The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Matheson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, today I announce the introduction of
legislation called the Safety for Americans From Nuclear Weapons Testing Act.
Let me describe the history and the events that have led me to the introduction
of this legislation.
Our country began open-air testing of nuclear weapons in 1951. Between
1951 and 1992, over 1,000 weapons tests took place, over 100 above ground and
over 800 below ground as well.
Now, what is interesting about this is the government told the citizens of
this country that the testing was safe. And I, like a lot of people in Utah,
have roots in southern Utah, and my relatives live in southern Utah. They said
it was safe too.
I remember my dad telling me how people would wake up and watch the sky
light up in the morning from the tests.
People in southern Utah take a back seat to no one when it comes to their
patriotism and their support of a strong national defense. What is unfortunate
in this story is that the government lied. They lied to the people in southern
Utah. They lied to anyone who was down wind of the fallout from the nuclear
testing. In fact, the government knew they were putting people at risk. They
kept that information quiet. It was not until the early 1980s that documents in
the Pentagon were declassified that showed that in fact the government only
conducted the testing when the wind blew the fallout in the least populated
direction, which happened to be southern Utah.
Now, a lot of people say, Wait a minute. We used to have those
above-ground tests, but now they are below ground. This is an underground test
right here. This was in 1970. This was an underground test. The dust and debris
went 10,000 feet into the atmosphere. So the notion that underground testing is
in and of itself safe, I think a picture is worth more than a thousand words.
Now, what happened in Utah is rates of cancer are much higher than
elsewhere in southern Utah. Ultimately, the government admitted culpability when
Congress passed something called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which
provided monetary compensation to individuals who happened to be living in
certain counties that received high amounts of fallout from nuclear testing.
Yes, the government ultimately did admit its culpability.
Why am I talking about introducing this legislation today? Because
Congress in the past year has taken some actions that are taking us down the
path to renewal of nuclear testing of the Nevada test site. Since 1992 there has
been a moratorium on testing. Congress voted in the last year to remove what is
called the Spratt First Amendment which prevented development of new nuclear
weapons. Congress also in its appropriations process voted to move ahead in
funding of the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. And
development of a new generation of nuclear weapons to me means we are going down
the path to additional nuclear testing. That is why I have introduced this bill.
Now, you can say that this bill is important just because of its impact in
the West and particularly in Utah, but this is not just a Western issue. This is
a national issue.
It turns out when we studied one of the significant isotopes from previous
testing, Iodine 131, and showed the concentrations in each county; every county
in the lower 48 States had concentrations of Iodine 131. Interestingly enough,
if you look at this map, you will notice you have some counties up here in New
York and Vermont that had higher concentrations than some counties in southern
Utah. This once again from the National Cancer Institute demonstrates that
fallout from nuclear testing is a national issue. It should be an issue of
national concern.
That is why I have introduced today the Safety for Americans From Nuclear
Weapons Testing Act. Let me describe what the act does. First of all, it would
require before any testing happens that the Federal Government conduct a full
national environmental policy act review to assess health, safety and
environmental impacts prior to conducting nuclear weapons testing. It requires
congressional authorization prior to the possible resumption of nuclear weapons
testing as well. If those steps are completed, it would require 1 week's public
notice prior to any test, and it is going to require much more extensive
monitoring for potential releases of radiation beyond the Nevada test site. It
would require the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency
to monitor radiation levels. But it is not just going to be the government that
will be doing the monitoring because the legislation also provides for a grant
program for universities, particularly across all the hot zones demonstrated by
where Iodine 131 had gone, so we will have independent third-party monitoring to
look for radiation releases as well throughout the country.
The legislation says that if any radiation travels beyond the Nevada test
site, then the U.S. must cease further nuclear weapons testing until Congress
would vote to reauthorize such testing.
The legislation creates the National Center for the Study of Radiation and
Human Health. It would be a regional consortium of universities that will study
the health effect of radiation exposure, radiation-linked illnesses, and other
related research illness. Finally, the legislation requires the National Cancer
Institute to provide human dose estimates for Americans for all radionuclides
and all human organs produced by previous weapons tests. And a report would be
provided to Congress and the public within 3 years. In fact, only one isotope
has been studied by the National Cancer Institute.
It is an important bill for all this country. I encourage my colleagues to
join me for providing safety for Americans from nuclear weapons testing.
AMENDMENT NO. 2845
Mr. NICKLES. I send the Lugar-Durbin amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. NICKLES], for himself, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Hagel,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Lautenberg, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Smith, Mr. Santorum,
Mr. McCain, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sununu, and Mr. Levin,
proposes an amendment numbered 2845.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
On page 8, line 21, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 8, line 22, increase the amount by $153,000,000.
On page 8, line 25, increase the amount by $97,000,000.
On page 9, line 1, increase the amount by $621,000,000.
On page 9, line 4, increase the amount by $98,000,000.
On page 9, line 5, increase the amount by $359,000,000.
On page 9, line 8, increase the amount by $98,000,000.
On page 9, line 9, increase the amount by $237,000,000.
On page 9, line 12, increase the amount by $98,000,000.
On page 9, line 13, increase the amount by $154,000,000.
On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,400,000,000.
On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $153,000,000.
On page 23, line 9, decrease the amount by $97,000,000.
On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $621,000,000.
On page 23, line 13, decrease the amount by $98,000,000.
On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $359,000,000.
On page 23, line 27, decrease the amount by $98,000,000.
On page 23, line 18, decrease the amount by $237,000,000.
On page 23, line 21, decrease the amount by $98,000,000.
On page 23, line 22, decrease the amount by $154,000,000.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the
amendment offered by Senator LUGAR and myself to restore the
International Affairs function 150 account to the President's requested funding
level and add additional resources to the fight against global HIV/AIDS.
Now is not the time to take a step backwards in our commitment to ensuring
that the international affairs budget remains a vital tool of American foreign
policy in the fight against terror and global poverty.
Our amendment adds $1.4 billion in funding for the international affairs
budget to exceed the President's request of $31.5 billion for fiscal year 2005
by $300 million. Last year, the Senate accepted a
Lugar-Feinstein amendment that restored $1.15 billion to the fiscal year 2004
international budget.
As I stated last year, I strongly believe the United States should devote
additional resources to the international affairs budget above this amendment.
Nevertheless, in this difficult fiscal environment, I fully understand that this
amendment is the best opportunity to maintain the momentum of increasing the
international affairs budget and demonstrating the importance of our foreign aid
programs.
I also understand that the offset used in this amendment--the function 920
account--is not ideal, but the Lugar/Feinstein amendment is the best vehicle we
have at this time to restore the President's request, provide additional
assistance to the fight against global HIV/AIDS and help the United States
sustain a leadership role in bringing hope to the developing world and fighting
global terror.
The statistics about our international affairs budget are well known to
some of my colleagues but they are worth repeating to underscore the importance
of acting now to provide additional funds. The United States spends
approximately one percent of our budget on foreign aid, barely one-tenth of one
percent of GDP.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
the United States in recent years ranks next to last among 21 industrialized
donor countries in per capita foreign assistance.
We can do better and I am pleased that over the past few years the
administration, Congress, and the American people have come together to push for
greater commitments to our international affairs budget.
In the simplest terms, foreign aid programs provide assistance to those in
need. They help countries combat diseases such as HIV/AIDS, build schools to
fight illiteracy, train doctors to provide care for mothers and
their newborn children, and help indigenous peoples prevent environmental
degradation.
In addition, foreign aid programs protect our embassies and foreign
service personnel, built export markets for our goods and services, and spread
America's message of freedom and democracy around the world.
In the post September 11 world, however, the international affairs budget
has taken on an increased significance. It has become increasingly clear that we
cannot rely on our military might alone to protect our citizens and advance the
U.S. foreign policy agenda. As Richard Sokolsky and Joseph McMillan of the
National Defense University have written:
The events of September 11th have a direct impact on American national
security ..... A robust and focused foreign assistance program is one of the
weapons we must have to prevail.
Our troops have performed magnificently in overthrowing Saddam Hussein in
Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan while combating al-Qaeda around the globe.
Nevertheless, the costs in terms of lives and resources have been substantial
and we can expect additional costs for many years to come.
Increasing the foreign aid budget allows us to attack the conditions that
foster terror and autocratic governments--poverty, illness, disease,
illiteracy--at a far lower cost and with less bloodshed than military
interventions in the future. We should not wait until a nation hits rock bottom
to build schools, open hospitals, and provide food to those in the developing
world who so desperately need it.
We have to make sure that, as we fight terrorism using military means and
legal means and law enforcement and intelligence means and going after the
financial infrastructure of terrorist organizations, we also have to put hope
back in the hearts of people.
By acting sooner rather than later, we not only have a better opportunity
to promote stability, economic prosperity, and vibrant democratic institutions,
but we also protect our own national interests and the lives of all Americans.
