[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 119 (Thursday, September 13, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9362-S9387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
              AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday and this morning, one by one 
Members of the Senate came to the Chamber offering their thoughts on 
the events that occurred on September 11. There were words of 
condolence to the terrorism victims and their families. There have been 
words of praise for firefighters and police officers, many of whom gave 
their lives attempting to help others.
  There were words of anger and warning at the perpetrators of these 
terrorist attacks, and there were words of concern and outrage the 
United States is not doing enough to prevent and combat terrorism from 
rearing its ugly head on our shores.
  During my own remarks, I noted that General Holland, the U.S. Air 
Force commander in chief of the Special Operations Command at MacDill 
Air Force Base in Florida, who directs our counterterrorism efforts on 
behalf of the U.S. military, does not have a direct civilian 
counterpart. I reiterate what I and several other of our colleagues 
said yesterday: We should have one.
  I find it almost ironic, while the terrorists were attacking our 
innocent civilians and our democratic freedoms, we in the Chamber of 
democracy's most deliberative body were considering a bill that takes a 
significant step to provide such a civilian counterpart to the military 
point person on counterterrorism.
  This bill before the Senate today contains language to create the 
position of Deputy Attorney General for Combating Terrorism.
  When I spoke this morning, I commended the two managers of this bill.

[[Page S9363]]

Senator Hollings said he was glad to participate, but the original idea 
came from the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. The Deputy 
Attorney General for Combating Terrorism would not only oversee the 
counterterrorism activities within the Department of Justice but would 
also provide much needed leadership throughout the Federal Government 
for counterterrorism prevention, preparedness, crisis management, and 
consequence management.
  This Deputy AG would be appointed by the President of the United 
States, confirmed by this Senate, and would have the authority and 
access to resource, coordinate, and oversee the full range of programs 
throughout the Federal Government to combat terrorism.
  This Deputy Attorney General would also make recommendations to the 
Congress and the President for developing a strategy preventing, 
preparing, and responding to terrorism.
  Moreover, this Attorney General would play the central role in 
reviewing the budgets of all the Agencies and Departments within the 
Federal Government to determine whether they are adequately funded to 
implement our national strategy against terrorism, and when General 
Holland or some other person who follows in his footsteps would want to 
talk to his civilian counterpart, he would have some place to go and 
not have to go to the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, or the Department of State. There would be 
one place for the military counterpart to go.
  As Senator Gregg stated earlier today, this proposal may not and 
should not be the last word in how we respond to terrorism in this 
country and abroad.
  Given the barbaric and uncivilized events of Tuesday, we need action 
on the part of this Congress and we need it now. We have a bill before 
us today that addresses many of our concerns. For the fourth or fifth 
time today, I commend Chairman Hollings and Senator Gregg for their 
leadership and their vision in including this language in this bill 
that was written well before the tragic events of Tuesday. I pledge my 
assistance to them in retaining this language as we move forward in the 
conference committee on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his generous comments 
about the efforts of Senator Hollings and myself in this area and his 
support of these initiatives in this bill to accomplish some focus on 
counterterrorism, although, as he mentioned, it is not going to change 
what happened in New York. It may appear it is too little too late. It 
is actually in anticipation of trying to get ready for the next round 
of what is clearly going to be a long and difficult struggle for our 
Nation. It is part of that effort. It is not as comprehensive, but it 
is an important element of it. I certainly thank him for his support as 
he is a significant leader within the Senate, and his support is 
welcome and will give this proposal a little bit more credibility.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me also thank our distinguished leader, Senator 
Reid.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following list I send 
to the desk be the only first-degree amendments in order to H.R. 2500; 
that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments; that upon 
disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time and the 
Senate vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage of the bill, the 
Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list of amendments is as follows:

                               Amendments

       Bayh: Social Security Payback.
       Boxer: Relevant.
       Boxer: Relevant.
       Breaux: Relevant.
       Byrd: Relevant.
       Byrd: Relevant.
       Byrd: Relevant to the list.
       Carnahan: Byrne grants.
       Clinton: Increasing funds for Internet Crimes Against 
     Children Task Force.
       Clinton: Authorizing pension benefits for spouses.
       Daschle: Relevant.
       Daschle: Relevant.
       Daschle: Relevant to the list.
       Dodd: Election Reform.
       Durbin: Replacing Clean Diamonds Act.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feinstein: Crib Safety.
       Feinstein: INS Backlog.
       Feinstein: Judges.
       Feinstein: Relevant.
       Graham: Social Security Trust Fund.
       Harkin: SOS--Discrimination against Islamic Faith.
       Hollings: Managers Amendments.
       Hollings: Relevant.
       Hollings: Relevant to the list..
       Inouye: Relevant.
       Kennedy: Relevant.
       Landrieu: Domestic Violence.
       Landrieu: Relevant.
       Nelson (FL): Relevant.
       Nelson (FL): Relevant.
       Reid: Relevant.
       Reid: Relevant to the list.
       Schumer: Relevant.
       Hatch: 15 related to terrorism.
       Bond: American Airlines.
       Sessions: Funding for Coverdell Crime Lab.
       Sessions: Tech on Crime Lab.
       Sessions: 2 Relevant.
       Kyl: Terrorism.
       Kyl: Relevant.
       Thurmond: Circuit Meetings.
       B. Smith: Terrorist Assets.
       Specter: 2 Relevant.
       Hutchison: Sky Marshal Program.
       Lott: 2 Relevant.
       Lott: 2 Relevant to list.
       B. Smith: America Tissue.
       B. Smith: Eco Industrial Grant Program Study.
       Specter: Redistributing PA Funding.
       McCain: Title II.
       Nickles: 2 Relevant.
       Nickles: 2 Relevant to any on list.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation and 
leadership of Senator Gregg and the leadership on both sides of the 
aisle in helping us with this finite list.
  They said not to send up the matter of the conferees at this 
particular time, but that is the same list. The list, Mr. President, is 
agreed to on both sides and the Chair has already ruled. I only ask 
that some of these Senators come forward so we can debate and vote.
  I want to confer with my ranking member to see what we can have 
brought up and what we can eliminate and bring this to a conclusive 
list because this one is pretty long.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to address for a few moments one of 
the issues we are going to be confronting both on our committees and I 
am sure in the Chambers of the House and the Senate in the not-too-
distant future as a result of the tragic events of this week, and that 
is the issue of airline safety and what we can do in the future to 
prevent this tragedy from ever happening again or prevent any kind of 
hijacking of airliners in the future.
  It occurred to me as I began thinking about this--and I have been a 
pilot all my life. I have flown since I have been about 20 years old, 
both as a military pilot and a civilian pilot. I have my commercial 
license. So having flown all these years, I am quite aware of the 
different steps that need to be taken to provide for aircraft security.
  It occurred to me, while I was thinking about all of this, that over 
the last several years I have been to Israel on more than one 
occasion--two or three times--and with all of the terrorist activity 
that the Israelis have had to put up with over all these years, they 
have yet to lose an El Al airliner. Having gone through the procedure 
of flying on El Al as I have done in the past, I know they have a 
system in place in which you are very certain that no one is going to 
hijack that airplane. It seems to me we could learn a lot from how the 
Israelis have done that.
  I am hopeful our Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta, as he looks 
at this issue, will call upon our friends in Israel and those who run 
El Al airlines to consult with us. It has to do with a process and a 
procedure which might slow things down a little bit. It is true

[[Page S9364]]

it might slow things down a little bit, but at least I believe it will 
give passengers in this country the absolute assurance they are going 
to be safe when they get on that plane.

  The other thing that occurred to me was that whenever you go out of 
this country and you come back into this country and you go through 
immigration, you show them your passport. That immigration officer sits 
in the back of that little desk and swipes your passport through with 
your photograph and your numbers. They do it for everyone coming 
through. I am told they have a list of suspected terrorists, suspected 
criminals, those who have a record, and that list is readily accessible 
so they can match a passport coming in--not just a U.S. passport but 
any passport anywhere in the world--check those papers against that 
list, and they know right away if a name pops up if this is someone 
they need to detain or to have a further look at before they are 
allowed into this country.
  It is my understanding that list is not available to the airlines, 
and I wonder again if perhaps this is another system that we ought to 
look at where, before you get on an airplane, you have your ID, but 
that some instant check be done to make sure you do not have some kind 
of a record, that you are who you say you are, and that you would not 
be on the same list the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, 
would have or a more appropriate list.
  Third, we need to make sure our checked baggage is better examined. 
Again, I go back to what El Al does in terms of making sure that when 
you get on the airplane, it is your baggage, that the baggage has been 
x ray'd thoroughly, and before you get on the plane they have 
identified that as your luggage. We do not do that in this country.
  That would not be as easy to accomplish as it sounds. It could cause 
delays. But, I am hopeful that we can develop efficient methods that 
can be implemented to efficiently do that minimizing those delays.
  It has also been suggested that when you get on an airplane you ought 
to have a photographic record of that. Tickets can be purchased over 
the Internet. Once you walk up to the counter and receive your boarding 
pass, you have to show them a photo ID. But once you get the boarding 
pass, you can give that to anyone. Anyone can get on that airplane. 
There is a breakdown there.
  Every time I walk into a 7-Eleven store or up to an ATM machine to 
draw out money, a picture is taken. When you walk into a 7-Eleven 
store, there is a photograph taken of you in that store. There is a 
record kept of that. It seems to me a simple matter to put in place 
that when you walk up to get your ticket, a photograph is taken. That 
photograph is matched with your identification. When you go to board 
the airplane and they take your boarding pass and put it through the 
electronics, your picture pops up alongside the boarding pass so they 
know you are the exact person who bought that ticket.
  It seems to me these are simple, technological means we can use to 
ensure those who buy tickets are the same people who get on the plane 
and make sure the baggage checked is yours. This method might sharply 
simplify the process of assuring that checked package being placed on a 
plane matches those that get on board that plane.
  However great a system is, redundancy is essential. So, we also need 
to think about increasing safety on the aircraft itself.
  There has been talk of putting sky marshals on appropriate flights. I 
got a fax from a friend I flew with in the Navy. Larry Durbin retired 
as an airline captain from United Airlines. He faxed one sentence: Tom, 
why don't you hire retired airline captains as sky marshals? I thought 
to myself, that might be a pretty good suggestion. We have a lot of 
retired airline captains past the age of flying. They might be 
interested in this type of occupation. I think that is something we 
ought to consider. Obviously, they know about flying; they know what it 
takes. I believe they could help us immensely.
  I am told El Al has on their airlines solid doors in their airplane 
cabins. Once the pilot, the copilots, and the flight engineers are in 
the cockpit, they lock the door and you cannot get in. You cannot kick 
it in. The only way to unlock it is from the other side. We do lock our 
doors on our planes in this country, but, quite frankly, they are not 
very secure doors. I believe that is another item we ought to look at 
in terms of making sure that no one can breach cabin security.
  Last night, I spoke with Senator Stevens, both of us being pilots of 
old vintage. We were talking about the old days. We always had an IFF, 
identification friend or foe, in military parlance, on all aircraft. 
When the aircraft started up and you turned on the electrical system, 
that IFF began to transmit. It was on until that airplane was either 
shot down or landed and turned off. I believe we ought to have that on 
every domestic airliner in this country. It is a simple device.
  In other words, these people got on and somehow they knew how to turn 
the transponder off. Once they did that, it was very hard to keep track 
of the airliner. But with an IFF system that identified a specific 
aircraft that would be on all the time, that could never happen again.
  These are some of the things we are going to have to discuss on the 
Senate floor and in our committees. Many different measures we have 
been very lax about. We have been very lucky in this country, very 
lucky in our domestic and international air service. Our luck has run 
out. I think now is the time to take a hard look at all of the security 
measures we need to ensure airline passengers have the absolute 
assurance once they get on that airline it will not be blown up and it 
will not be hijacked.

