, and denial, the President made the decision to
oust Saddam. He took the action, the action that was vital to protect our
country. 4D)
Syria Accountability Act and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to
the bill (H.R. 1828) to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of
Lebanon, and stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, and by so
doing hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it
has caused in the Middle East. The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendments: 1Page 2, strike out lines 8
through 15 2Page 2, line 16 strike out
[(2)] and insert: (1)
3Page 2, line 20 strike out
[(3)] and insert: (2)
4Page 3, line 3 strike out [(4)]
and insert: (3)
5Page 3, line 11 strike out
[(5)] and insert: (4)
6Page 3, line 18 strike out
[(6)] and insert: (5)
7Page 4, line 1 strike out [(7)]
and insert: (6)
8Page 4, line 7 strike out [(8)]
and insert: (7)
9Page 4, line 12 strike out
[(9)] and insert: (8)
10Page 4, line 16 strike out
[(10)] and insert: (9)
11Page 4, line 21 strike out
[(11)] and insert: (10)
12Page 5, line 1 strike out
[(12)] and insert: (11)
13Page 5, line 6 strike out
[(13)] and insert: (12)
14Page 5, line 16 strike out
[(14)] and insert: (13)
15Page 5, line 20 strike out
[(15)] and insert: (14)
16Page 6, line 3 strike out
[(16)] and insert: (15)
17Page 6, line 14 strike out
[(17)] and insert: (16)
18Page 6, line 20 strike out
[(18)] and insert: (17)
19Page 6, line 23 strike out
[(19)] and insert: (18)
20Page 7, line 6 strike out
[(20)] and insert: (19)
21Page 7, line 10 strike out
[(21)] and insert: (20)
22Page 7, line 23 strike out
[(22)] and insert: (21)
23Page 8, line 9 strike out
[(23)] and insert: (22)
24Page 8, line 19 strike out
[(24)] and insert: (23)
25Page 9, line 3 strike out
[(25)] and insert: (24)
26Page 9, line 7 strike out
[(26)] and insert: (25)
27Page 9, line 14 strike out
[(27)] and insert: (26)
28Page 9, line 18 strike out
[(28)] and insert: (27)
29Page 9, strike out lines 21
through 24 30Page 10, line 1 strike out
[(30)] and insert: (28)
31Page 10, line 10 strike out
[(31)] and insert: (29)
32Page 10, line 18 strike out
[(32)] and insert: (30)
33Page 10, line 24 strike out
[(33)] and insert: (31)
34Page 11, line 4 strike out
[(34)] and insert: (32)
35Page 11, line 9 strike out
[(35)] and insert: (33)
36Page 12, line 1 strike out
[(36)] and insert: (34)
37Page 15, line 1 strike out
[will be held responsible] and insert:
should bear responsibility
38Page 15, line 6, strike out
all after ``States'' down to and including ``ity''
in line 7 and insert: will
work to deny Syria the ability
39Page 15, strike out lines 18
through 20 40Page 15, line 21 strike out
[(5)] and insert: (4)
41Page 16, line 1 strike out
[(6)] and insert: (5)
42Page 16, line 6 strike out
[(7)] and insert: (6)
43Page 16, line 11 strike out
[(8)] and insert: (7)
44Page 16, line 15 strike out
[(9)] and insert: (8)
45Page 16, line 17, after
``Iraq'' insert: if the
Government of Syria is found to be responsible
46Page 16, line 20 strike out
[(10)] and insert: (9)
47Page 18, strike lines 15
through 20 and insert: (b)
WAIVER.--The
President may waive the application of subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or both if the
President determines that it is in the national security interest of the United
States to do so and submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report
containing the reasons for the determination. 48Page 20, line 6, strike out
all after ``has'' down to and including ``Lebanon'' in line 8 and insert:
ended its occupation of Lebanon
described in section 2(7) of this Act
49Page 21, line 15, strike out
all after ``and'' down to and including ``other'' in line 17 50Page 21, line 20, strike out
all after ``Hizballah''
down to and including ``al Qaeda''
in line 21 and insert: and
other terrorist organizations supported by Syria
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant
to the rule, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen)
and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos)
each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen).
GENERAL LEAVE Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative
days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under
consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida? There was no objection.
Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just 2 weeks ago, the
Senate amended and overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and
the Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. The overwhelming support that the
House-passed Syria bill received in the Senate and in the House clearly
demonstrates a unity of purpose and an approach to the terrorist regime in
Damascus. Even antisanctions
advocates in the Senate recognize the serious threat that Syria poses to U.S.
national security and to our interests and allies in the region. This bill seeks to hold Syria
accountable for its weapons program, its continued illegal occupation of
Lebanon, and its terrorist activities, including its facilitation of attacks
against Americans in Iraq. The Syrian Foreign Minister has
been quoted as saying that the requirements of this bill and of the U.S. in
general for Syria to cease and desist on these three fronts are ``unreasonable
and unrealistic'' demands. In fact, the Syrian Foreign Minister believes that
``America has too many demands.'' Meanwhile, just a few days ago, on
Tuesday of this week, a French news source published an interview with a former
member of Saddam Hussein's nefarious Secret Service. This former Saddam agent
and current leader of the militias inside Iraq said that Syria is ``definitely''
working alongside Iraqi intelligence and other Saddam loyalists. He said that
there is cooperation between Syria and his forces inside Iraq, and that ``It
began before the war, through trade, which was only a cover.'' ``Armed Syrians,'' he added,
``even joined our Iraqi militia groups. And well before the war, we had forged
passports that enabled us to go to that country,'' meaning Syria. He added that
this coordination continues to this day. Thus, regardless of how some will
spin it, the Syrian regime has the blood of Americans on its hands, and they
must be held responsible for their deaths, as well as those of scores of
innocent human beings murdered by Syrian-sponsored terrorists. Fully implemented, H.R. 1828 would
help deny Syria the resources to continue its deplorable activities and will
help prevent U.S. complicity in them. It seeks to do so by prohibiting U.S.
exports of military, dual-use, and other items, as well as by prohibiting
investments in key sectors that provide an economic windfall for the Syrian
economy. We have every faith and confidence in President Bush's commitment to
use the range of U.S. policy options, including
the sanctions provided for in H.R. 1828, to hold Syria accountable for its
unacceptable behavior. As the President and the Secretary
of State have clearly stated, Syria is on the wrong side of history. And now, it
is time for it to suffer the consequences. I ask my colleagues to concur with
the Senate amendments to the House-passed bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time. Mr.
LANTOS.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, among the many Members who deserve
commendation for the bill before us, I would like to single out for recognition
my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel)
who first introduced this bill in the 107th Congress; my good friend, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen)
for her superb chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central
Asia who joined the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel),
in initiating this bill in the 108th Congress; and my friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Ackerman),
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, who
has been a tireless fighter for tough-minded U.S. policies towards State
sponsors of terrorism. Mr. Speaker, for years, our
government has favored Syria over other State sponsors of terrorism. We allow
more trade with Syria than with the others, and we maintain normal diplomatic
ties with Syria. This legislation, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese
Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, will end this special treatment, this
inequity. It will make our Syria policy more like our policies toward other
State sponsors of terrorism. With this legislation, Syria's support for
terrorism, as well as Syria's illegal occupation of Lebanon, will become the
central focus of our bilateral relations, rather than just an afterthought.
Mr. Speaker, Syrian-sponsored
terrorism was responsible for the worst pre-September 11 terrorist incident in
American history: the cold-blooded murder of 241 of our Marines by a suicide
bomber in Lebanon a few years ago. Now, Syrian behavior is resulting in more
American military being killed, this time in Iraq. Recently, as my colleagues know, I
visited Syria and met with President
Bashar
al-Asad.
I warned him that the Syria Accountability Act would soon be on its way to
passage unless Syria changed its ways. My words to him were both a prediction
and a pledge. Asad
understood me perfectly. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, delivered a very
similar message to him one week after my visit. Yet, Syria's unacceptable and
menacing behavior has not changed. Palestinian terrorists still populate
Damascus. Hezbollah
still occupies the south of Lebanon, its military arsenal regularly replenished,
both by arms from Syria and Iran. Lebanon continues to remain under Syria's
thumb. There are some 17,000 Syrian occupation troops in Lebanon, and countless
additional thousands of Syrian intelligence officers controlling Lebanon. Anti-U.S.
incitement continues in the Syrian media. Dissident Syrian parliamentarians and
academicians, who want only freedom, languish in prison. Terrorists and
Jahadists
are allowed to cross the Syrian border into Iraq for the purpose of killing our
own fighting men and women. Mr. Speaker, I wish that this
legislation had not been necessary, but the Syrian regime has made it so.