Sometimes our values and intentions are misconstrued and misrepresented
around the world. I am increasingly concerned about the negative perceptions of
the United States and Americans that abound in the Middle East and other parts
of the developing world.
We are a generous people and foreign aid represents the best of our values
and demonstrates our commitment to seeing other peoples rise from the ashes of
poverty. When we succeed in this endeavor, we change hearts and minds and
protect our own. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 2005
budget resolution. The Budget Committee has presented the Senate with a product
of intense labor. Its members are determined to produce a budget resolution in a
timely manner, and I have confidence that we will get this job done. I applaud
the chairman of the committee, Senator NICKLES, for his leadership and
the way he has moved this process forward.
My amendment would increase funding for the foreign affairs account by
$1.1 billion, an amount that would bring the budget resolution up to President
Bush's request for this purpose. In cooperation with Senator DURBIN and
others, my amendment has been modified to reflect an additional $300 million to
address the global AIDS epidemic. The amendment would be offset by Section 920
Allowances.
Much of our discussion in this budget will focus on taxes, health care,
education, and Social Security. These issues will be fought out in the context
of highly partisan perspectives. But even as we maneuver for advantage in these
areas, we must recognize that international threats, particularly the threat of
catastrophic terrorism, puts all these domestic objectives at risk. The threat
of catastrophic terrorism now exists as an overarching negative condition on
investor confidence, insurance cost and availability, trade flows, energy
supplies, budget flexibility, the amount of national assets devoted to
increasing productivity, and many other factors that are crucial to our economy.
Our future economic prospects rest squarely on our Government's ability to
defeat terrorism and to secure weapons and materials of mass destruction to a
degree that encourages investment, improves public confidence, and protects the
economy against severe economic shocks. If the United States fails to organize
and stabilize the world, our economy will never reach its potential.
The bottom line is this: for the foreseeable future, the United States and
its allies will face an existential threat from the intersection of terrorism
and weapons of mass destruction. This is the domestic issue of our time, because
virtually any large-scale idea to improve life in America will be circumscribed
by the economic limitations imposed by this threat.
In the 30 months since the September 11 attacks, the United States has
refined its military capabilities, created a Department of Homeland Security,
improved airport and seaport security, and scrutinized the efficiency of our
intelligence services. We have carried the fight against terrorism to
Afghanistan and Iraq.
But to win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S.
economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign
to military capabilities.
Today we are experiencing a confluence of foreign policy crises that is
unparalleled in the post-Cold War era. Our Nation has experienced the September
11 tragedy; we have gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have been confronted
by a nuclear crisis in North Korea; and we have undertaken a worldwide
diplomatic offensive to secure allies in the broader war on terror. We have
experienced strains in the Atlantic Alliance, even as we have expanded it. We
are still searching for a peace settlement in the Middle East. We are trying to
respond to the AIDS pandemic in Africa and elsewhere. In our own hemisphere, we
have experienced a crisis in Haiti that requires immediate attention. We are
assisting a war against drugs and terrorism in Colombia, and we have a challenge
to democracy in Venezuela. Mexico, Brazil and other nations are becoming
increasingly important to our economy.
The ability of our military has not been in doubt. What has been in doubt
are factors related to our diplomatic strength and our standing in the world.
Can we get the cooperation of the U.N. Security Council? Can we secure the
necessary basing and overflight rights? Can we limit
anti-American reactions to war in the Arab world? Can we secure allied
participation in the work of reconstructing Iraq? Can we prevent poverty and
disease from destabilizing countries throughout the developing world? The
answers of these questions have depended largely on the diplomatic work done by
the State Department. The answers will depend in the future on the work funded
by the very budget that we discuss today.
Under President Bush and Secretary of State Powell, foreign affairs
spending has received important increases since September 11, 2001. But we dug a
very deep hole for ourselves during the mid- and late-1990s, when complacency
about the role of our diplomats led foreign affairs spending to be greatly
devalued. This year, the Budget Committee listened to our arguments
sympathetically and provided what it believed it could, given difficult
budgetary constraints. But I believe restoring full funding of the President's
150 Account request is the appropriate step at this point in the process.
Last week the Foreign Relations Committee passed our State Department and
Foreign Assistance Authorization bills by a unanimous vote. These bills were
constructed through bipartisan work, and they reflect priorities valued by many
of our Members. We stayed within the limits of the President's budget request.
We believe that the President's full budget request for the 150 Account is
necessary to fund critical priorities, including embassy security,
non-proliferation efforts, child survival and health, and programs that fight
the spread of AIDS.
I concluded by saying that Americans demand that U.S. military
capabilities be unrivaled in the world. Should not our diplomatic strength meet
the same test? Relative to our international needs and the risks that we are
facing, this amendment is modest. If a greater commitment of resources can
prevent the bombing of one of our embassies, or the proliferation of a nuclear
weapons, or the spiral into chaos of a vulnerable nation wracked by disease and
hunger, the investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar and Senator
Durbin for working together to clear this amendment so we could get this
accomplished without a rollcall vote. We appreciate that very much.
I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar, as well as
Senator Nickles and Senator Conrad. What we achieved with the
Lugar-Durbin amendment is this: We will increase the funding to fight global
AIDS by almost $500 million. We are still short of what we need to meet our
promised goals when the President made a historic commitment for the United
States to deal with this war on AIDS. But we are moving closer.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors
of Senator Lugar's amendment. These were sponsors of my amendment.
Senators BINGAMAN, LAUTENBERG, SCHUMER, STABENOW, CLINTON, FEINSTEIN, KERRY,
KOHL, LEVIN, and MURRAY.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is all time yielded back? If so, the question is on agreeing to amendment
No. 2845.
The amendment (No. 2845) was agreed to.
3B)
Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004
S. 2204. A bill to provide criminal penalties for false information and
hoaxes relating to terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since the September 11th attacks against our
Nation, each of us is more conscious of our individual safety and security. No
example hit closer to home than when anthrax-infected letters made their way
into Senators' offices. Senators, Representatives and staffers were forced to
vacate offices, advised to take strong antibiotics, and faced with the
uncertainty of whether they contracted a life-threatening disease.
In response to this vulnerability that is now inherent in our everyday
lives, Congress has beefed up law enforcement and intelligence tools to combat
terrorism better. The key to fighting terrorism is to target those planning
terrorist acts and capture them before they can realize their horrific goals.
Our law enforcement communities have utilized the new tools we have provided
them to respond in a dedicated and professional way to these new challenges.
Unfortunately, we are beginning to see a number of instances where cruel
and depraved individuals have engaged in terrorist hoaxes. For example, people
have sent letters containing powder or sugar and a note stating that the
recipient has now been infected by anthrax. These hoaxes are more than a bad
joke. They require a substantial and costly response--evacuation of buildings,
emergency medical tests or treatment, and laboratory action. Hoaxes like these,
which mimic terrorist acts, undermine public confidence by spreading panic and
fear, and drain valuable resources from Federal, State, and local government
agencies which must respond to the hoax.
Under current Federal law, it is a felony to perpetrate certain hoaxes,
such as saying there is a bomb on an airplane. It is also illegal to communicate
a threat using the facilities of interstate commerce that could cause personal
injury to someone. However, because hoaxes related to anthrax or other Federal
crimes do not always contain specific threats, they may not be covered by
current federal law. The Congressional Research Service has noted that this is a
gap within the current Federal code.
Clearly, there is a need for tough legislation to reflect the seriousness
of this type of crime. This is why Senators SCHUMER, CORNYN, FEINSTEIN
and I are introducing the Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act of 2004. The
legislation criminalizes conduct that conveys false or misleading information
under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed. The bill
covers hoaxes related to biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons and other
federal crimes that do not contain specific or express threats.
In addition, this bill criminalizes intentionally false statements
concerning the death, injury, capture or disappearance of a member of the United
States Armed Forces. During the recent liberation of Iraq, there were several
cruel hoaxes played on family members of those who were risking their very lives
in the service of our country. Family members sacrifice alongside service men
and women who place their lives in danger in the service of our country. Those
family members deserve to be treated with respect and should be free from these
cruel deceptions. This bill makes sure that these malicious pranks can be
punished appropriately.
America is engaged in a war on terrorisms. In addition to protecting our
citizens from terrorist acts, we also need to take measures to ensure that our
law enforcement resources are not needlessly wasted by responding to these
offensive and expensive terrorist hoaxes. I urge my colleagues to support this
measure.
3C)
Wisconsin’s Acquisition of a WMD Civil Support Team
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr.
President, I was very happy to learn this week that Wisconsin will be one of 12
new States to receive funding for a full-time Weapon of
Mass
Destruction Civil Support Team--WMD-CST--this year and I want to
congratulate the Wisconsin National Guard for their efforts to secure a
full-time team. These teams, made up of members of the National Guard, play a
vital role in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating
the new threat we face in the 21st century. During the 2002 Baseball All-Star
Game in Milwaukee, WI had to call in Minnesota's civil support team because
Wisconsin did not yet have a full-time team. I am pleased that Wisconsin will
now have its own capability to quickly respond and protect its citizens from
possible terrorist threats.