  These are just some of the measures I have been thinking about that I 
am hopeful the Congress will take action on soon, in coordination with 
the Secretary of Transportation and the administration. Many 
improvements are already being implemented. But, other ideas need to be 
discussed and be implemented. These and perhaps whatever measures are 
advisable.
  In some cases, where airlines now have the responsibility, we 
probably want to shift those important safety considerations to the 
Government.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa. He has 
given a very cogent overview of our needs. It struck this Senator in a 
similar fashion. I don't have the expert knowledge that the Senator 
from Iowa has as an active pilot. However, everyone should know, we 
immediately set up a hearing with the Secretary of Transportation. The 
first time we get back from the Rosh Hashanah holiday, Monday, Tuesday, 
and Wednesday, we set it up for 9:30, on Thursday morning before the 
Commerce, Space, Science Transportation Subcommittee where we have 
jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration. Along with that, 
we have a bill from Senator Hutchison of Texas with respect to air 
marshals.
  I have been at a news conference and one system was mentioned in 
detail, which I agree with. Otherwise, the only one you may have left 
out was a matter of professionalizing the scanners and screeners. The 
present system now is to leave it to the private airlines. They hire, 
at the minimum wage level, folks who are totally ill-equipped, not 
properly trained, and not professional, and they only stay on the job 
until they can get a paying job, so to speak.
  I have mentioned that for several years because in Europe they are 
all government employees. Governments in the various countries will not 
allow it to be done except through those professionals. I think we can 
get that done, and any other suggestions that the distinguished Senator 
has, I appreciate his leadership on this score. We want to hear from 
him. The Senator is welcome to come to the hearing next week at 9:30 on 
Thursday morning.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. This is the chairman's jurisdiction 
and I know of his intense interest. I did not know about the hearing. I 
applaud the Senator for that and congratulate the Senator for moving 
aggressively in this area. I say to my friend, better training of those 
individuals doing the checking is on my list; I just didn't read it. I 
didn't want to take all afternoon.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is what everyone suggested. Everyone realizes it 
is inadequate.
  Mr. HARKIN. I might add that this ought to be a governmental 
function.

[[Page S9365]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I think it should be. It is in Europe.
  Mr. HARKIN. So we could have them well trained and they know what 
they are looking for.
  I share with my friend from South Carolina something that happened to 
me in August which gave me pause for concern, but you move on in life.
  I was making something; I had to get a 2-inch galvanized pipe that 
was about 32\1/2\ inches long. I had to drill some holes in it and I 
had to get it from here to my house in Iowa. I have been working on it 
here. I thought, how am I going to get it out there? It would not fit 
in my suitcase. So I got a cardboard tube from a package store and put 
it in the tube and taped it over. I thought to myself, boy, am I going 
to have trouble when that goes through the x-ray machine, 32\1/2\ inch 
long, galvanized, heavy pipe, into which I drilled holes.
  So I go through the x ray machine out here at National. I set it 
there and I thought, I have all my Senate ID and everything to show 
them I am a Senator and they can trust me. I could open it up and show 
them it is just a plain piece of pipe with some holes drilled in it.
  It went through the x ray machine and they didn't say anything, 
nothing. I could not believe it. I thought to myself, what if that had 
been filled with dynamite? What if it was not me and they just took it 
right on board with a fuse?
  I thought to myself, something has to change. For something like that 
to go through an x ray machine and they did not even pick it up, a pipe 
this long, that round, and probably about a quarter inch thick--and 
they did not pick it up? It should have been changed many years ago.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The main thing is we have to secure that door 
immediately. You cannot use a domestic flight as a weapon of mass 
destruction. That has to be done in the next 3 weeks. We ought to get 
an FAA order out, not about the bags at the check-in, but I mean 
everybody ought to know they might go down themselves but they are not 
going to do like they did at the Pentagon or the World Trade Center.
  Mr. HARKIN. Those doors have to be solid metal doors.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Locked from the inside, and with a rule not to open 
them on cross-country flights.
  I just flew from Honolulu to Sidney, Australia, and I never saw those 
pilots come back once. The wind wasn't good; it was 11\1/2\ hours. So 
they can hold tight for 4 hours on a cross-country flight.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman for his diligence, moving forward 
rapidly on this matter. I look forward to the hearing. If my schedule 
permits, I would like to sit in on the hearing. I appreciate his offer.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would appreciate if you would come, and I would 
appreciate it if you will help this afternoon, getting rid of this 
other bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will do what I can. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from South Carolina 
in hoping Senators who have amendments will bring them to the floor. 
The opportunity is here to proceed on this bill. In the context of what 
happened in the last 2 days, the passage of this bill is obviously not 
an Earth-shattering event, but it is an important element getting our 
house in order, showing we are doing the business of the Government.
  Ironically, a great deal of this bill is directed at assisting the 
FBI, which has a huge responsibility now, and assisting the Justice 
Department, which is really the lead agency in the present effort to 
track down the people who have committed this despicable act, and 
assisting the State Department, which has been under tremendous 
pressure. These agencies need to have the reassurance that we as a 
Senate are going to act and support them. I hope people who have 
concerns about how this bill is structured and wish to amend it will 
bring those concerns to the floor.
  In the short term, I know the Senator from South Carolina has 
mentioned the opportunity to go to third reading. We do have a list of 
amendments. We wish to give those folks the opportunity to bring them 
forward. They have the right to bring them forward. But this bill is 
also important. This legislation needs to be passed. I hope people will 
come to the floor and make their amendments known.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we now have a unanimous consent agreement 
that is in effect that limits amendments. We have spoken on this side 
of the aisle to a number of Senators. There are only a few who have 
given some indication that they want to offer amendments.
  I say this with the full understanding that this has been cleared by 
the manager of the bill. There is going to come a time this afternoon 
when Senator Hollings and the ranking member are going to move to third 
reading. The fact that they have these amendments listed doesn't mean 
they can hold up this bill. If people want to offer these amendments, 
they have to come over here and offer them. Otherwise, the two Senators 
will move to third reading, and we will have final passage on the bill.
  Is that a fair statement?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. This is a fair statement. That should be represented to 
all Senators who have amendments and an interest in these proceedings.
  Right to the point, on the other side of the aisle I think this is an 
important amendment by Senator Hatch and Senator Kyl. They will 
momentarily come to the floor. Other than that, we are almost cleared 
on the other side as well. Within the next hour, I would be prepared to 
move to third reading, unless, of course, my colleague comes down and 
wants to offer his amendment.
  As the distinguished leader is doing, I give notice. Come on down and 
let us hear from you. We welcome you offering any amendment. But we 
have to get on because leaders on both sides have an important 
emergency authorization bill of $20 billion for the President, plus 
some other matters that the President wishes us to take up, plus an 
appointment or two. We are wasting valuable time by not moving along 
with an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I second what the Senator from South 
Carolina said. We are at a critical period in our Nation, and we are 
treading water. That is inappropriate. This bill has a lot of important 
elements which are very apropos and necessary for assisting agencies 
that are in the middle of the fight against terrorism today. We should 
move it. I agree with the statement by the Senator from South Carolina 
and hope that Members will offer their amendments. If not, I would 
support going to third reading.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1558

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a managers' 
amendment. It has been gone over with the ranking member and the other 
side.
  Let me yield on that score.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we have reviewed the managers' amendment 
and support the managers' amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for himself 
     and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1558.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1558.
  The amendment (No. 1558) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S9366]]