Despite warning after warning, it has refused to heed the dictates of common
sense. Now, Syria will pay the consequences. The door to good relations with
the United States has been wide open to Syria. Secretary of State Powell,
myself, and others beckoned Syria to enter, but the Syrian regime has
contemptuously slammed the door shut. Mr. Speaker, even now, as this legislation
makes clear, our Nation would welcome good relations with Syria just as soon as
the Syrian regime conforms to the minimal norms of civilized international
conduct. Until then, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1828. Mr.
LANTOS.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 7 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel),
the originator of this legislation. Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos),
who has been supportive every step of the way. It has been a long road. Two years
ago, when we sat down in my office and drafted this bill, we could hardly have
dreamed the overwhelming support that this bill would have picked up, bipartisan
support, I might add, in both the House and the Senate. In the previous
Congress, the 107th Congress, I approached the then majority leader, Mr.
Armey,
about sponsoring this bill with me, and he very graciously agreed to do so. Our
sponsors in the other body were Senator
Santorum
and Senator Boxer,
and they, in the 108th Congress, continued to be the sponsors of the bill. In
the 108th Congress, I spoke with my good friend and the chair of our
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen),
and she joined with me in sponsoring this bill in the 108th Congress, and it has
been a pleasure to work with her. I want to also thank our chairman, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), and all of the people
who have worked so hard to bring this to fruition. This is a very important bill.
Syria is prominently listed by the U.S. State Department as a nation which
supports terror. In 1979, the U.S. State Department put forth a list of
countries which support terrorism and Syria was a charter member of that list.
Syria has been on that State Department list, unabated, for 24 years, and now,
in 2003, Syria is the only nation currently on that list with which we have
normal diplomatic relations. It never made any sense to me, it still does not,
and this bill is an important step in saying to Syria, enough is enough. No
longer are you going to get away with supporting terrorism. No longer are you
going to get away with your weapons of mass destruction. No longer are you going
to get away with your occupation and strangulation of the sovereign nation of
Lebanon and, certainly, no longer will we allow you to get away with allowing
terrorists to cross over your border into Iraq to do harm to U.S. troops, and
weapons crossing over from Syria to Iraq to kill U.S. troops. Numerous terrorist groups,
including Hezbollah,
Hamas,
and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, maintain offices or training camps in Syria
or areas of Syrian-occupied Lebanon with impunity under Syrian control and
guidance. Syria is in clear violation of
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, which directs all states to refrain from
providing any form of support for terrorists. Indeed, even after Secretary of
State Powell's meeting with President
Assad
earlier this year, Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups still remain active in Damascus and
all over Syria and Lebanon. Hezbollah
is the group which killed more than 200 U.S. Marines in Beirut 20 years ago.
Hezbollah
continues to attack and wreak havoc in Israel's northern border.
Hezbollah
continues to kill American citizens. And yet Syria continues to play these
duplicitous games. As General
Aoun, the former leader of
Lebanon, said, Syria plays a game where she is both the arsonist and the
fireman. She starts the fire and then helps to put it out and expects accolades.
Syria can no longer throw us crumbs and support terrorism at the same time and
expect our accolades. She does not deserve it. I think it is also interesting to
note, Mr. Speaker, that several days ago the bombings in Turkey and Istanbul,
and there were other horrible bombings this morning, but the bombing of the two
synagogues in Istanbul the other day were carried out by two cousins. And the
mastermind of the bombings, a brother of one of the cousins, fled to Syria after
the bombings. Syria, of course, is safe haven
for terrorists around the world. Now, not only does Syria undermine regional
stability by harboring terrorist groups, its 20,000-strong occupation force has
denied Lebanon its internationally guaranteed sovereignty and political
independence. As called for in U.N. Security Council Resolution 520, it is time
that Lebanon is run by the Lebanese, not by the
Assad
regime in Damascus. I cannot tell you how many
Lebanese Americans have called me and called my office and commended us for this
bill because people
of Lebanese descent in this country are tired of seeing the stranglehold on
Lebanon by Syria. I am also concerned about Syrian
efforts to field chemical and biological weapons in its development of
long-range ballistic missiles. Considering the close ties Syria maintains with
terrorist organizations, Syrian weapons of mass destruction programs are of
grave concern. At a recent hearing of our Middle East subcommittee, the State
Department confirmed that Syria is continuing to permit volunteers and others to
enter Iraq from Syria to attack and kill Americans. This is totally