I have worked for years now to assure that all states and territories have
at least one of these teams and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle for helping me in this endeavor. We have had great success. The Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 made it law that
all states and territories have at least one WMD-CST and Congress authorized and
appropriated the funds to establish 12 of the 23 teams during fiscal year 2004.
Now we must make sure that the last 11 teams are funded in fiscal year 2005.
3D) Reserve Fund for Homeland Security Programs
AMENDMENT NO. 2807
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is laid
aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. LIEBERMAN], for himself, Mr.
Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Biden,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Akaka, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerry,
and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 2807.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To
restore cuts and increase funding for homeland security programs and reduce the
debt by reducing the President's tax breaks for taxpayers with incomes in excess
of $1 million a year)
On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $4,533,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $4,089,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $1,160,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $4,533,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $4,089,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $1,160,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $4,533,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $4,089,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,160,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $8,197,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $12,286,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $13,446,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $13,621,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $8,197,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $12,286,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $13,446,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $13,621,000,000.
SEC. . RESERVE FUND FOR HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAMS.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall revise the
aggregates, functional totals, allocations to the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate, discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels and
limits in this resolution by up to $6,800,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal
year 2005, and by the amount of outlays flowing therefrom in 2005 and subsequent
years, for a bill, amendment, motion, or conference report that provides
additional fiscal year 2005 discretionary appropriations, in excess of the
levels provided in this resolution for first responder grant programs, border
security programs, port security grants, the Operation Safe Commerce program,
the Coast Guard Deepwater program, and transportation security programs at the
Department of Homeland Security; the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
program, the Edward Byrne grant program, and the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant program at the Department of Justice; and bioterror--related programs at
the Department of Health and Human Services.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, last week we observed the first anniversary of
the Department of Homeland Security, the largest reorganization of the Federal
Government in almost a half century. With that anniversary came a round of
reflection on the status of our homeland defenses. There was general agreement
on the verdict. Yes, we are stronger and safer at home, thanks to the creation
of the Department of Homeland Security and other steps that we have taken since
September 11, 2001. But no, we are not nearly as safe as we should be. We are
not as safe as we should be because this administration has not given homeland
security the focused leadership and resources that it demands.
The Gilmore commission, led by former Virginia Governor James Gilmore, a
distinguished Republican leader, recently warned of complacency about the
terrorist threat and decried the lack of a clear strategy to bring about
improved security. Other expert panels, one of them convened and led by former
colleagues Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, called the Nation ``still unprepared''
to respond to another September 11 attack and said that our first responders
were ``drastically underfunded.''
Homeland security will not come cheap. On first responders alone, one of
the expert panels I described told us they believe it would take $98 billion
over 5 years to bring our defenses at home up to where they need to be. Yet the
administration proposes a stunning 30-percent cut in resources for firefighters,
police officers, and emergency medical personnel.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2005 fails to acknowledge, much
less address adequately, the new threats we face as a nation, shortchanging the
homeland side of our war on terrorism.
That is why I rise today to offer this amendment that would add $6.8
billion to the administration's homeland security budget.
Let me describe where the money would go: $4.4 billion of that amount
would go toward helping our first responders, the firefighters, the police
officers, the emergency medical personnel, the hundreds of thousands of people
who every day go to work, put on a uniform to serve not only as first responders
but really, if we use them well, as first preventers of terrorist attacks. I
also propose $900 million in additional resources for port and container
security, widely acknowledged as a continuing vulnerability to terrorists who
will strike always where we are undefended, and our ports and containers are too
greatly undefended.
I am calling here for $500 million to better prepare for the threat of
bioterrorism, which recent intelligence reports say continues to be a focus of
the terrorist groups around the world. I am asking for $500 million for
additional border personnel as well as for needed equipment and technology for
border security, so we will not see a repeat of the terrorists who came into
America to carry out the evil deeds of September 11, 2001.
I am asking for $ 1/2 billion to make further advances on aviation
security and for greater protection of other modes of transportation--rail, bus,
mass transit--that remain too unprotected. About $2.5 billion of this amendment
is needed just to restore cuts that the administration's budget makes in some of
these homeland security functions from fiscal year 2004 spending.
For example, in this amendment we restore the administration's $1 billion
cut to the State homeland security grant program, the main source of assistance
to State and local governments and first responders, an unacceptable cut. The
amendment also would restore more than $1 billion in cuts to proven first
responder programs in the Justice Department: the local law enforcement block
grant, the Edward Byrne Memorial grant program, and the Community Oriented
Policing Services Program, widely and appreciatively known as COPS.
If someone asked whether we have been safer since September 11 from
another attack, I just say: Thank God, we have been safe. But this is not an
overreaction.
Mr. Tenet testified before the Armed Services Committee the other day and
he said that al-Qaida and more than two dozen other terrorist groups around the
world are still in eager pursuit of chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear weapons. Their No. 1 goal--not their only goal--is to carry out another
``spectacular attack'' on the United States. Those are the terms they use,
``spectacular attack,'' which they are convinced will break our will and
certainly disrupt our economy.
We cannot let that happen. We must defend our homeland and protect our
infrastructure and our people where we are vulnerable, through the Department of
Homeland Security, with the kinds of funds that are authorized and appropriated
in this amendment.
We have a long way to go before we fulfill the promise each of us has made
that our Federal Government would adequately secure the American people when
they are at home. We have to approach this profound responsibility with the same
unity, the same resolve, and the same resources we have brought to the war on
terror overseas. That is why I have introduced this amendment and asked for my
colleagues' support.
Allow me to lay out, more specifically, what this amendment would do and
why it is so necessary.
I am advocating $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2005--above the President's
request to help ensure that first responders have the equipment, training, and
other resources they need to prevent, prepare for and if necessary respond to
acts of terrorism.
We all remember the heroic role police, firefighters and other first
responders played on 9/11, as our Nation responded to the horrific attacks of
that day and braced for untold sequels that might be soon to follow. Less
visible is the role many of these officials also play in attempting to prevent
acts of terrorism here at home: State and local police are the eyes and ears of
the community that may first detect a terrorist plot on U.S. soil or intercept a
terrorist before he or she can strike. We owe these front line homeland security
troops more than our admiration we owe them our full financial support.
Yet a distinguished panel convened by the Council on Foreign Relations
found these first responders wanting for the tools they must have to confront a
terrorist attack: firefighters without their own radios or breathing equipment;
police departments without protective gear to respond to an attack with a
chemical, biological or radiological agent; and nearly all without interoperable
communications equipment. This is unacceptable and must be changed.
Let's start with the work that must be done just to undo the harmful cuts
sought by the administration. First, my proposal will restore the
administration's drastic $1 billion cut to the State Homeland Security Grant
Program, which is the main source of assistance to state and local governments
and first responders for emergency planning, equipment, training, exercises,
mutual aid agreements, and other preparedness activities. There is bipartisan
support for restoring these cuts, reflecting the reality that all states face
certain homeland funding needs and need a steady, predictable source of
money--as this program provides--to plan wisely.
My amendment will also restore more than $1 billion in cuts to key first
responder programs in the Justice Department: the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant (LLEBG), the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program (BYRNE), and the
Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPs). These programs provide
vital aid to help communities hire more police officers and equip them with the
tools they need. Funding levels for these three programs have declined more than
$1.8 billion since fiscal year 2002, representing a dangerous and unwise
reduction at a time when the threat from terrorism, but also domestic crime, has
clearly increased.
The amendment would also provide $400 million to restore a 33 percent cut
in the vital Fire Act program, which provides direct support to thousands of
fire departments around the country, and to bring it to full funding. And it
restores a $9 million cut to the Emergency Management Planning Grants program,
which supports the capacity of state and local governments to respond to
emergencies of all kinds.
All of these programs are integral to the strength of our first responders
and it is incomprehensible that we would cut them at a time the terrorist threat
remains high. But we must do more than just hold the line we need to
dramatically improve our homeland defenses in our communities.
My proposal would provide $1 billion in new funding to be dedicated to
helping first responders obtain interoperable communications equipment so they
can ``talk to one another'' when responding to events. The lack of
communications interoperability has received substantial attention since the
September 11, 2001 attacks revealed major problems with communication between
police and fire fighters at the World Trade Center in New York. But the problem
is hardly unique to New York. Federal officials involved with this issue report
that at best--only 14 States have communications equipment that allows public
safety agencies to talk to each other during a terrorist attack or other
emergency. The price tag for fixing the problem nationwide has been estimated as
high as $18 billion, and the lead Federal official on this issue has stated
that, at the present rate, it will take 20 years to achieve full
interoperability in our country. This is much too long.