  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been listed as potentially having an 
amendment today. I want to address the subject. I discussed this at our 
bipartisan caucus luncheon today because this is one of the many 
serious aftermaths of the tragedy of September 11.
  We have talked a great deal, as we should--properly so--about the 
tremendous search and rescue efforts that are going forward. We are 
going to move expeditiously to make sure we find those who may be 
alive, and today as we watch the news, we see very gratifying stories 
of people being found alive. As I have said before, a search and rescue 
unit is there from central Missouri where I live. They are working 
hard.
  I also mentioned, in addition to the deaths, the damage, and the 
destruction that the terrorists have caused directly, they will be 
successful to the extent they are able to cripple this country 
psychologically or destroy our economy. We all have a responsibility to 
work with, to encourage, to respond to the needs of our citizens so 
they can move forward and not be paralyzed by fear so we can get this 
country working again.
  We have a responsibility as well to make sure that our economy is not 
crippled.
  The situation was brought to my attention today about the two 
airlines whose airliners were hijacked by these terrorists who are 
conducting their own form of war against the United States. They 
captured airlines and used helpless passengers as human bombs to 
destroy the two towers of the World Trade Center, to destroy a section 
of the Pentagon, and, with sorrow but without as great a damage, to 
down one plane in Pennsylvania.
  Two of the airlines involved are major airline carriers, American 
Airlines and United Airlines. They have lost airplanes. More important, 
they have lost valued employees and their priceless cargo, the 
passengers.
  At this point, the entire airline industry in America is facing a 
crisis. They have been grounded. Their expenses go on, but their 
revenues are not coming in. For all of these airlines, we must consider 
a number of ways to assist them, and we should work on that very 
quickly to make sure we do not lose airline service because if we were, 
as a result of this action, to see commercial airline traffic cut off 
in the United States, our economy would be crippled.
  United Airlines and American Airlines face a very unusual 
circumstance where because their planes were involved, there is a 
potential for lawsuits on behalf of the passengers who were killed, the 
crew that was killed, and potentially even the innocent victims on the 
ground, which we do not know the final total but we expect it is past 
the 4,000 mark, and we fear greatly that it may go significantly 
higher.
  I spoke today about the need of providing some means of keeping these 
airlines from being put out of business by the potential liability. It 
is not just the lawsuits that they might face in the future that could 
force these airlines out of business. The potential of the lawsuits has 
the likelihood of making it impossible for them to continue normal 
financing operations. In other words, if they were to go to a bank and 
say: We need to keep our cash flow intact so we have the cash to run 
our airlines, to purchase the jet fuel, to pay our employees, to buy 
the supplies, a bank might look at them and say: If you are exposed to 
lawsuits of wrongful death for untold thousands of people, we cannot 
lend you money, in which case one could easily see the end of these two 
great airlines, with the tremendous impact this would have on our 
economy, not just our traveling public but the entire economic 
structure that depends upon good airline service.

  I raised the question of limiting liability at lunch today with a 
number of colleagues. One of the concerns that came back from them was, 
okay, who will compensate these unfortunate victims? We have talked 
with legislative counsel. We are working with the Congressional 
Research Service. We do not have ready the amendment I had hoped to be 
able to present on this bill, but the amendment we are considering 
would provide compensation for all of these victims under the Federal 
Tort Claims Act. That means the victims would be compensated in the 
appropriate manner to the extent they could establish the basis for 
compensation. It would mean the Federal Government would pay the 
claims. The important impact would be this would take that one 
potentially crippling liability off the financial balance sheets of the 
two airlines.
  I am concerned if we do not do that, the airlines will not be able to 
secure normal financing or extraordinary financing that will now be 
required to get them back into the air to continue the service that is 
vital not only for those of us in the traveling public but for the 
entire economy which depends upon good commercial airline service, not 
only for passengers but for delivery of other commodities by mail.
  We have heard stories about organ donations. Organs being transported 
for implantation purposes cannot be handled because there is no airline 
service. There are many aspects of this economy which depend very much 
on the effective continuation of airline service.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in attempting to find a way where we 
can be fair and equitable to those innocent victims and their surviving 
families and still not cripple our economy.
  As I said earlier this morning, the terrorists have struck a mortal 
blow against our fellow citizens, against Americans, against the 
buildings in New York, the Pentagon, and elsewhere. We must deny them a 
victory because what they really want to do is cripple us economically 
and psychologically. There will be many more steps we must take to make 
sure our economy is not crippled, and there will be concerns coming out 
of the financial community as well, which is where many firms have 
suffered great losses. But this particular concern is one where I ask 
the leaders and members of all committees involved to consider very 
carefully how we can expeditiously provide an alternative means for 
compensating the victims that does not put the future of two of our 
major airlines at risk.
  This is not something we can talk about in the next couple of months 
and act on at the end of this year, the first of next year. This is a 
question which is imminent, which must be resolved within a matter of 
days, not even a matter of weeks.
  I do not have an amendment at the desk, but I will ask that my name 
be removed from the rolls of those who proposed to offer an amendment 
so that the managers of the bill can go about passing this very 
important Commerce-State-Justice bill which has many other important 
elements. I invite the thoughts, the discussion, and the constructive 
suggestions of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The first urge would be not to say anything, not to 
respond, but in deference to one of the best Senators I have served 
with over my 34 years, I know the Senator from Missouri is genuine, he 
is sincere, and he is concerned about the economy and the future of 
these airlines.
  I heard about this a little while ago. Let us have hearings. There is 
nothing to avoid that. We are going to have hearings, first of all, 
with respect to safety so we can get the airlines back up and running.
  I am an old-time trial lawyer. With respect to any kind of claims, if 
there are indeed claims, they would not be filed for months. It appears 
to me as an act of war they might define some negligence, but be that 
as it may, the FBI is going to do some of the best investigating for 
us.
  That will take months. If you filed a summons and complaint in the 
next

[[Page S9367]]

hour, you would not get to court before the end of next year, I can 
tell you that, with the motions and everything else. So trying to 
compensate the victims, which we will be concerned with, there is no 
question the Senator from Missouri is correct on that particular score, 
that is to come.
  We heard this about the airlines and we found out last year from a 
GAO report that they had $100 billion in reinsurance. But barring that 
and later the statement made that we do not want to wreck the economy, 
we can save the economy in this Chamber of the Senate.
  A couple of months ago we were talking about surpluses, surpluses, 
surpluses, surpluses. As of this minute, according to the debt to the 
penny by the Secretary of the Treasury, there is $96 billion. It could 
well be these losses would amount into the billions, maybe not $96 
billion. But you and I have done this in the last several months, 
talking about surpluses and cutting revenues some $74 billion and then 
running around in a circle, where did the money go? The economy went 
into a dip. We took $74 billion out this fiscal year that is going to 
end in 2 weeks' time.
  So for those who are concerned about the economy--and please include 
me in that number--let us look at where it has really been devastating. 
This act of war is devastation enough. I appreciate the sincerity and 
the vision of my colleague from Missouri. We definitely are going to 
have some hearings on this issue, and I will be supporting some kind of 
compensation, but as of this minute, the safety of the people is the 
supreme law--salus populi suprema lex esto. The Senator from New 
Hampshire will have to coach me on my Latin. He has the Boston Latin 
school up there, and they have the Charleston Latin school that is not 
quite as keen.
  In any event, it is the 12th Roman canon, the safety of the people to 
get on these airlines. Do not worry about claims. Do not worry about 
compensation. Worry about safety. Already one-third of the air 
traveling public says they do not want to travel on a plane right now.
  One of the best things we can do is have this quick hearing, 
establish a locked cabin door policy where the cabin is not accessible, 
where you cannot make a domestic flight into a weapon of mass 
destruction, and get along with those ways where we can do the real job 
of the Senate.
  As to compensation, we are going to have to get to that later in 
hearings. I do appreciate the Senator from Missouri raising this 
particular question and the fact that he will set it aside now so that 
we can move on this bill this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as the chairman of the subcommittee and 
the manager of the bill knows very well, in September 1999 the 
Department of Justice sued the tobacco industry to recover federal 
costs associated with diseases caused by smoking. The suit alleges that 
the tobacco companies engaged in a campaign since 1953 to defraud and 
deceive the American public regarding the dangers of smoking disease 
and death, despite the fact that the companies were aware of these 
health effects.
  This case continues to be pending before the courts. Last year, a 
U.S. District Court judge dismissed some counts of the lawsuit but 
upheld the government's right to sue the tobacco industry under the 
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. That portion of the 
case is still pending. Discovery is underway, and the judge has set a 
trial date for the year 2003.
  There were a number of press reports that indicated some uncertainty 
of the Department of Justice about this lawsuit. The Attorney General 
has indicated that he was going to personally review the lawsuit and 
determine whether or not to vigorously pursue it.
  Just last week, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
Division at the Department of Justice testified before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee that the suit is proceeding as planned. I presided 
over that testimony.
  I inquire of the chairman of the subcommittee, the manager of this 
important appropriations bill, whether it is his intent and 
understanding that amounts provided for the Department of Justice in 
this appropriations bill are available for conducting this lawsuit 
against the tobacco companies.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. In response to the distinguished Senator, there is 
nothing specifically providing for funds. Actually the bill itself is 
silent.
  Section 109, which was used by the previous administration to charge 
the various other Departments of the Government that would be 
compensated as a result of a successful lawsuit, is still in existence 
and is available to the Attorney General. I have discussed that with 
the Attorney General myself.
  There is a real difference with respect to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. As the Senator from Illinois knows, we have had a 
couple of votes on this. In any event, we figured the best way was to 
remain silent. But I say affirmatively, section 109 and what was 
available to the previous administration is available to this 
administration to continue with the suit.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the chairman on this important appropriations 
bill. So there is nothing in this appropriations bill which in any way 
inhibits the vigorous pursuit of this lawsuit?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. There is nothing.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator and yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1559