unacceptable. The broad spectrum of
organizations which supports H.R. 1828 recognizes Syria as a major destabilizing
factor in the region and see this bill as an essential tool to send a clear
message to the Assad
regime. The bill has 297 bipartisan cosponsors in the House and 76 in the
Senate, a majority in both Houses in both parties. The legislation imposes a variety
of penalties upon Syria until it ends its support of terrorism, withdraws its
armed forces from Lebanon, halts development of weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles, and stops facilitating terrorism in Iraq and stops allowing
people to cross the border to do harm to U.S. troops. This act is a measured and
flexible approach to deal with the challenge emanating from Syria. It clearly
states that we will not accept Syria's support of terrorism and we call for a
free and sovereign Lebanon. This is the right step in America's Middle East
policy. And, finally, I want to say the
national security waiver authority in this bill, which was put in by the Senate,
is to be taken very seriously by the President; and its provisions are not to be
waived except in instances truly affecting the national security interest of the
United States. Let me just say, as Syria is still
supporting terrorism, occupying Lebanon, procuring weapons of mass destruction,
and permitting guerillas to enter Iraq to attack and kill our troops, I want to
say to the White House that any waiver would have to outweigh those most
dangerous transgressions. I find it very hard to imagine
what factor would be more important to the national security of the U.S. than
those matters. The administration should be aware that any waiver will be given
the strictest scrutiny by Congress. And I would hope that the President in
signing this bill would understand that the full implementation of this bill
ought to be put into effect right away. Mr.
LANTOS.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone),
my good friend and distinguished colleague. Mr.
PALLONE.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1828, the Syria
Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. I urge all my
colleagues to continue their support for this important legislation. The United
States must show Syria that there are consequences for supporting terrorism and
undermining peace in the region. H.R. 1828 holds Syria accountable
for its continued support of terrorism, occupation of Lebanon, and possession
and development of weapons of mass destruction. It gives the President the tools
he needs to impose penalties on Syria unless Syria corrects its behavior
immediately. Syria is listed on the State
Department's list of countries who harbor and support terrorism. Syria has
proven to be a destabilizing force in the Middle East, continuing to develop and
stockpile chemical weapons and the missiles to deliver them and remaining the
occupying power in Lebanon. Syria offered support to Iraq even as U.S. and
coalition forces were engaged in combat and has turned a blind eye to militants
who slip across their borders into Iraq to kill American soldiers. Mr. Speaker, yet Syria is subject
to fewer U.S. sanctions than any other country considered a state sponsor of
terrorism. I would like to take this
opportunity to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel)
and also the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen),
for introducing this legislation. I just want to urge my colleagues on a
bipartisan basis to fully support and pass this bill as amended in the Senate.
Mr.
LANTOS.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, as a
cosponsor of the Syrian Accountability Act, I am proud to rise in strong support
of this legislation. It is a remedy for the absence of a consistent, clear, and
strong policy towards Syria today. And while we pass this bill today, we are
sending a strong signal by passing this bill that Syria will be treated like
other state sponsors of terrorist organizations. Today, over in Iraq the Iraqi
council, with the American administration support, buys electricity in a swap
deal for energy and oil, inconsistent with both the principles and the values
embedded in this policy. On the northern border of Iraq, we have opened up in
dialogue with Syria a free trade zone, again inconsistent especially with the
policy of this act and the values and the principles embedded here. It is my hope here we not only
send a signal to Syria when it comes to being a state sponsor of terrorism but
to the administration that we must have a consistent policy, not one that says
as a state sponsor of terrorism that you have penalties but on the other side we
will continue to do trade as it relates to electricity, continue to do trade as
it relates to opening up a trade zone between Iraq and Syria. If we want to buy
electricity, there are sources like Turkey, Jordan, countries that are partners
with America. So it is my hope that we support
this bill which is a good first step to sending a signal to Syria that its days
of sponsoring terrorism are coming to an end and that the administration should
announce a policy that sends a strong, consistent, unambiguous signal we will
not do business with states that sponsor terrorism. Once again, I want to associate
myself with my colleagues who have worked so hard on this and for their great
work. Again, it crosses both parties because it represents the values of all of
those in the House and other democratic nations in the fight against terrorism.
Mr.
LANTOS.
Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my
time. Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would
like to take a moment to express my appreciation to those without whom this day
would not have been possible. Of course, first and foremost, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel),
with whom it has been a pleasure to work for passage of this bill, the second
time we pass it in just a few short weeks. Our impressive leadership here in the
House, very particularly our majority leader whose unwavering commitment to U.S.
national security and, thus, to this bill, were instrumental in moving this
legislation. So thank you to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay),
my distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde)
for his support and his assistance throughout this process, the ranking member
of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos)
who is always an inspiration to us all, to Tony Haddad and the Lebanese American
community whose passion on these issues have served as a source of energy for us
all. And I would also like to pay
special thanks to Yleem
Poblete,
committee staff director of our Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central
Asia. This will be the last piece of legislation that she will be handling for
our subcommittee because she is awaiting White House approval in a State
Department job working with Secretary John Bolton. And I thank
Yleem
for being a valuable member of my family, my legislative family for many, many
years. I remember when Yleem
and I first met and she was Miss Teen Florida. That was not so long ago. But she
has been a wonderful friend and a part of my family for a long time. And we wish
her God speed and much success. And I would also like to ask my
colleagues to reflect on the suffering of the Syrian and Lebanese people today
and on the lives and the sacrifice of American, Israeli, and so many other
victims of terrorist attacks supported by or facilitated by the Syrian regime.
This bill is also for them. We look forward to working closely with President
Bush toward
expeditious enactment and implementation of this bill. Time has clearly run out for the
Syrian regime. It had a choice to make, and it chose terrorism. That was the
wrong choice. We have a choice to make. We have demonstrated it by our
overwhelming vote in support of this bill, what our will is with respect to
Syria's regime. Let us again send a strong, unequivocal message to this pariah
state and concur in the Senate amendment to the Syria Accountability and
Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentlewoman yield? Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN.
I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to
again personally thank her for being my partner in this bill. This whole
Congress, it could not have been done without her. And it was a pleasure to work
with her. I want to state that for the record. I also want to thank the gentleman
who is to my left who is my chief of staff, Jason
Steinbaum.
When I say that we wrote the bill in my office, he is the man who did all the
writing. And I want to acknowledge his role and his work and thank him. It is
very difficult when you have a concept and then you want to put the concept into
writing and then you want to pass it through all the channels that it needs to
be passed through. But as you mentioned, our staffs do a magnificent job. We
could not do what we do if it were not for the good work of our staff.
Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN.
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to working on the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act
and the Iran Accountability Act. We have only just begun. Mr.
McDERMOTT.
Mr. Speaker, a little over a month ago, this Act came before the House and I
voted for it. I believe that Syria's occupation
of Lebanon and questionable policies toward terrorist groups are reprehensible.
I also believe it is important for the Syrian government to realize that
Americans of every political stripe (including those who, like me, opposed the
U.S. invasion of Iraq) are aware of and disapprove of many of Syria's actions.
I believe it is entirely
appropriate for the United States to apply political and economic pressure on
Syria to change its policies. However, I have decided to vote against the Syria
Accountability Act tonight. I am concerned about the
increasing bellicose statements we have been hearing from London. I am concerned
that our President may be setting the stage for the imposition of his vision of
democracy in more and more places, and that he may use the many findings, senses
of Congress, and statements of policy in this Act to promote actions that are
contrary to the best interests of the United States. This act is filled with
nonbinding
provisions that build a case against Syria, based on soft intelligence and
reasonable, but undocumented, assumptions. Ultimately, I fear that those
provisions could be used to build a case for a military intervention against
Syria. For example, the bill before us
contains language that speaks of ``hostile actions'' by Syria against U.S.-led
forces in Iraq as though this is something we firmly know to be true. It is
certainly possible that it is true. Yet there is no conclusive evidence as to
the role of the Government of Syria in the attacks that have been carried out
against our troops in Iraq. It is just this kind of poorly sourced insinuation
that I fear might be used to build the case for a preemptive invasion of Syria.
It is unfortunate that the
dangerous doctrine of preemption to which President Bush so obdurately
subscribes makes members like me, who are truly concerned about wrongdoing by
Syria, fearful of supplying the Administration with language like this to wield.
I remember that similar language
regarding Iraq was misused by the Administration. We meant to express concerns
and admonish the Iraqi government, but our words ended up being used as evidence
for military action. The standard of proof for a House
expression of concern is and should be lower than the standard of proof for an
invasion--but I don't think any of us can count on the Bush Administration to
draw that distinction. Therefore, I must vote ``no.'' Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
Culberson).
The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen)
that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the
bill, H.R. 1828. The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the
opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.
Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant
to clause 8 of rule XX
and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed. |