Yet, the President's 2005 budget actually takes a step backwards by
eliminating relatively small grant programs at FEMA that were dedicated to
interoperability. Instead, funding for interoperability must now compete with
funds for protective gear, training, exercises, and other equipment. My proposal
would dedicate $1 billion specifically for interoperability to provide a
significant lift to States' efforts to overcome a critical obstacle facing
emergency responders across America. In addition to equipment, this would
include funding necessary for planning, evaluation, deployment, and training on
the use of modern interoperable communications.
Another $1 billion in this amendment would go to fully fund the SAFER Act,
staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, that is necessary to hire
10,000 additional fire fighters. According to the International Association of
Fire Fighters, the
shortage of fire fighters has reached crisis proportions. Two-thirds of
all fire departments do not have adequate staffing, falling below the accepted
industry standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association and,
more to the point, putting those firefighters who are on the job in danger. The
SAFER Act, which Congress finally passed last year due to the outstanding
leadership of my colleague Senator Dodd, authorizes $7.6 billion in
grants over 7 years to career, volunteer, and combination fire departments hire
new firefighters. At a time when budget cuts have forced some local
jurisdictions to actually reduce the number of first responders, this funding is
necessary to help protect firefighters and to provide the emergency response
capabilities communities want and expect.
Virtually every expert analysis of terrorist threats to the United States
focuses on the critical issue of port security. Small wonder--millions of
containers arrive at U.S. ports each year, coming from all parts of the globe
and subject to only limited, if any, inspection. The ports are at once a
tempting portal into the U.S. for dangerous cargo, and a vital economic conduit
that--if shuttered due to a terrorist assault--could cause devastating
disruption of the Nation's economic life's blood. Earlier this year, the FBI
testified that terrorist organizations are looking ``for any holes in the port
security system to exploit.'' Yet in the face of such risk, the administration
proposes to cut spending on port security grants and eliminate Operation Safe
Commerce, an innovative program to improve the security of container traffic
into this country. In addition, the President's budget puts Coast Guard fleet
and equipment modernization on a slow boat--at the administration's pace, the
Deepwater modernization program will take 22 years. A 22-year modernization is
practically an oxymoron.
My amendment would provide $900 million in additional resources for port
[Page: S2633]
and container security. About half of that would go to
restore Operation Safe Commerce and to improve physical security at our ports.
Bring port security grants--at only a suggested $46 million in the President's
budget--to $500 million. The Coast Guard has estimated it will cost $7.5
billion--and $1.5 billion this year--just to provide all ports with minimum
security measures and implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act. The
grants help finance measures such as fencing and surveillance to better secure
the ports and--with them--our vital trade links. Operations Safe Commerce has
explored new technologies to track container traffic and can provide a valuable
think tank for new approaches to secure their travel into our country.
The rest of the money would go to accelerating the Deepwater program, a
22-year Coast Guard fleet modernization program. Since 9/11, we have turned to
the Coast Guard again and again for a growing roster of homeland security
needs--even as we expect them to continue their outstanding work on non-defense
missions such as fisheries enforcement and search and rescue. Yet this
outstanding agency operates with virtually the oldest naval fleet in the
world--39th out of 41. Senators from both parties--and even the Heritage
Foundation--have called for more money for Deepwater. Not only is it the right
thing to do, it will actually save money in the long run since the longer
Deepwater takes to complete, the more the Coast Guard must spend on maintenance
of the decaying fleet.
More than 2 years after the anthrax attacks demonstrated our country's
vulnerability to bioterrorism, our efforts to protect the American people
against biological attacks remains disorganized and underfunded. Indeed, a
recent report by the Trust for Public Health concluded that communities are
``only modestly better prepared'' to respond to a bioterror attack than they
were before 9/11. Yet here again, the administration actually wants to cut
spending--contradicting the opinion of even its own official responsible for
bioterror preparedness.
The President's budget cuts $105 million from Centers for Disease Control
grants to help public health agencies prepare for bioterrorism, and another $39
million from a program to help hospitals expand their capacity to treat victims
of a bioterror attack. Where bioterror is concerned, these health officials are
our first responders and we must give them support commensurate to the threat.
It is true that The President would provide some new money for surveillance to
detect a bioterror attack, but this will be of limited use if we have no
resources to respond to an attack once we detect it. One public health official
likened it to ``laying off firefighters while investing in new hoses and
ladders.''
Therefore, my amendment would add $500 million for bioterror preparedness,
to restore those cuts and significantly expand the hospital grant program. The
health community has identified more than $11 billion in additional needed
medical supplies, protective gear for staff and other essentials to respond to a
bioterror attack. At the current pace, it would take more than 20 years before
hospitals could provide even basic
care in the event of such an attack. We must speed up this effort, and my
amendment would help us begin down that road. The investments we make here will
have the added benefit of improving our capacity to respond to naturally
occurring diseases, such as a severe flu outbreak.
Our border officials process more than 440 million visits each year, and
police more than 7,000 miles of border with Canada and Mexico. In the immediate
aftermath of 9/11, Congress recognized we must spend more to make this system
work--to facilitate lawful visitors and trade, while weeding out and halting
those who pose a threat. We passed the Patriot Act and the Enhanced Border
Security Act, both of which called for significant new border personnel. But
since then we have fallen short--hundreds upon hundreds short--of meeting those
targets. Indeed one of the only targets that was met--posting 1,000 Border
Patrol agents along the Northern Border--was reportedly achieved only by
shifting agents from the Southern Border. This is not real homeland security.
My amendment would provide $500 million for additional border personnel,
as well as for needed equipment and technology for border security. The needs
are extensive and include portable, interoperable communications equipment,
surveillance systems and fingerprint identification equipment. As US VISIT--the
entry/exit system mandated by Congress--is expanded to land ports, we will need
expanded facilities to process visitors. Total implementation costs for the
program could reach $10 billion.
Border security can make a difference. The September 11th Commission
discovered that one alert inspector in Miami had apparently stopped one of the
would-be hijackers simply by conducting a probing interview at the airport. But
we cannot expect such high performance if critical homeland defense workers such
as these are overworked and poorly equipped.
We know from 9/11, and from terrorist attacks around the world, that
transportation networks pose a tempting target to would-be attackers. This
knowledge spurred Congress to create the Transportation Security Agency in
record time. Now we must give the agency the resources to fulfill its mandate.
My amendment would provide $500 million to make further inroads on aviation
security and expand to other modes of transportation, which have been largely
neglected thus far.
Although TSA has made headway on aspects of passenger and baggage
screening, much work remains to close known gaps in our aviation security.
Specifically, I would direct additional funding to developing systems to screen
air cargo, to screen passengers for explosives, and to screen airport workers
with access to aircraft.
About a quarter of all air cargo travels on passenger planes. Yet, despite
all the added precautions we've developed for air passengers and their bags,
this cargo remains largely uninspected--only about 5 percent is screened.
All-cargo jets pose a similar vulnerability. We must also develop effective
systems to screen cargo and implement short-term solutions at once. Another
vulnerability is explosives: current passenger screening only detects metallic
threats, such as guns or knives, not explosives. Yet we know this is not an
obscure threat--would-be terrorist Richard Reid was able to bring about 10
ounces of explosives onto an American Airlines flight and was only stopped from
igniting them by an alert passenger on board. There are promising technologies
in this area, but we must spend money to develop them. Finally, many airport
workers with access to aircraft and sensitive areas of the airport receive
little scrutiny. We must do better.
However incomplete the work on aviation security, the federal effort to
secure other modes of transportation has hardly begun. According to a recent
news report, we have intelligence suggesting that al-Qaida is looking at
derailing trains, possibly carrying hazardous material. GAO has also identified
vulnerabilities regarding rail shipments of hazardous materials, as well as
protective measures that have not yet been taken. Yet despite such concerns,
little has been done to assess the risks to our rail system or to deploy
countermeasures. Similarly, we know from the deadly sarin attack on the Tokyo
subway and suicide bombers on Israeli buses, that mass transit presents an
inviting target to possible terrorist activity.
The American Public Transportation Association has identified at least $6
billion in transit security needs, such as video surveillance and chemical and
biological detection systems. But DHS has released only $115 million in transit
security grants thus far, and no money is set aside for this purpose in the
President's budget.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment
offered by my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, to
address shortfalls in homeland security funding in the President's FY05 Budget
Request. As a cosponsor, I believe this amendment would go a long way to
ensuring that our homeland security is not shortchanged.
I am disappointed that the President's budget request cuts taxes for the
wealthy at the expense of funding homeland security programs. Our amendment
would restore $2.5 billion in proposed budget cuts and includes an additional $7
billion to strengthen
[Page: S2634]
existing programs. It would also reduce the deficit by
offsetting spending with tax cut reductions for those earning more than $1
million a year.
Our amendment takes an important step to prepare our first responders by
restoring $1 billion for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which
provides first responders critical funding for emergency planning, training, and
equipment.