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send a managers' amendment to the 
desk, that has been checked on both sides, and ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for himself 
     and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1559.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 12, line 10, strike ``an in effect on June 1, 
     2000,''
       On page 17, line 20, after the colon insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That, of the amount appropriated under 
     this heading, $67,000,000 shall be transferred to the 
     Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Account 
     under section 204 of the Immigration Services and 
     Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573), to 
     be used for the same purposes for which funds in such account 
     may be used and to remain available until expended:''.
       On page 24, strike lines 19, 20, and 21, and insert 
     ``$79,625,000 shall be for discretionary grants under the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Assistance Programs, including $1,500,000 for the Standing 
     Against Global Exploitation (SAGE) Project, Inc.''.
       On page 76, line 6, strike ``$3,063,305,000'' and insert 
     ``3,061,805,000''.
       On page 25, after line 21 insert the following:
       (d) $200,000 for the Attorney General to conduct a study 
     and prepare a report to be submitted to the Subcommittee on 
     Commerce, Justice and State Appropriation of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives Appropriations Committee on the 
     response of local law enforcement agencies to emergency calls 
     involving domestic violence.
       On page 115, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 623. Clause (ii) of section 621(5)(A) of the 
     Communications Satellite Act of 1962 (47 U.S.C. 763(5)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``on or about October 1, 2000,'' and all 
     that follows through the end and inserting ``not later than 
     December 31, 2001, except that the Commission may extend this 
     deadline to not later than June 30, 2003.''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1559.
  The amendment (No. 1559) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S9368]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold and yield for a moment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the two managers of the bill, I 
have been instructed by the majority leader to indicate that he has 
every desire and every intent to finish this bill tonight.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We should finish it momentarily. I know of two 
amendments they tell us about, but they have been telling us about them 
all afternoon. I am ready to move to third reading.
  We will have a recorded vote. We will pass this bill tonight. We are 
just about through. That is why I sent up the managers' amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from Nevada would yield on that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me, New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. A wonderful State. Vermont is pretty, too.
  Mr. REID. We wish we had New Hampshire's water.
  Mr. GREGG. We would be happy to send you some.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And Vermont's ice cream.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. The Republican leader has also advised me he expects this 
bill to be done tonight. So we will stay here until we get a final vote 
on it. We are down to, I guess, two amendments --potentially two 
amendments from our side of the aisle. It would be great if we could 
get those wrapped up so we could close this bill up and get on to a 
supplemental which is very important.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It isn't the case, Mr. President, of us not being 
considerate, deliberate, and patient. The two amendments that could 
be--or one, perhaps--that could be offered, they have been put on 
notice publicly here twice by our distinguished leader, Senator Reid, 
myself, and others. And they have been contacted. I hope they get to 
this Chamber in the next few minutes because we just can't wait all 
afternoon and hear that they are getting together an amendment. This 
bill has been under consideration for 2 days.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I also say to my friend, in relation to the procedure 
around here, it is just out of the courtesy of the two managers of this 
bill that you are not moving forward.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
  Mr. REID. The managers have every right within the rules of the 
Senate to now move to third reading, but they have been very patient. I 
appreciate that. I hope the people who are trying to work out these 
amendments appreciate their patience.
  But also, on the other hand, the two managers have been in this 
Chamber all day long, in quorum calls most of the time. That is not 
appropriate. I hope people will understand that courtesy should be 
reciprocal.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished leader and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1560

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), for himself, Mr. Hatch, 
     and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1560.

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding discrimination 
                        against Arab Americans)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. (a) The Senate finds that--
       (1) all Americans are united in condemning, in the 
     strongest possible terms, the terrorists who planned and 
     carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United 
     States as well as their sponsors, and in pursuing all of 
     those responsible until they are brought to justice and 
     punished;
       (2) the Arab American and American Muslim communities, are 
     a vital part of our nation;
       (3) the prayer of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the 
     Archbishop of Washington in a Mass on September 12, 2001 for 
     our Nation and the victims in the immediate aftermath of the 
     terrorist hijackings and attacks in New York City, 
     Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania reminds all Americans that 
     ``we must seek the guilty and not strike out against the 
     innocent or we become like them who are without moral 
     guidance or direction.'';
       (4) the heads of state of several Arab and predominantly 
     Moslem countries have condemned the terrorist attacks in the 
     U.S. and the senseless loss of innocent lives; and
       (5) vengeful threats and incidents directed at law-abiding, 
     patriotic Americans of Arab descent and Islamic faith have 
     already occurred such as shots fired at an Islamic Center and 
     police having to turn back 300 people who tried to march on a 
     mosque.
       (b) The Senate--
       (1) declares that in the quest to identify, bring to 
     justice, and punish the perpetrators and sponsors of the 
     terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, 
     that the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, 
     including Arab-Americans and American Muslims, should be 
     protected; and
       (2) condemns any acts of violence or discrimination against 
     any Americans, including Arab-Americans and American Muslims.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on 
this amendment at 5:20 and that there be no amendments allowed on the 
bill prior to the 5:20 vote, and the time be divided between Senators 
Hatch and Harkin during the approximately 25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and Senator Hatch of Utah, and other cosponsors are Senator Reid and 
Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Also, Senator 
Hollings, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Feingold 
wanted to be added as cosponsors.
  The entire Nation has been shocked and dismayed at what transpired 
earlier this week in New York and at the Pentagon in Northern Virginia 
and in Pennsylvania. These were attacks on the American values of 
liberty, diversity, and tolerance; the terrorists hate us for what we 
are and what we believe in. As we mourn our dead and pursue the 
attackers, we must strive to protect not only the American people, but 
also our American values.
  I am truly saddened when I hear of malicious and sometimes criminal 
acts that have been committed all around the country in the last couple 
of days against Americans who may be from the Mideast, or whose 
ancestors may have been from the Mideast, who may be of Arabic dissent, 
or of the Islamic faith--but who had nothing at all to do with these 
attacks.
  Arab Americans and American Muslims have faced a terrible rash of 
hate crimes since Tuesday morning:
  On Wednesday, police turned back 300 people who tried to march on a 
mosque in Bridgeview, IL, a southwest Chicago suburb, waving American 
flags and shouting ``U.S.A., U.S.A.''
  I would like to read a quote from Governor Ryan of Illinois, who 
said:

       The terrorists who committed these horrible acts would like 
     nothing better than to see us tear at the fiber of our 
     democracy and to trample on the rights of other Americans.

  I think Governor Ryan had it right when he was responding to those 
marching on this mosque in a suburb of Chicago.
  Up to six shots were fired at an Islamic center in Irving, TX, a 
suburb of Dallas.
  A Molotov cocktail was tossed at an Arab American community center in 
Chicago.
  In Huntington, NY, a drunk 75-year-old man tried to run over an 
American Pakistani woman in a parking lot, then followed her into a 
store and threatened to kill her for ``destroying my country.''
  Two bricks with notes were thrown through the window of an Islamic 
bookstore right here in Alexandria, a suburb of Washington, DC. One 
note was addressed to ``Arab murderers.'' The other opened with an 
obscenity and said, ``You come to this country and kill. You must die 
as well.''
  Members of the Islamic community center in Sterling, VA, came to the 
center in order to give blood for the victims of the terrorists acts. 
When they arrived, they found their hallway spray-painted with black 
letters, several feet tall, saying, ``Die, pigs,'' and ``Muslims burn 
forever.'' Other

[[Page S9369]]

mosques and community centers have been vandalized, splattered with 
blood, and received hate messages, and more.
  These acts are attacks both on Americans and on our American values 
of liberty, diversity, and tolerance. They are acts of hate, as 
Governor Ryan said, that tear at the fabric of American society. We 
cannot accept them or let them go unanswered.

  It is especially ironic that these acts of hate have occurred despite 
strong Arab, Arab American, and American Muslim support for our country 
in the wake of the terrorist acts. Heads of state in Saudi Arabia, 
Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and other predominantly Muslim 
countries have strongly condemned the terrorist attacks and the 
senseless loss of innocent lives. American Muslims have lined up to 
give blood for those injured in the attacks, waiting in line for hours, 
along with so many other Americans. They are as saddened, sickened, and 
outraged at what happened as other Americans.
  The terrorist attacks were heinous crimes, and we will bring to 
justice and punish their perpetrators and those who aided or harbored 
them. But we must make sure that when we train our sights on the enemy, 
we do not harm innocent people in the crossfire. Again, I quote from 
Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, speaking at a mass on 
Tuesday:

       We must resist the temptation to strike out in vengeance 
     and revenge and, in a special way, not to label any ethnic 
     group or community for this action, which certainly is just 
     the work of a few madmen. We must seek the guilty and not 
     strike out against the innocent, or we become like them who 
     are without moral guide or direction.

  These outbursts of hate, this misplaced blame and labeling of an 
entire group, is not an inevitable response. When 168 people died in 
the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, some 
people immediately falsely assumed that Islamic extremists had done it, 
and the same kind of vandalism and hate speech occurred. Later, when we 
found out that the main perpetrator was Timothy McVeigh, nobody said 
all Christians are to blame.
  Not all Christian churches were attacked. No acts of hate against 
American Irish followed the bombing in Oklahoma City. We brought the 
perpetrator to justice, but we did not attack others simply because 
they may have looked like, or belonged to the same faith as, or had the 
same ethnic background as Timothy McVeigh.
  We should not paint with a broad brush those who may look the same, 
or have the same ethnic background or religion, as those who 
perpetrated these heinous acts on Tuesday.
  In Arabic, Islam means peace, and in the Koran it says:

       Whoever kills a soul unjustly, it will be written in his 
     book of deeds as though he killed all humanity.

  Chapter 5, verse 32 of the Koran.
  Those who are using the Islamic faith as some justification for the 
wholesale killing of innocent people are simply trying to cloak their 
murderous activities with the cloak of religion and the Islamic faith.
  The Islamic faith is a religion of compassion and mercy, of tolerance 
and justice, and we should not let those terrorists, those who kill 
innocent people, try to make the Islamic faith into something it is 
not.
  This amendment that Senator Hatch and I and others have sent to the 
desk expresses the sense of the Senate condemning the vicious backlash 
against our Arab Americans and American Muslims. The resolution also 
affirms the important role that American Muslims have played in America 
and in our world culture, and affirms the American values of religious 
freedom, rule of law, and civil rights.
  I hope this will be adopted unanimously as a strong statement of our 
enduring support for our constitutional framework of tolerance, civil 
rights, human rights, and diversity.
  In this time of national trial, we must come together with 
resolution, determination, and unity. We cannot afford hate, 
divisiveness, or prejudice, or we become like the terrorists.
  I urge all my colleagues, I urge all Americans to celebrate our 
diversity, to reaffirm the contributions and civil liberties of all 
Americans, including Arab Americans and American Muslims.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa for his work on this amendment. I am very pleased to join with him 
in this amendment. As a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and 
the current ranking member, I commend the good senator from Iowa for 
preparing an amendment that demonstrates America's inherent principles 
of justice and fairness for Americans of all backgrounds.
  American values require that we choose our enemies specifically and 
never do so by ethnic or racial identities. That is just the way our 
country is. Yet the incidents my distinguished friend from Iowa has 
recounted, of which I am aware, really indicate there are people out 
there who fail to recognize that there are wonderful Arab Americans and 
people of the Islamic faith who are just as patriotic and just as 
devoted to our country as anybody in this body, and there is little or 
no excuse for the kind of prejudice we have seen.
  The purpose of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is to have the 
Senate on record to let people know that we do not believe in 
prejudicial activities against any American citizen. All Americans 
should be free from discrimination, including Arab Americans and 
persons of the Islamic faith.
  We all know decent, dedicated and patriotic people among the Arab-
American and Muslim communities of our country. These people, in the 
finest tradition of the immigrant contribution to the American 
tapestry, have made and are making contributions in their communities 
and to our country.
  We all know how important it is for us to stand together against 
tyranny and prejudice. We all know that it is important for the Members 
of the Senate to be on record against these type of prejudicial 
activities.
  We oppose terrorists, not ethnic groups. We oppose the people who 
have done these horrendous, horrific acts, not U.S. citizens who are 
devoted to our country and who are just as horrified as any and all 
other Americans.
  We are going to do something about these terrorists. I believe that 
soon we will have sufficient identifications to be able to take very 
strong action against those who have committed these atrocities and 
against those who are harboring those who commit these types of 
atrocities. And the whole world, I believe, will be with us.
  It would be a tragedy if we as Americans commit acts of 
discrimination and violence against fellow Americans who may hold 
beliefs that are different from other fellow Americans or who may be 
ethnically different from other Americans. It would be a tragedy if we 
allow this to continue. It is important for all of us to embrace each 
other, to stand together against tyranny, to stand together against 
terrorism throughout this world, and some of the most vociferous 
antagonists of terrorism are Arab Americans and members of the Islamic 
faith.
  I know that my fellow Americans are all outraged at the events of 
last Tuesday. No one has an edge on outrage. No one, it seems to me, is 
more pure than anybody else when it comes to this. But it is simply 
unacceptable, immoral and illegal to take it out on people who are 
honorable, decent U.S. citizens or on people who support us throughout 
the rest of the world and especially in the Middle East as well.
  I commend my colleague for his initiative. He is doing the Senate and 
the country an important service. I consider it an honor to cosponsor 
this resolution with my dear friend, Senator Harkin and I hope 
everybody will vote aye on this particular sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution.
  Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Utah. I commend the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Iowa on 
their comments that there should be a clear-cut distinction between 
those who are responsible for terrorism and impugning any motives to 
any other Americans whatever may be their descent.
  We are a nation of immigrants. My parents were both immigrants. There

[[Page S9370]]

are Native Americans, but by and large this is a country of immigrants 
and ethnicity. Making judgments about people should not be based on 
their descent.
  When we talk about terrorism, we are talking about specific 
individuals who have committed specific acts subject to proof and not 
anyone else.
  I have sought recognition principally to have a discussion with my 
distinguished colleague from Idaho about the International Criminal 
Court. There was an amendment accepted by voice vote earlier which 
prohibited the use of any funds for the Preparatory Commission of the 
International Criminal Court. The matter will have to be resolved in 
conference.
  The House of Representatives has a different provision, and I want to 
discuss the matter briefly. I regret if I have caused any delay here.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the distinguished Senator will yield, the Senator 
from Iowa wants to ask for the yeas and nays on his amendment. Can we 
do that?
  Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Iowa wants me to yield for that 
purpose?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. And not lose the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I do that for the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. I was about to say I regret if I have caused any delay, 
although I do not know that I have. I was in the Chamber about 2:25 
p.m. to conduct the business I had, and other matters were being 
attended to on the floor at that time, and then the President asked the 
Members whose States were involved in the recent terrorist attack to 
come to the White House, and I came back from there as soon as I could.
  To the point on the International Criminal Court, I was a sponsor in 
the early 1980s of an international criminal court. At that time the 
thought was that the court would be directed to acts of terrorism, 
kidnapping, and hijacking, as well as drug dealing, when the world was 
faced with these enormous problems which could not be dealt with on the 
national level. We had at that time, in the early to mid-1980s and 
beyond, drug dealers operating out of Colombia where we could not 
secure their extradition.
  The thought then was that the drug dealers might be turned over to an 
international criminal court, but not to the United States, for 
prosecution. There was a riot outside the U.S. Embassy in Honduras 
involving some individuals whom the United States wanted to extradite 
to the United States. Again, an example of what might have been handled 
by an international criminal court. As to hijackers and terrorists, the 
thought then was that countries might cede custody of these individuals 
to an international criminal court, whereas they would not give custody 
to the United States because of national sovereignty and issues of 
ideology. Since the mid-1980s when a lot of impetus was made for an 
international criminal court, of which Senator Dodd and I were the 
principal cosponsors on resolutions--which I shall not burden the 
Record with at this time because we are getting close to the time of a 
vote--the International Court has turned in a very different way with 
the War Crimes Tribunal. The War Crimes Tribunal has been effective in 
bringing before it Milosevic and others who were war criminals on 
charges of crimes against humanity, and there has also been a similar 
tribunal in Rwanda.
  There has arisen a very difficult issue about the court asserting 
jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel and U.S. citizens based on 
what are essentially governmental decisions.
  When I was in The Hague talking to the War Crimes Tribunal prosecutor 
Carla Del Ponte, I was surprised to hear from her that she had given 
consideration to a possible indictment of NATO Commander General Wesley 
Clarke at the urging of Russia and Yugoslavia. Carla Del Ponte 
considered possible prosecution against General Clarke for targeting 
civilians or for using unreasonable force because the targeting of 
military installations resulted in injury to civilians.
  It seemed to me, and I said this to Carla Del Ponte, that such 
authority given to the prosecutor of the War Crimes Tribunal, or the 
prosecutor of an international criminal court, goes too far. Having had 
substantial experience as a district attorney, it should be determined 
whether indictment is going to be a fact question or a question of 
discretion on the part of the prosecutor. This should be considered 
when indicting someone of the standing of General Clarke, who is 
carrying out governmental decisions by NATO. I thought his indictment 
hardly fit what was conceived generally to be the jurisdiction of an 
international criminal court.
  It is my judgment the United States cannot be a party to an 
international criminal court which would consider an indictment 
illustratively of General Wesley Clarke. If the President takes action 
against terrorists under a resolution authorized by the U.S. Congress, 
who knows if that governmental decision is going to be subject to a 
prosecutor's judgment? That action would be outside of the range of 
what is considered a criminal act or what is considered traditionally, 
as a crime against humanity.

  All of this brings me to a concern that I have about the prohibitory 
nature of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho, which limits any funding to the Preparatory Commission. My view 
is the United States should participate in the Preparatory Commission 
in an effort to try to establish jurisdiction, which makes sense and is 
consistent with our principles. If we do participate in the Preparatory 
Commission, I am sure that we can affect the ultimate jurisdiction of 
the International Criminal Court. If we participate, I have a sense 
that the United States will be able to structure an international 
criminal court targeted in a realistic way and involving traditional 
criminal concepts as opposed to governmental decisions. There is a 
distinct possibly--again, not a certainty, but a possibility--that the 
International Criminal Court can be so structured.
  I am concerned that an international criminal court which does not 
have input from the United States will come into existence. Input from 
the U.S. could correct problems that may arise if the international 
criminal court seeks to exercise jurisdiction over Americans at a later 
date, even if we are not a member of the criminal court.
  International criminal law has taken a very expansive turn in modern 
times through efforts to prosecute people such as former U.S. Secretary 
of State Henry Kissinger and former Chilean President General Augusto 
Pinochet, and with courts in other countries exercising previously 
unheard of jurisdiction .
  It is my hope that in conference we can structure an arrangement 
where funding is not denied to the U.S. Government so that it can 
participate in the Preparatory Commission. U.S. participation in this 
commission would allow this country to work out these issues so that 
American citizens and citizens of other countries will not be subject 
to runaway jurisdiction, and so that we will not have Secretary 
Kissinger subject to prosecution again. General Pinochet of Chile is 
another matter, but I would rather be inside the tent than outside it 
when trying to deal with these issues.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding. I must 
say, in all respect to him, I have always appreciated the Senator's 
legal mind and the way he works through very difficult processes, and 
it does not differ here.
  He and I are extremely concerned about the very broad authority that 
appears to be given to a new court if it becomes ratified. That is why 
early this week I moved to deny our participation in it.
  It is arguable, by those to whom I have listened, that even a 
preparatory commission's involvement is not going to allow us to change 
the jurisdiction as prescribed by the Rome treaty. The Senator has 
every right to be concerned about this broadened authority

[[Page S9371]]

and efforts internationally to go after some of our officials for their 
responsible actions based on our public policy.
  The issue is that 30-some-odd nations have already ratified it. It 
takes 60 with or without our approval. It could become an operative 
court. It has an independent prosecutor who legitimately, by its 
actions, could go after anyone 18 years of age or older anywhere in the 
world. In other words, our sovereignty, our ability to protect our 
citizens, might only rest within our borders. It was not long ago that 
Henry Kissinger was in France and our Secretary of State had to 
intervene to protect him because a French judge was after him, trying 
to arrest him. This happened less than a few months ago.