This program is crucial for all States, especially States like Hawaii with
smaller populations, since a portion of this funding is evenly distributed among
all States.
Our amendment also takes important steps to ensure that homeland security
funding is allocated where it is needed most. It provides $1 billion in much
needed funding to address first responder shortfalls for interoperable
communications equipment and $600 million for hospitals and public health
agencies to respond to emergencies.
I am equally disappointed that the President's budget request fails to
address the serious funding gaps for port security. In fact, the American
Association of Port Authorities has expressed great concern that the President's
FY05 budget contains no Federal funds to meet port security requirements.
The amendment takes important steps to secure our ports and our economy by
providing $1 billion for port and container security and Coast Guard
modernization. This funding is critical to Hawaii, where 98 percent of imported
goods are transported by sea. This is not just a matter of security for Hawaii
or coastal States, but the security of our Nation.
According to a Council on Foreign Relations Homeland Security Task Force
report entitled, ``America--Still Unprepared, Still in Danger,'' if our Nation's
ports suffered a weapons of mass destruction attack, ``the response right now
would be to shut the [entire] system down at an enormous cost to the economies
of the United States and its trade partners.'' The Task Force report estimates
that if American ports were to be closed to containerized cargo for longer than
three to four weeks, global shipping container trade would grind to a halt.
Our amendment also includes $500 million for aviation security, which
would provide for systems to screen air cargo and passengers for explosives.
This is an important step towards ensuring adequate funding for security devices
needed to detect dangerous material and to prevent a potential crisis.
We must ensure that our homeland security is not shortchanged. This is why
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. At this time, I yield 2 minutes of the time I have allowed
to the Senator from New York for his statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his
leadership. I will be brief. In 2 minutes, one has no choice. This subject could
and should have a long debate. I understand the time constraints.
We heard of the awful, terrible terrorist attack in Spain. There is some
debate as to whether it is ETA, the Basque separatist organization, or al-Qaida.
Now signs are beginning to point to al-Qaida. I am getting asked by my people
whether this could happen in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or anywhere else?
The obvious answer is yes.
We are not close to doing what we should be doing on homeland security. We
are not helping our first responders, who are desperate for more help in terms
of their patrols and the equipment. They have cut out money for interoperability
of radio, which we in New York City learned was so important on 9/11.
In port security, we are wide open and we are doing very little. Truck
security--what if they use bombs in trucks to blow up buildings, or railroad
stations, or whatever else? Brazil is way ahead of us on truck security, I hate
to say. The northern border is still wide open and empty. Our immigration lists
don't match up with our FBI lists, which is allowing terrorists to slip into
this country.
None of this is lack of technology. This is all lack of dollars. This
budget talks tough on homeland security, but it doesn't do the job. The terrible
tragedy in Spain today should remind us we are just as wide open and vulnerable,
but we don't have to be.
I salute my colleague from Connecticut on his amendment because it is so
needed, so desperately needed. We are doing everything we can to fight the war
on terror overseas. I have been supportive of that war. But the bottom line is
that we are not doing close to enough at home to protect us. Money will help. If
there was ever a consensus where we need more dollars, it is here. We are not
doing it.
I hope this Senate, in a bipartisan way, will rise to the occasion and
support the amendment my friend has offered and of which I am proud to be a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask for an additional
minute of my colleague from Connecticut who has a related matter.
Mr. CONRAD. How much time does the Senator need?
Mr. DODD. One minute.
Mr. CONRAD. I will give a minute off the resolution to the Senator.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I heard my colleague mention the tragedy that
occurred in Spain, with the tremendous loss of life there as a result of a
terrorist attack, and we don't know whether it was ETA or another organization.
I inform my colleagues that we drafted a resolution expressing our sense of
outrage over these events.
I chair the United States-Spain Council every year and have developed
strong friendships with the people there. I know the budget matters are gripping
our attention, but I ask the managers at some point to find a few minutes this
evening to set aside the budget and express our sense of solidarity with the
people of Spain, as well as our great sense of loss of what occurred. It is in
connection directly to what my colleagues are offering on this amendment on
homeland security, which I support.
I hope we might express our unanimous support for the people in Spain.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator makes a very good point. I think I
speak for everybody when I say our hearts and minds are with the people of Spain
after the terrible tragedy they suffered. We will seek to find a way to express
our condolences to the people of Spain before we complete our work before the
break. I thank the Senator for bringing that matter to our attention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are continuing the assault on taxpayers.
Next, in the not too distant future, we are going to be voting on a lot of tax
increases. This would increase taxes by $13.7 billion and increase spending by
$6.8 billion. That is a 40-percent increase. We fully funded the President's
request of a 15-percent increase but, obviously, that is not enough for some
individuals.
I will now yield management of this amendment to Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I rise to
oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. The Senator from
Connecticut serves as the ranking member on the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, which I am privileged to chair.
We have worked very hard together on the issue of homeland security and
have held many hearings during the past year to evaluate the progress that the
new Department is making. But I believe the Senator's amendment is ill advised.
I strongly support increased funding to help secure our communities, but
we must target those additional resources to programs that address our greatest
vulnerabilities, from our ports to our borders to even our farms. We must also
make sure each and every State builds and maintains a baseline level of homeland
security preparedness and response capability.
The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut would increase funding for
many State and local homeland security programs by more than $7 billion over the
President's budget request. That is simply not responsible in this fiscal
climate.
I also fear if we pour that amount of additional money into the system, it
will not be well and carefully spent.
[Page: S2635]
Many of us met this past week with municipal officials from our home
States. I heard from my municipal officials in Maine that they are spending the
homeland security money that we are giving them very wisely to improve their
training, to perform joint exercises, and to purchase new equipment.
Since September 11, according to Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge,
Congress has appropriated some $13 billion in homeland security assistance for
first responders, States, localities, and other entities. This year, the
President will allocate an additional $3 billion through the Office of Domestic
Preparedness for many of these programs.
I do believe we need to provide additional funding in some areas--port
security, for example, and the basic homeland security grant program--to
continue to build that baseline capacity and also to address one of our biggest
vulnerabilities, and that is the vulnerability of our seaports. But I believe
Senator Lieberman's amendment does not target resources in the most
effective manner.
Let me give a couple of examples. The Lieberman amendment provides $600
million for new biosecurity spending. The administration's budget also includes
more than $100 million for a new biosurveillance initiative and makes more than
$2.5 billion available in fiscal year 2005 for bioshield. I simply do not
believe the additional funding that is contained in Senator Lieberman's
amendment is required, given the substantial investment the President's budget
already makes in biosecurity.
Again, I hope to be offering either a joint or my own version of a
homeland security amendment later in the budget debate. I believe the proposal I
will be putting forward better balances the need for fiscal restraint as we work
to improve the security of our homeland.
I urge that the Lieberman amendment be rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, further responding to the amendment, I urge
Senators to reject the amendment. The administration has requested substantial
increases in funding for homeland security. Although it is a new Department, the
Department of Homeland Security was funded at a very generous level, about $30
billion of funding, during the current fiscal year.
States and localities are submitting plans to the Office for Domestic
Preparedness on their priorities in terms of equipping and training first
responders and equipping the States to modernize their emergency management
agencies. A tremendous amount of money is being spent this year, and a request
is made for even more money next year.
The Budget Committee has analyzed the needs and the ways these funds can
be utilized and has come up with a very thoughtful and, in my judgment,
responsible recommendation to the Senate on this subject.
I support the Budget Committee's conclusions and their recommendations. It
is always easy to say we can use more money, we can add more money for every
good-sounding program in Government, and this is certainly one that is very
important. None is more important than our national security and homeland
security. But we do have the funds that we need, that we can spend in an
efficient way and in a responsive way to the threats that exist to try to help
us do a better job of protecting the homeland.
The President has given strong leadership on this issue. The Congress has
responded in a very generous way, both bodies of Congress working together to
accommodate the needs we have in these areas.
I hope we can support the Budget Committee chairman and reject this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is the Senator from Connecticut seeking
additional time for wrap-up?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the
Budget Committee. I will take 3 additional minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 3 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my good friend and colleague
from Maine. She said ``reluctantly'' opposed the amendment, but opposed it
nonetheless, and the Senator from Mississippi. My own feeling about this is,
just as I have fully supported funding for the war on terrorism abroad--and it
has been a considerable amount of money. We had a tremendous debate and
controversy around the $87 billion supplemental last year, and we will have
another supplemental this year, but at least $50 billion for the war on
terrorism, critically necessary to our security, for the advancement of our
values, and to our freedom. In the same way, $6.8 billion, less than we will
give to the international war against terrorism, is critical for the homeland
side of the war against terrorism, to raise our defenses, to protect our people.
As I said at the outset, we have made real progress in the last year as a
result of the work that the Department of Homeland Security has done, but I do
not think anybody--including the folks over there--believe we have done enough
to secure the safety of our people.