  I think the Senator is right to be concerned at a time when our 
President is rallying internationally a coalition of nations to develop 
a strategy to go after international terrorism, that somewhere down the 
road that President might be held accountable by an international body, 
even though he had the express permission of this Nation and our people 
to protect this Nation and our people, and would choose to do so in an 
extraterritorial way.
  Those are very legitimate concerns. I do not know that our presence 
at the table can make the difference because it is my understanding we 
cannot change the basic premise or the intent of the Rome Treaty.
  I told my colleague from Pennsylvania that I will work with him in 
conference. Clearly, this has to be defined in a way that does not 
allow an arbitrary approach. I am concerned our presence at the 
Preparatory Commission in some way gives to the world an idea that we 
might be subliminally endorsing this concept. It must be clear we do 
not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the pending amendment has expired. 
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Voinovich
       
  The amendment (No. 1560) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have been very patient and very 
understanding. I am ready for the amendment or amendments that the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona has. But it has to be forthcoming or 
we will just move to third reading. If they don't want a vote for third 
reading, then we will move on to something else.
  This situation has really gotten totally out of hand with respect to 
the system for bills being considered on the floor of the Senate. That 
is the work of the Senate. That is front and center. From time to time 
there are amendments, and they are held up. It takes actually less time 
to work them out. So I am not all antsy that we have to be moving and 
voting every second. In fact, that is what we have been doing all 
afternoon. We have had a good afternoon working them out.

  But the Senator from Arizona has been put on notice. I understand 
that he is still trying to reconcile an amendment that some would agree 
to and then some would not agree to; and others are saying: Look, wait 
a minute. This is authorization on an appropriations bill; it covers 
the jurisdiction of several committees; it deserves to be heard before 
voted upon.
  I do not know that the point of order would be made of legislation on 
an appropriations bill. But I say this publicly so everybody is on 
notice. I do not want to say that we just abruptly moved for it. I do 
not have to get third reading. I have other work to do.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from South 
Carolina would yield for a question.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I share his sentiments in trying to move this bill and 
complete it. I wonder what would prevent us from going to third 
reading. Is there an objection to doing that?
  Frankly, when a bill has been on the floor a long period of time, and 
people are on notice, it seems to me they have some responsibility to 
be here to offer amendments.
  So I ask the Senator, what would prevent us from going to third 
reading at this point?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It would be the will of the Senate whether they want to 
continue or not. It would be an up-or-down vote. It would not be a 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might inquire further, obviously no one wants to 
shortchange the opportunity of any Senator to offer any amendment at 
any point.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
  Mr. DORGAN. But there comes a time, it seems to me, that when, if you 
have an amendment, you have a responsibility to come and offer it, and 
let the Senate decide.
  If there are those who have amendments, I hope they will come to this 
Chamber. I know the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from 
New Hampshire have been in this Chamber, literally begging for people 
to come and get these amendments to the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. And on this particular amendment, my understanding is 
that there are serious misgivings about it because, No. 1, it is 
authorization, a tremendous authorization bill affecting the 
intelligence activities and the different departments and the different 
committees involved there. And the committee chairman, I understand, 
would oppose it. I know two or three Senators who say they are going to 
oppose any amendment that involves legislation on an appropriations 
bill.
  So I am saying this publicly so no one will think that I am 
presumptuous or traumatic in any sense that I just cut somebody off. 
They are just cutting off the real work of the Senate because everybody 
is ready to vote on final passage of this measure.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee is in the 
Chamber. Maybe he can enlighten us as to where we are headed and that 
we should wait. I will, along with the chairman of the Judiciary.
  Mr. DORGAN. One final point, if I might, if the Senator from South 
Carolina will yield.
  I would encourage the Senator to consider going to third reading on 
this bill, or at some point there needs to come a time when the Senate 
says it is time to go to third reading if people are not going to be 
here to offer amendments.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. President, 
has been waiting patiently for 5 or 10 minutes to speak as in morning 
business. And then we will come back on to this bill. So I ask 
unanimous consent that he be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a brief moment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from South Carolina and my friend from 
New Hampshire, there are negotiations going on in the hall now. I have 
been told that within less than 10 minutes they will come in and report 
to the two

[[Page S9372]]

managers of the bill as to what progress has been made. They feel 
confident they will have something to offer. So we shall see.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Good.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')


                   Modification to Amendment No. 1559

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send a technical amendment to modify 
amendment No. 1559 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is to be so 
modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 24, line 19, strike ``$83,125,000'' and insert 
     ``$84,625,000''.
       On page 24, line 21, before the ``;'', insert the 
     following: ``, of which $1,500,000 shall be for the Standing 
     Against Global Exploitation (SAGE) Project, Inc.''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah is going to offer an 
amendment on his behalf and others'. I ask unanimous consent this 
amendment be the only first-degree amendment in order to this bill, of 
course, with appropriate second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1562

  (Purpose: To enhance the capability of the United States to deter, 
   prevent, and thwart domestic and international acts of terrorism 
             against United States nationals and interests)

  Mr. HATCH. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mrs. Feinstein, for 
     herself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1562.

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted and Proposed.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are all interested in moving forward to 
support this funding bill, and we broke through the barrier where this 
is the last pending amendment. We are also even more concerned that the 
Government have the right tools to hunt down and find the cowardly 
terrorists who wreaked such havoc 2 days ago. For this reason, I 
believe it is important to make available important tools to those 
investigating this and related matters. This amendment, in my opinion, 
is critical and should pass this evening.
  I have been working with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Kyl, and 
Schumer, on a package of reforms that can aid these investigations. I 
will highlight a few of the provisions to this bill.
  As the tragic events of this week have shown, one of the most 
essential tasks our Federal Government faces in the post-cold-war era 
is that of protecting our Nation and our citizens from the unprovoked 
acts of terrorism. In the aftermath of Tuesday's devastating attacks on 
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we, as lawmakers, must take 
every step possible to ensure, in addition to adequate financial 
resources, that the law enforcement community has the proper 
investigative tools at its disposal to track down the participants in 
this evil conspiracy and to bring them to justice.
  One of the most effective investigative tools at the disposal of law 
enforcement agencies is the ability to go to a Federal judge and get 
wiretapping authority. It is critical in matters such as this. That is 
the ability to intercept oral or electronic conversations involving the 
subject of a criminal investigation. The legislative scheme that 
provides this authority, and at the same time protects the individual 
liberties of American citizens to be secure against unwarranted 
government surveillance, is referred to in the criminal code as Title 
III. Among the many protections inherent in Title III is that only the 
investigations of certain criminal offenses, those judged to be 
sufficiently serious to warrant the use of this potent crime-fighting 
weapon, are eligible for wiretapping orders. The law lays out a number 
of crimes deemed by Congress to be serious enough to warrant allowing 
the FBI to intercept electronic and oral communications.
  Title III currently allows interception of communications in 
connection with the investigation of such crimes as mail fraud, wire 
fraud, and the interstate transportation of stolen property.
  Inexplicably, however, the Federal terrorism statutes are not 
currently included in Title III. I have been complaining about this for 
a long time and this is the time to correct it.
  Let me repeat that. Title III currently allows interceptions of 
communications in connection with the investigation of such crimes as 
mail fraud, wire fraud, and the interstate transportation of stolen 
property--important issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend. The Senate 
will be in order. Senators will kindly take their conversations off the 
floor.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. It takes care of those criminal activities, mail fraud, 
wire fraud, and the interstate transportation of stolen property, 
however the Federal terrorism statutes are not currently included in 
Title III. As a result, Federal investigators are often hampered in the 
use of this powerful tool when investigating terrorist incidents. We 
have to remedy that, and we should not let a day go by without 
remedying it. We should not let some of the petty aspects of this body 
stand in the way, not passing this type of legislation right now when 
it is really needed, on the day that, for the first time in my 25 
years, a vote was interrupted by a bomb threat and we all had to move 
outside.
  It is time to start fixing these laws. We can play around with 
commissions. We can play around with task forces. We can do a lot of 
other things, but I would like to fix it now.
  At this juncture of our history it is essential that we give our law 
enforcement authorities every possible tool to search out and bring to 
justice those individuals who have brought such indiscriminate death 
into our backyard. However, we must also be careful that in our quest 
for vengeance we do not trample those very liberties which separate us 
as a society from those who want to destroy us.
  We are fortunate that we already have in Title III a legislative 
scheme that balances these conflicting interests. We must not be 
hesitant to bring this very important tool--the wiretapping statute--to 
bear on the terrorists who threaten our national security. That is one 
of the things this amendment will do, and in my opinion one of the most 
important things that this amendment will do. But it is not all this 
amendment will do.
  Second, cybercrime is one of the fastest growing areas of criminal 
activities. Terrorists, criminals, and hostile governments are using 
computers as tools to perpetrate crimes, and are targeting computer 
networks to perpetrate acts of terror that, until this week, would have 
been unimaginable on American soil. Millions of dollars are lost 
annually as a direct result of this criminal behavior, and it is no 
longer a fantasy that thousands of lives could be lost in future 
terrorist incidents.
  The FBI is devoting an increasing share of its resources to combat 
cybercrime. It is up to us as lawmakers to ensure that, in additional 
to adequate resources, the FBI has the proper tools at its disposal to 
meet this new challenge.
  Title III allows the Department of Justice to go to a Federal judge 
and get authority to intercept oral or electronic conversations in 
connection with the investigation of criminal activity. The law lists a 
number of crimes deemed by Congress as serious

[[Page S9373]]

enough to warrant allowing the FBI to intercept communications. Because 
cybercrime is a relatively recent development, the Federal cybercrime 
statute is not currently included in Title III. As a result, Federal 
investigators could not use this powerful tool when investigating 
cybercrime offenses.