We provide for funding. It is a deficit reduction amendment, a $6.8
billion deficit reduction, paid for by the now familiar tax cut for
millionaires. It is fiscally responsible.
Can we afford it? I say we can't afford not to afford it. This is today's
primary way in which we are fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities to
provide for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility.
This ought to be nonpartisan because it is like national security. We
always used to say partisanship stopped at the Nation's borders. Since our
enemies have attacked us within our borders, when it comes to homeland security,
we ought to be joining across party lines to do what is right to protect our
people.
I thank the Chair. I thank the Senate Budget chairman and ranking member.
I ask that when the vote is taken, it be done by the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from
Massachusetts need?
Mr. KENNEDY. I think my colleague and cosponsor, the Senator from
Connecticut, wants 4 minutes. I will take 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the
Senator from Massachusetts and 4 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut off the
resolution as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
*********************************************************
AMENDMENT NO. 2807
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President I believe the next amendment to be voted on was
offered by Senator Lieberman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. There are 2 minutes equally
divided. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we are a Nation at war.
It is a war against terrorism. It is a war that is being fought abroad and at
home. A day or two ago, this Senate overwhelmingly restored $7 billion to the
Department of Defense budget, in part to assist our military in fighting the war
against terrorism overseas. At home, we have not adequately funded the homeland
side of the war against terrorism. We have not adequately funded the Department
of Homeland Security. This amendment would do that: $6.8 billion, $4.4 billion
of which would go to first responders.
It is outrageous that at this time of conflict, there are police and fire
departments all over America that are letting firefighters and police officers
go, just when we need those first responders. That is about as foolish as an
army laying off soldiers in the middle of the war.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Just to inform our colleagues, we are going to have a vote on
the Lieberman amendment and then on the Kennedy amendment. Then we are going to
try to organize a bunch of other votes. So we are making progress.
I thank the minority leader and also my colleague Senator Conrad.
We are making good progress. We have amendments on both sides. I know a lot of
people want to get some of these considered. We are going to move as quickly as
possible. Let's get through these next two votes and then we will see where we
go. I urge our colleagues to expect a late night tonight. We have a lot of work
today. It is possible we could even finish tonight if we all cooperate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Very briefly, if we could ask all colleagues who have
amendments that they still want considered, it would be enormously helpful to us
if we could get copies of those amendments. We are trying to work out as many
amendments as we can. We need to have the actual amendment to be able to do
that.
One other thing we should say, we have been asked if there is going to be
a window. We do not intend to have a window. We intend to keep pressing ahead
and those who are next in line should expect that they would only have 2 minutes
a side to do their amendments. So when they are preparing their presentations,
if they would understand they would have no more than 2 minutes, so we are not
going back after we finish this round to some longer explanations of amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The Senator
from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will comment on the amendment of my good
friend Senator Lieberman. This amendment would increase taxes by $13.7
billion over the next 5 years. It spends $6.8 billion, or presumes to spend $6.8
billion on homeland security. That would be a 40-percent increase over this
year. We have already provided in the budget a 15-percent increase over last
year.
My colleague mentioned defense. We just increased defense spending 7
percent over last year. Homeland security is 15 percent. I don't think, frankly,
we can afford 40 percent. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Lieberman
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2807.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. JOHNSON),
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. REID) is absent
attending a funeral.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No.
50 Leg.]
YEAS--40
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--57
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Johnson
Kerry
Reid
The amendment (No. 2807) was rejected.
****************************
IRAQ AND NORTH KOREA
****************************
4A)
4B)
Iraq and the War on Terror
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous
order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in an effort to dispel continuing
myths which have been propagated with regard to the role of Iraq in the larger
war on terrorism. While many Democrat Members have worked hard to promote these
myths, it is time that we who know and understand the truth come forward to
fully explain it.
Let me be perfectly clear. The war against Iraq is a central component in
the global fight against terrorism. The Hussein regime's support for terrorism,
within and outside of its borders, its appetite for the world's most dangerous
weapons, and its openly declared hostility to the United States were a
combination that was a gathering and growing danger to our country.
In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, ending this regime was
central to the war on terrorism and central to ensuring that more attacks on
American soil, like the September 11 attacks and the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing, never occur again.
[Time: 14:00]
The Hussein regime established significant and numerous ties with
terrorist organizations like al Qaeda for over a decade prior to September 11,
2001. This included the provision of training, financing and sanctuary. In fact,
the Iraqi foreign minister admitted in March 2003 that Iraqi funds were sent to
families of Palestinian suicide bombers who attacked and killed innocent Israeli
citizens, and also 12 Americans in Israel in 2003. Even the Clinton
Administration agreed and repeatedly asserted connections between al Qaeda and
Iraq, and explicitly said that Hussein posed a threat to the United States
itself.
By ending the Hussein regime, the United States has taken away yet another
incubator of terrorism. Terrorist groups benefited for years from support of
Saddam Hussein and his regime. Further, by acting decisively in Iraq, the United
States has sent very strong signals to other nations that have been or could be
terrorist sympathizers. Had the United States not acted in Iraq, Libyan leader
Muammar Qadhafi would likely not have declared his weapons programs, submitted
to international inspections and voluntarily dismantled its programs. In
addition, it is very likely that United States action in Iraq caused Iran to
open its nuclear facilities for
international inspection and suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
The list goes on and on, from Syria to North Korea. We are seeing changes
in the way these nations deal with terrorism because of our actions in Iraq.
Those who like to spread misconceptions and myths often point to the fact
that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in post-war Iraq. They
say the President and his administration deceived the American people and the
international community.
However, David Kay, our chief weapons inspector, has stated repeatedly
that it was prudent to attack Iraq, and that as the inspection process
continues, as it does, we will find that Iraq was more dangerous than we
actually understood at the time because the regime was collapsing and Iraq was a
country that had capabilities to develop weapons of mass destruction that
terrorist groups have sought repeatedly.
Had the Hussein regime lost control completely, Iraq would have become a
breeding ground for international terrorism, much like Afghanistan was under the
Taliban, the only difference being that Iraq had the wealth and the resources
necessary to build weapons that could have been directly threatening to the
United States and our allies.
Further, not only the United States, but the French, British, Germans and
the United Nations all thought Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction
before the United States intervened.
There is also the myth that the United States and our allies intervened in
Iraq solely based only evidence of weapons of mass destruction. This is not
true. Again, according to David Kay, Iraq clearly was in violation of United
Nations Resolution 1441. This resolution required Iraq to come clean and report
on all of its activities.
[Page: H1042] GPO's PDF
To date, hundreds of cases have been found that show Iraq was engaged in
activities that were prohibited under that resolution and under the initial
resolution, 687.
Our case for war was and remains clear. The majority of the American
people understand that, the House of Representatives understood that when this
body agreed in the 107th Congress by passing H.J. Res. 114 by a vote of 296 to
133, and our allies around the world understood that and continue to share our
resolve.
Clearly, there are those Democrat candidates who are using this election
year for partisan politics to cloud the truth. These tactics will ultimately
fail because we all understand that the United States is safer today and our
citizens are far less likely to be victims of domestic terrorist attack because
we have removed the Hussein regime and are on the way to helping establish and
ally in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, it is also important to remember that who made this security
possible. The thousands of American sailors, soldiers and airmen who drove the
once powerful dictator to cower in a hole are owed the praise of the entire
Nation.
I would ask that all Americans take a moment to think about our friends,
sons, daughters, mothers and fathers who are serving proudly in Iraq and around
the world as part of the global war on terrorism. They are ensuring our safety
and working hard to make sure that another day like September 11 never happens
again. To Members of our armed services, I say thank you. I would also remind
them that no matter what they hear to the contrary from Democrat politicos,
their actions in Iraq are justified and necessary.
4C)
Iran’s Nuclear-Related Activities
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the
ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and
South Asian Affairs, I want to express my deep concern about recent developments
in Iran.
Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting to discuss a
proper response to findings that Iran has failed to disclose many
nuclear related activities in violation
of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is a serious issue. There is no doubt that
Iran is in violation of its commitments under the NPT. The IAEA Board of
Governors
[Page: S2706] GPO's PDF
must insist that Iran come into complete compliance with
its obligations, disclose all information about its
nuclear program, and allow unrestricted
access to IAEA inspectors. Given the high degree of enriched uranium found in
Iran--weapons grade uranium--and yesterday's statement from Iran indicating that
it planned to resume enrichment, this matter should immediately be referred to
the United Nations Security Council for further action.
I am also deeply troubled by Iran's terribly flawed elections of February
20. The people of Iran deserve our support and they deserve true democratic
reform. We cannot turn our backs on the people of Iran because its political
leadership has failed them. There are an estimated 700,000 Iranian Americans
living in California who are so hopeful for democratic change in their homeland.
The election of February 20 was clearly a step in the wrong direction.