  Tuesday's despicable attack on the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon must serve as a wake-up call that we are vulnerable to attack 
in ways we have never imagined. A computer-based attack on our criminal 
justice infrastructure remains a very real possibility. I urge all my 
colleagues to agree to this amendment to provide our law enforcement 
authorities with the tools they need to effectively combat this growing 
menace to the security of our society.
  There are other important tools this amendment will provide, tools 
that those investigating the terrorist acts committed earlier this week 
will be able to use to prevent terrorist acts in the future. We put up 
with an awful lot of mistaken arguments around here throughout all 
these years that made it very difficult to put human intelligence to 
work in the interests of the protection of our people, and it is 
inexcusable, under these circumstances, to allow that to continue.
  As you know, in some cases, when dealing with human intelligence 
assets, sometimes you have to deal with unsavory characters because 
they are the only ones who can get inside and help us know the 
motivations of some of the people who are about to do terrorist acts. 
It is pretty pathetic that we cannot get our law enforcement people the 
ability to get wiretap authority against terrorists because they are 
not included in title III, unless there is some underlying criminal 
reason for doing so. We have to stop that. If we wait any longer, it 
seems to me, it is a big, big mistake, with the way people are afraid 
in this country, with what happened this week, and with the threats 
that continue to surround us throughout the world.
  I have a lot more to say on this, but I think, if I can, I would like 
to yield the floor to my colleague from Arizona, if he cares to take 
the floor, and he can talk about further aspects of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is my intention to be very brief, unless 
there is some objection to what we are doing, because I think all of us 
would like to get on with the adoption of this piece of legislation so 
we can conclude work on this bill. But just to ensure there is an 
adequate description of it, I would like to take a minute.
  I also ask unanimous consent that Senators DeWine, Sessions, and 
Thompson be added as original cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. I believe Senator Schumer will have some things to say in a 
moment. He may ask as well to be added.
  Let me be very clear about the intent of this legislation. This 
country has just suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. 
All of us are focused on the victims. We are focused on the terrible 
devastation and the individual lives impacted. But, as policymakers, we 
have also been asked some hard questions by our constituents and those 
questions include things such as: Why can't our Government do something 
about these horrible crimes? As policymakers, we have to respond to 
that. We have such an opportunity. I use that word advisedly because in 
the circumstances that put us where we are today, that word seems 
hardly appropriate. But we do have an opportunity, given the fact we 
are here doing business on behalf of the American people, and that part 
of that business is the bill that relates to the jurisdiction of the 
Justice Department, the funding for that Justice Department, and the 
fact that the bill before us, in fact, even includes some revisions in 
the law with respect to the authority to deal with terrorism. It sets 
up a special new office in the Attorney General's office, a Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, to deal specifically with terrorism, and in 
other ways deals with terrorism. Therefore, there is an ability for us 
today to focus on some additional improvements that can be made in our 
law to deal with terrorism.
  I hasten to say that this is not ``the answer'' to the problem of 
terrorism. In the first place, I do not think there is a silver bullet. 
There is no single answer. We already know that there are a whole lot 
of things we are going to have to do to improve our ability to detect 
it, to predict it, to stop it, and to enforce whatever action is 
appropriate after the fact.
  I am sure we will be creating commissions and we will be passing 
legislation. In fact, we are going to be passing an appropriations bill 
to begin to fund some of the cleanup of this in the very near future, I 
hope.
  There are a lot of things that we have to do. One set of things 
experts in terrorism have been telling us for a long time and the 
Director of the FBI has been telling us has to do with a few changes in 
the law that make it easier for our law enforcement people to do their 
job.
  I have a copy of just one of the three major commissions that have 
reported on terrorism. This is a report called ``Countering the 
Changing Threat of International Terrorism,'' a report from the 
National Commission on Terrorism. This was chaired by former Ambassador 
Bremer and Maurice Sonnenberg, both of whom testified before the 
Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, which I chaired at 
the time. In fact, all of these commission reports have been the 
subject of hearings before our subcommittee, as well as numerous other 
hearings dealing with the subject.
  In addition to that, we have had a lot of testimony from the Director 
of the FBI and other U.S. Government officials all imploring us to do 
some things to help in this battle against terrorism. We took a run at 
some of these things. In fact, we incorporated some of the provisions 
of these commission recommendations in the bill that passed the Senate 
a year and a half ago.
  It is hard to put a percentage on it, but maybe half of the amendment 
before us tonight embodies those same recommendations. So we have 
already voted on half of the things that are in this amendment. Some of 
the others have come later.
  The point is that we dealt with these issues. There has been 
legislation dealing with these issues. There have been numerous 
hearings about these issues. They were in effect lying on the table 
waiting for us to deal with them. Unfortunately, it is the case that 
even though from time to time we have put some of these ideas out, 
there has always been a reason not to do it, to wait, to defer, to hold 
off on that, and that we will have a comprehensive look at this or 
whatever it might be. We have to set our priorities around here.
  But those of us who sit on the terrorism committee--the Intelligence 
Committee and other committees of jurisdiction--have become 
increasingly restless because we keep getting briefed on the potential 
for terrorist threats, and we keep imploring our colleagues to please 
let us act on these things.
  Finally, we have an event that is so horrendous and so deplorable 
that all of America is asking us to declare war on terrorism. Indeed, 
that should be our attitude, in effect. So we are now faced with a 
challenge from our constituents, and they are absolutely right. What 
are you going to do about it? Of course, the first question they have 
been asking us is, What have you been doing about it? My answer is 
there are a whole lot of things you are going to see us doing that we 
need to do.
  We can start tonight with a few substantive changes in the law that 
will make an impact on our ability to fight these crimes of terrorism. 
Some of this bill calls for analysis and reports about some additional 
things that we might want to do. It will give us the factual basis for 
acting in the future. Some of the provisions are actual operative 
provisions that will take effect the minute the President signs the 
bill to begin to give our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the 
tools they need to better fight these kinds of crimes.
  The former chairman of the Judiciary Committee has just talked about 
a couple of these provisions--the so-called ``predicate crime 
provisions.'' It is incredible our law enforcement agencies have to 
begin investigating crimes of terrorism under the auspices of looking 
into other crimes. Maybe there is computer fraud or credit card fraud 
and we will use that as we look to investigate crimes which are really 
crimes of terrorism. With this, we call

[[Page S9374]]

a spade a spade, and say we are investigating terrorism. That is what 
we expect is the case. That gives us the legal authority to go to the 
judge and get the warrant or authority to move forward.

  In addition, we have an odd thing which crept into our policy that we 
change. It made sense when it was applied to other governments. We said 
we are not going to recruit people to spy on other governments guilty 
of crimes or human rights abuses. That is a policy. I don't think we 
were thinking about terrorism because it is pretty hard to infiltrate a 
terrorist organization with a Boy Scout. They sort of show. What you 
need are people who are accepted by these terrorist cells. Some of them 
are undoubtedly going to have some things in their background of which 
ordinarily we would not approve. But it is the only way they are going 
to get into the terrorist cell. We provide that kind of recruitment can 
take place.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. Yes. I am happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does the Senator understand that 
intelligence agencies today are unable to buy information--just to use 
that as example--from someone who might be part of a terrorist 
organization?
  Mr. KYL. If I could respond, that is not the issue we are addressing 
here--the purchasing of information. What we are addressing is the 
recruitment of what the intelligence community calls ``assets''--people 
who would be useful in infiltrating an organization and getting 
information out of that cell and sharing that information with us.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is the distinguished Senator from Arizona saying that we 
are unable to have what is called a retainer, or bribe, or anything 
else on a regular basis and have somebody who is part of the terrorist 
organization be giving information to us?
  Mr. KYL. This amendment doesn't deal with any question of payment for 
agent services. I presume we could do that. This amendment doesn't have 
anything to do with that. The problem that we have here is the former 
Director of the CIA created the policy because of some things that 
occurred in our past--if we are going to recruit assets, people who 
would do work for us, those people cannot have in their background 
human rights abuses. They cannot have that kind of background. That is 
a principle policy if you are recruiting somebody to act against 
another government. But when you are trying to infiltrate a terrorist 
organization, you are probably going to have to talk to people who 
themselves have pretty checkered backgrounds. If you could use those 
people--whatever their motivation; maybe they do it for money, or for 
some other reason--but if they are willing to give you information 
based upon their ability to find out what a terrorist organization is 
doing, then it is very valuable.
  As the distinguished chairman knows, our ability to collect 
information on these groups is very limited. Almost everybody in the 
community talks about the need for better human intelligence. Unless we 
are able to recruit the kind of people who could provide that 
intelligence, it is going to be pretty difficult for us to get it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator has the right to make his whole 
argument, and I don't want to interfere with that. Unfortunately, 
because this is something that we have had no hearings on, we haven't 
had the discussions in the appropriate committees--Intelligence, Armed 
Services, and Judiciary--we are somewhat limited in opposition. I will 
not cite numerous examples of situations which I think would make clear 
that we do not have the limitations. I know the concern the Senator 
from Arizona has. I don't question his concerns. But in open session, I 
am restrained from going into some of the very specific things where 
concerns he raised have been responded to in the law by our country. I 
will not. But that is why I would suggest something like this to the 
Armed Services Committee which has the ability to go easily into closed 
session, and often does. It would be able to look at it and make a 
recommendation to the Senate.