On February 12, the Senate passed an important resolution, S. Res. 304,
that was submitted that same day by Senator Brownback. Denouncing the
elections as harmful for true democratic forces in Iran, the resolution stated
that the policy of the United States should be to advocate a democratic
government in Iran that will restore freedom to the people of Iran, abandon
terrorism, protect human rights, and live in peace and security with the
international community. I fully agree.
I hope that the Iranian people know that they have the support of the
Senate as they aspire for the freedom denied them by the current Iranian regime.
4D)
Continuation of National Emergency with Respect to Iran
The PRESIDING
OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the
United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
To the Congress of the United States:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d))
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to
the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal
Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to
continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this
provision, I have sent the enclosed notice, stating that the Iran emergency is
to continue in effect beyond March 15, 2004, to the Federal Register for
publication. The most recent notice continuing this emergency was published in
the Federal Register on March 14, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 12563).
The crisis between the United States and Iran constituted by the actions
and policies of the Government of Iran, including its support for international
terrorism, efforts to undermine Middle East peace, and acquisition of
weapons of
mass
destruction and the means to deliver them, that led to the declaration of
a national emergency on March 15, 1995, has not been resolved. These actions and
policies are contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and
pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security,
foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have
determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with
respect to Iran and maintain in force comprehensive sanctions against Iran to
respond to this threat.
George W. Bush.
THE WHITE HOUSE, March 10, 2004.
4E)
Iraq
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today, I am joined in this special order by my
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). As my colleague from
California just indicated, we come to the floor of the House recognizing the
tragedy of the terrorist attacks in Spain. We are not quite sure who was
responsible, but we know there was a significant loss of life.
We know that Spain has been an ally in the war on terrorism. Their
soldiers have fought with our troops in Iraq. Their prime minister was here a
couple of months ago indicating their strong support and their partnership,
whether it was al-Qaeda, whether it was domestic terrorism, or whatever.
But we join in expressing our sympathy to the government and the people of
Spain for the loss that they suffered today and reaffirm our commitment to the
people of Spain that we will continue to work and fight with them in this war on
terrorism that in so many different ways has reared its ugly head not only in
Spain, the United States, but in Africa, in Saudi Arabia, and with the USS
Cole and a number of other attacks throughout the world.
Today, we want to talk a little bit about the situation that has gone on
in Iraq and kind of put that in context. We have recognized this war on
terrorism. We have recognized the threats from Saddam Hussein and others for a
long period of time. It was back in 1992 that Senator Gore was talking about
what a threat Saddam Hussein and Iraq was.
Here is a quote from a speech he gave in 1992. Senator Al Gore: ``He,''
meaning Saddam Hussein, ``had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly,
and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism
activities, and Bush looked
[Page: H1052]
the other way. He was already deeply involved in the
efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Bush
knew it, but he looked the other way. Well, in my view,'' and the ``my'' was
Senator Gore, ``the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite
to what you would expect with all the evidence it had available to it at the
time. Saddam Hussein's nature and intentions were perfectly visible.''
Already in 1992, Senator Gore had identified Saddam Hussein and Iraq as a
threat to American Security and to the security of the Middle East and as a
danger to his own people. And I think that goes on to President Clinton, who,
during the 1990s, identified Saddam Hussein and Iraq as a threat. And I think my
colleague from Indiana may have some of the statements that President Clinton
was making.
This is not to say what should or not have been in the 1990s, this is
saying that through the last 10 to 15 years we knew Saddam was a threat.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Indiana.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for hosting this special
order. And having just returned from Iraq, it is particularly meaningful to me
to acknowledge the gentleman's leadership in this Congress in traveling to Iraq
since the end of hostilities more, I think, than any other Member of Congress;
and having just learned what that has meant to our troops and what that has
meant to the people in the transition process at the coalition authority, I want
to thank him for that.
There is no question this issue of weapons of mass destruction, which has
become such a political football in America today, represents some form of an
intelligence failure, if by that we recognize that we have not found the vials
of chemical and biological weapons. But it is absolutely imperative, as the
gentleman suggests, to know that if it was an intelligence failure, it was a
world intelligence failure and it was an intelligence conclusion that was drawn
by at least two previous administrations.
I cite in evidence the remarks of President Bill Clinton on February 17,
1998. Again, these are the words of the President of the United States about
what official U.S. policy was relative to the possession of weapons of mass
destruction by the regime of Saddam Hussein.
President Clinton said. ``And they,'' referring to predators of the 21st
century, ``they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals
of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.''
President Clinton went on to say, ``We simply cannot allow that to happen. There
should be no doubt,'' President Bill Clinton said, ``There should be no doubt
Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a
grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world.''
President Clinton went on to say, ``There is no more clear example of this
threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his
people, the stability of his region,'' and he went on to describe Iraq as, ``a
rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them
to terrorists who have traveled the world. If we fail to respond today to Saddam
Hussein, he will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that he can act with
impunity.''
These are the words of the 42nd President of the United States of America,
William Jefferson Clinton, about the conclusions of the Intelligence Community
and his personal conclusions as our Commander-in-Chief that Iraq did possess
biological and chemical weapons in the year 1998.
[Time: 15:30]
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, what we know is through the 1990s, there was a
consensus that there was a war on terrorism that was being fought, that there
were issues dealing with Iraq and dealing with Saddam Hussein. It was not only
the President; it was the Clinton administration. Madeleine Albright said
``Hussein's weapons will not discriminate if and when they are used, and
therefore it is important for the region to understand that he is a threat.''
In September 1998 she said, ``Our adversaries are likely to avoid
traditional battlefield situations because there American dominance is
well-established. We must be concerned instead about weapons of mass destruction
and by the cowardly instruments of sabotage and hidden bombs. These
unconventional threats endanger not only our Armed Forces, but all Americans and
America's friends everywhere.'' That is September 9, 1998.
So the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but most importantly the
larger threat not specifically identifying what terrorist organizations would
use, but recognizing the emergence of a different kind of threat to American, to
Western Europe as the Cold War collapsed of unconventional threats that would
endanger not military folks, but that would target civilians.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on February 18, completely consistent with
Secretary Albright's remarks, ``In the next century the community of nations
will see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now.'' In
describing it, President Clinton said, ``A rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.''
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think the quotes go well on to other folks in
2000. So this is a continuing story of intelligence. As we move through this
process, on a bipartisan basis, this is what we believed the threat was to the
United States. One of the things that we are going to focus on here today, not
what we think about here in Washington, when we put this in context, we will
talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein was, not to America, not to the Middle
East, but most importantly to his own people.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, to that end, and I am anxious to get to that
conversation, I have to tell my colleague that the search for weapons of mass
destruction found for the Iraqis that I spoke to in Basra, it found its locus
the day Saddam Hussein was captured by American troops. This is a man who,
according to former prisoners of war, he and his regime were responsible for the
death by incarceration or other means of 1.2 to 1.3 million of their countrymen.
According to Amnesty International, we have identified the remains thus far in
270 mass graves of 400,000 men, women, boys, and girls in the mass graves of
Saddam Hussein.
But the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue is an issue, and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is right to address it in the beginning
inasmuch as it is in the mind of the American people. But none other than
Senator Daschle, who has been the majority leader of the Senate in
recent years, but at the time in 1998 and President Clinton's decision to fire
cruise missiles and attack Iraq was minority leader, Senator Daschle
said, ``We are here today to affirm that we and the American people stand with
the President and the international community in an effort to end Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction programs and preserve our vital and international
interests.''
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair reminds Members
not to refer to individual Members of the other body.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, there is no question whatsoever that the position
of the administration and others in America supported the conclusion that the
intelligence community, not just of the Bush administration, but of the
administration that preceded it came to a singular conclusion: that Iraq was in
possession of weapons of mass destruction.
I am always anxious to remind my constituents in eastern Indiana that the
reason we know Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction was because
he used them. He used them on his own people. He used them to kill thousands in
Kurdistan in the early 1990s in the immediate aftermath of the first Persian
Gulf War. We are told by eyewitness accounts of men, women and children running
in the middle of the night out of their bedrooms, out into the streets, grabbing
their throats as they were asphyxiated by mustard gas or some other chemical
agent and killed in the streets and towns of Kurdistan. Chemical weapons were
used against his own people. It is not a subject of theoretical analysis or
[Page: H1053]
intelligence analysis; but as the gentleman from Michigan
knows, it is a matter of historical fact and record that Saddam Hussein in the
early 1990s possessed and used chemical weapons against his own population.
What became of them in the days immediately prior to Operation Iraqi
Freedom, we will continue to investigate. I traveled by the site of the Iraqi
survey group in Baghdad just 1 week ago, and I know in meeting with the
intelligence community there that that search goes on. And as we continue to
bring Iraq forward in the family of nations, and as the people of Iraq, I
believe, become more confident in their own future and in the end of the dark
days of Iraq and the regime and the thugs that preceded this new Iraqi Governing
Council and this new government, more people will speak and more daylight will
shine, and we will eventually find out what became of this program and its
horrendously dangerous by-products.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, during much of the 1990s this was done on a
bipartisan basis, which is maybe different than what we see today; but here is
Vice President Gore talking on May 23, 2000: ``The classic challenges of war and
peace, of course, extend beyond Israel's immediate neighborhoods to Iraq and
Iran. In 1991, I broke with many in my own party and voted to use force to stop
Saddam Hussein's aggression in the Middle East. I believe in bipartisanship most
of all when our national interests are at stake.'' Going on, he wants to build
bipartisan bridges to bring Democrats and Republicans together in support of
policies that would promote what is in our Nation's best interest.
As my colleague has gone through and read some of the quotes, there was a
bipartisan understanding about Iraq and the threat that it posed. Here again is
Al Gore, the Vice President, in May of 2000: ``Despite our swift victory and our
efforts since, there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still seeks to
amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do that as long as
Saddam Hussein stays in power, there can be no comprehensive peace for the
people of Israel or the people of the Middle East.''
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, a very moving part of my trip to Baghdad was our
meetings at the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority at Saddam
Hussein's palace.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. One of many palaces.
Mr. PENCE. One of 100. It was the size of three or four resorts in Florida
and twice as opulent. But across the street, there is a bunker underground
hidden underneath what appears to be a garbage dump or a broken and destroyed
building. It was three stories underground. It was one of those sophisticated
bunkers we hear about; but what was most provocative to me was to learn that in
that bunker was an enormous financial investment in a ventilation system which
was designed as a countermeasure to the distribution of chemical or biological
weapons. There was a decontamination room to essentially remove chemical or
biological agents that were on a person before they could enter the bunker
itself.
For a regime that, according to some of the administration's critics,
never had weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's own bunker, literally
down the street from his primary palace, had an enormous multi-million dollar
investment to protect him from weapons that he apparently did not possess.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Right. And we knew that he used these weapons, and so he had
them at one time. The interesting thing about what Vice President Gore said in
May of 2000, ``We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein
gone,'' that became the official policy of the United States, was to remove
Saddam Hussein, not only because of the weapons of mass destruction, but because
of the threat that he posed to his own people, to the Middle East, and to the
rest of the world.
We can go on and there are lots of quotes by other folks who have talked
about that. This morning we had
the opportunity to meet with Dr. Kay again, the original head of the Iraqi
survey group, taking a look at exactly what was going on in Iraq. He has said,
and I tend to agree with him after having met with him a number of times and
after having gone to Iraq, we may not find the weapons of mass destruction. They
may actually not be there. But what he has said is take a look at what was going
on. He was developing the capability to go into quick production of weapons of
mass destruction. He said I am not going to inventory this stuff, but as soon as
the U.N. inspectors are gone, as soon as the sanctions are lifted, I will have
the capability that 3 to 6 months I will be able to produce all of the chemical
or biological weapons I need, so why store them. Get rid of the inspectors,
develop the capability under what appear to be legitimate purposes; but they are
dual-use capabilities. I will use them to make this, but just with the flip of a
switch and fine-tuning, I can use those to make weapons of mass destruction. We
know that he was developing those capabilities.
There is evidence that he was doing human testing to fine-tune the
capabilities that he would have and the weapons and products that he would
eventually produce. We know that he was doing research on UAVs, unmanned aerial
vehicles, potentially to be the means for delivering weapons of mass
destruction.
We know that he was developing a missile capability well beyond the
authorized levels that had been established by the U.N. So in all of these
areas, he was either moving his program forward secretly or moving them beyond
what the U.N. sanctions had said. So there is no doubt, and that is the message
through the 1990s.
We are not sure exactly what was there because it was a very secretive
society. He was very good at deceiving others when we were trying to penetrate
into what was going on in Iraq. But there is no doubt about what his plans and
intentions were. This is why Dr. Kay will say we may not have found exactly what
we were expecting to find when we got into Iraq; but what we found was as
dangerous, if not more dangerous, than what we had anticipated that we would
find.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think that the
statement that the gentleman just made is extremely important. I think that
statement should be highlighted and underscored and chiseled in a place where
every American can read it.
As he said again here on Capitol Hill, Dr. David Kay, weapons inspector
who led the original effort after the war with the Iraqi survey group, he said
what he found was more dangerous than what they believed would be there. In
terms of the establishment of a diverse program of chemical and biological
weapons, as the gentleman has with great particularity described, was prepared
in the event of the strictures being lifted, was prepared to produce large
amounts of these types of weapons.
Of course we found the nose cones on missiles hollowed out just for the
size of an inclusion of a vial of certain types of agents that would have no
other reason to be hollowed out as a warhead in that way. We found these
munitions in large numbers. But David Kay said that what we found was in many
respects more dangerous than what we expected to find.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very valuable debate to have
here in the United States about what did we find versus what we expected to
find; and that will force us to seriously look at our intelligence capabilities,
what do we need to do to improve our intelligence capabilities to give us as
policymakers better information on which to make decisions in the future; and we
will have that discussion and debate. The President is fully cooperating with
the various commissions that are out there to do an investigation of the
intelligence community.
[Time: 15:45]
The Senate Intelligence Committee is doing it, the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence is doing it. We all recognize that the intelligence
business is a very, very difficult business; that we do not get all the
information we would like to have; that when we go into a place like Iraq or try
to take a look at what is going on in North Korea, Libya or Iran, as we are
trying to look in and figure out what is going on, these folks are trying to
hide and deceive us so that we do not understand what is going on.
[Page: H1054]
Mr. PENCE. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to know why President
Bill Clinton got it wrong. I would like to know why Vice President Gore had the
weapons of mass destruction estimate for Iraq so wrong. And I do not say that in
a partisan spirit, I say that because if, in fact, there were never any weapons
of mass destruction following the time he used them against his own people in
the early 1990s, then there was an intelligence failure. But if it was, it truly
was an institutional failure; not, as some would suggest, not associated with
the present administration, but associated with an institutional failure that, I
will add one other point if the gentleman will permit me, was not just an
intelligence failure of the U.S. intelligence failure, but it was, as I said at
the beginning, a world intelligence failure.
The intelligence communities of every one of our allies in the western
world, in this cause, and even many who chose not to join us, France and Germany
and Russia's intelligence community, as their votes in the U.N. Security Council
support, all of them came to the conclusion, unequivocally, that Saddam Hussein
possessed biological and chemical weapons.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I get a little nervous talking about saying we got it wrong,
because I have had the opportunity, having served on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence now for 3 years, to have met a lot of our men and
women involved in this process.
The first thing we have to recognize is they got a very important thing
right, Saddam was a threat. It is not like we got into Iraq and it is like, wow,
there is nothing here; he was not doing anything, he was just trying to build
the country for his people. He was focused on delivering them quality
healthcare, education. You guys got it all wrong.
That is not the Saddam Hussein we see and this is not the Saddam Hussein
that his own people saw. They got it right, that this guy had every intent of
restarting a weapons of mass destruction program, and we missed that he changed
his strategy, from stockpiling to producing these things on demand.
So we got some of those things wrong.
But overall, the strategic analysis, because these men and women we have
in our Intelligence Community, this is an art, and Saddam Hussein was a master
at deceit, and we did not necessarily give our intel folks everything they
needed to figure it out.
Mr. PENCE. The gentleman has caught me in a little bit of a rhetorical
joust, and it seems to me that those who want to say we did not find what would
have amounted, if we were absolutely correct, to a two-car garage load of
biological and chemical weapons, it would not have filled more than that. But if
we were wrong at the time, we went to war that that did not exist, that is the
straining of the gnat when we ignore the elephant in the room.
The elephant in the room is the man and his regime were a weapon of mass
destruction, terrorized and killed over 1 million of his own people, had these
weapons and used them against his own people in the past, and, as the gentleman
from Michigan says eloquently, most assuredly our conclusion that he was a
menace and threat was accurate.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Let us go to where the gentleman wanted to go today. I was
in Iraq last year in August, I went back in September of last year, and then I
was there 3 weeks ago. You were there last week. If there is any question about
whether Saddam was an instrument of mass destruction, I think you and I were
most touched when we actually had the opportunity to talk to the people of Iraq
and their response. Then you talk to the next group that has had the most
interaction with the Iraqi people on a personal level, and that is our troops.
Then you talk to the policymakers and all of those kinds of things.
But the closer you get to the people who were closest to Saddam, I think
my colleague will agree, that, by and large, the vast majority of those folks,
and I will admit and recognize that Iraq continues to be a very dangerous place;
there are people there who want to kill our troops; there are people there who
want to kill the Iraqis that are working towards building a new Iraq; but for
the average person in Iraq, they are absolutely thrilled and thankful that
Saddam Hussein is gone.
Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.