  Our committee would be able to make a recommendation to the Senate, 
which can be done relatively quickly, and the Intelligence Committee.
  I would feel far more comfortable voting on something like this if 
these various committees not only had a chance to look at it but that 
President Bush's administration--the Attorney General, the Director of 
CIA, the Secretary of Defense--would have the opportunity to let us 
know their views on it. I would feel far more comfortable with that. I 
worry that we may run into the situation where--all of us have joined 
together in our horror at these despicable, murderous acts in New York 
and at the Pentagon--we do not want to change our laws so that it comes 
back to bite us later on.
  Mr. KYL. I want to assure the distinguished chairman that we are not 
changing the law. This is simply a guideline the previous CIA Director 
felt was needed. We are not changing the law. We are not doing anything 
untoward or unconstitutional.
  Our constituents are calling this a war on terrorism. In wars, you 
don't fight by a Marquis of Queensberry rules. The time to be overly 
punctilious about who you get to work with you to get information from 
the enemy ought to come to an end.
  I will assure the distinguished chairman that we are assured that in 
the past this has not been too much of a problem. But the problem is, 
our folks are a little reluctant to try to go recruit people with the 
current limitations in place because of the difficulties that presents.
  All this does is to change a guideline--no legal statutory change--
that simply says if they believe particular people would be useful in 
gathering intelligence against terrorist organizations--it is 
specifically limited to that--then they may recruit those people even 
though there might be something in their background that suggests they 
have a checkered past.
  If we cannot use informants against terrorist organizations, which by 
definition means there are no good actors, then we start this war with 
one hand tied behind our back.
  There are a lot of other changes that we make in this amendment. Let 
me just illustrate the nature of the things we do. I think almost all 
of them are going to be very uncontroversial.
  We ask for a study on the role that the National Guard could play in 
these events.
  We say it is the sense of Congress that we should commence a long-
term research and development program to address catastrophic terrorist 
attacks. Our intelligence folks really need to begin R&D into 
techniques for dealing with things such as fiberoptic cable. It is very 
difficult to intercept communications. With things such as encryption, 
it is very difficult to hear what people are really saying. Times are a 
changing. We need to be able to develop the techniques to meet these 
new challenges. This simply expresses the sense of the Senate that we 
should get on with that.
  There is a section in this amendment that permits disclosure by law 
enforcement agencies of certain intelligence obtained by the 
interception of communications. We implement one of the recommendations 
of the Bremer commission, which said there is a lot of illicit 
fundraising for terrorist organizations going on in the United States. 
We need to get a handle on that. So again, we have the sense of the 
Senate in this amendment that Congress needs to do that. It is not a 
significant operational provision.
  We have a report required on controls on pathogens and equipment for 
the production of biological weapons. I think this is something 
everyone will support. There has been a lot of testimony on its need.
  There is a provision that our law enforcement people would like, 
which I think is eminently reasonable, and that is that they be 
reimbursed for the cost of professional liability insurance. When we 
send them off to do certain kinds of work and they may act in such a 
way that they are going to get sued, ordinarily the Government would be 
the party that is sued. But the Government is immune from suit, so the 
individual agents are sued. We would like to at least pay for part of 
their professional liability insurance when we have asked them to go 
off and do something.
  Then the final provision, other than the two Senator Hatch has 
already talked about, deals with authorities that the last Director of 
the FBI has implored our committee to give him for years. I will state 
the problem and then tell you what the solution to it is.

[[Page S9375]]

  When you do a wiretap, it is fairly straightforward. You go to a 
court, get an order based upon cause, and then you tap into the phone 
line. But with regard to computer attacks, whether it be a terrorist 
attack, all the way down to a hacker--and even hackers can cause a lot 
of problems, but what you want to do, hopefully in real time, is trace 
the attack back to its source, so you can stop it or you can prosecute 
the perpetrators. And if it is a terrorist attack, you want to get to 
it immediately.

  The problem is, these people are very clever. Someone, let's say in 
Afghanistan, will electronically hook into somebody in New Delhi. And 
then through that computer they hook into somebody at the University of 
California in San Francisco. And through that computer they hook into 
AT&T in Chicago. And through that computer they hook into the Pentagon.
  It is well known that you can do this. It is not apparently that 
difficult to do. Unfortunately, under the law, when the Pentagon starts 
getting hit, first you get a court order in Virginia. Then you go to 
Illinois and you get a court order there. Then you go to San Francisco 
and get a court order there. I don't know what you do in New Delhi. But 
the bottom line is, we need to have one place where you go get your 
court order, just like you do for a wiretap.
  That is what the FBI Director, on numerous occasions, asked us to 
provide, the authority to be able to do that. I can quote you page 
after page of his testimony asking for this. I will not do that in the 
interest of time.
  These are the kinds of things that law enforcement has asked us for. 
This combination is relatively modest in comparison with the kind of 
terrorist attack we have just suffered.
  Clearly, there are a whole range of actions that we are going to need 
to take, but the benefit of it is they have all been the subject of 
hearings or reports by these commissions. They are clearly the kinds of 
steps that we need to begin to take. And we can do that tonight on a 
bill which clearly relates to the subject and at least begin the 
process of assuring the American people that we are doing what we can 
do to stop these horrible events.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have been consulting with the chairman of 
the committee, and we are hopeful to get a vote on this amendment and a 
vote on final passage. We do intend, according to our leadership, to do 
that tonight.
  In the interest of time, I was wondering if we could reach a time 
agreement on this amendment. Obviously, the proponents of the amendment 
have just spoken, by my estimate, for about a half an hour. I was 
wondering if we could reach a time agreement where anybody rising in 
opposition would be able to claim a half an hour, and then there would 
be a final 10 minutes which would be equally divided. We would have a 
vote on this amendment sometime around 8:45. I ask unanimous consent if 
people would agree to that.
  Mr. LEAHY. I reserve the right to object; actually I will.
  I say to my distinguished friend from New Hampshire, I would be 
delighted to discuss that. I am still reading this amendment. We have, 
for example, the requirement for full reimbursement. It sounds like a 
good idea for people who are----
  Mr. GREGG. I ask the Senator, is there a time agreement the Senator 
would be comfortable with?
  Mr. LEAHY. I will be happy to discuss it with him. I thought it might 
be a little easier if I could get some of the questions I have 
answered.
  Mr. GREGG. I withdraw my request, then, and yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. There is----
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator might want to seek recognition.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if the proponents of the legislation could tell 
me, how much--I am not going to say we should not do this, but we have 
professional liability insurance, as it looks to me, for several 
thousands of people.
  Do we have any idea how much that would cost? Are we talking about 
$50 million, $100 million, $200 million? Can any of the proponents of 
the legislation tell me that?
  Let's say it is $200 million. We will just write that down. It is 
easy enough to say $200 million. We have something that has been put 
together in the last few minutes.
  So we have a requirement, notwithstanding any other provision of law. 
In other words, notwithstanding whatever other limits are in here, we 
shall reimburse for professional liability insurance for what appears 
to be several thousands of people.
  Heck, I would like to add to that maybe we could all get ours paid 
for at the same time. I know mine costs several hundred dollars a year.
  This might be a fine thing, but if we ask the CIA and the Justice 
Department to do that, it has to come out of their budget. They are all 
strapped for money to spend on fighting terrorism and whatnot. Are they 
willing to take a $200 or $300 million cut from their budget? I just 
ask the question. I have not heard an answer.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. I am not sure we know the exact amount, but what 
justification is there for these heroic law enforcement people who are 
doing the people's business to have to pay for their own liability 
insurance in case they get sued by a voracious trial lawyer who would--
--
  Mr. LEAHY. It seems to me the distinguished Senator from Utah 
misstated--and I assume by accident--what I said. I happen to be in 
favor of people who are going to be out there for our country getting 
their insurance paid for if they are in a situation where they do not 
come under the normal provisions that insulate them from suit.
  I know millions of dollars were spent by people from all the 
investigations that the Congress and others had against government 
employees, investigations that resulted in nothing in the end, except 
for the millions of dollars these people paid out of their own pocket. 
Sure, I think they should have insurance for that. I just ask the 
question: How much? And will this money come out of their other budget? 
If it is going to be $200 million or $300 million, let's have a line 
item for that. I will vote for such a line item.
  In here it says, on wiretapping, pen registers, trap and trace 
devices, if the court finds that a State investigator or law 
enforcement officer--it could just be an investigator; I don't know if 
this means a private investigator, a licensed PI--if they certify to 
the court that the information is relevant, if they just came in and 
said: Your Honor, I certify this is going to be relevant; I am a State 
investigator; I am the deputy sheriff of East Washtub--I apologize to 
anybody if there is such a town, East Washtub. Let's say I am a deputy 
sheriff on weekends and a mechanic the rest of the time, and I certify 
we need this, a State officer. Does that mean a Federal judge is going 
to stop things and give them the order?
  I have worked with some very good deputy sheriffs in my time. I am 
not sure that even with the best--some of them were darned good when I 
was a prosecutor--any of them are going to go into Federal court and 
say: I want to certify I need this wiretap or this pen register, trap 
and trace.
  I think we ought to at least know what that is, going into people's 
computers because the local investigator says, ``I want to.'' I am not 
sure if the authorities, under normal going into court, asking for a 
court order, having a hearing, can go into my computer; that is one 
thing. But if somebody goes out there, for example, and sees me having 
target practice outside my house--I have a pistol range out back of my 
house--and they say: I wonder how many guns he has; I want to go into 
his computer to find out just in case he has listed his ammunition 
purchases. Should they be allowed to? I would think some of those who 
are concerned about the rights of gun owners might be a little bit 
concerned about this provision. I am a gun owner. I am concerned.
  Authority to do wiretaps. It says here that we will redesignate 
paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Public Law 104-
132; 110 Stat. 1274, as paragraph (r); and (2) by inserting after 
paragraph (p) as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal 
Immigration

[[Page S9376]]

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, division C of Public 
Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565, the following new paragraph:

       (q) any criminal violations of sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 
     2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism). 
     . . .

  Does anybody want to tell me what that means? I thought we were here 
to give help to our law enforcement and our antiterrorist authority to 
go after people. I thought we were here to try to finish up a bill that 
the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire have 
worked on very closely--and the Senator from West Virginia and the 
Senator from Alaska--that would give money to our law enforcement 
agencies so we could go ahead and work and try to get the money which 
the city of New York and the State of New York desperately need after 
the horrific, murderous terrorist acts in that city. I thought that was 
what we were here for.
  I will not reread what I said, but to do something that nobody here 
on the floor can understand or explain, including the people who 
introduced the amendment.

  Now maybe somewhere there is a press release in there. Why don't we 
all send out a press release, a generic one that says we are against 
terrorists? No Member of the Senate is for terrorists. Why don't we say 
we are against murder? Of course we are. But then why don't we say what 
we are doing here? We are going to amend our wiretap laws so we can 
look into anybody's computers.
  If we are going to change all these things, if we are going to direct 
the Director of the CIA and, in effect, direct the President to change 
the rules of the CIA, something the President could have them do just 
like that, if the President really wants to--if we are going to do all 
that here, with no hearing, what does this do to help the men and women 
who were injured or killed in the Pentagon--and their families? What 
does this do to help the men and women in New York and their families 
and those children who were orphans in an instant, a horrible instant? 
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of children became orphans 
instantaneously. What does that do for them?
  Somewhere we ought to ask ourselves: Do we totally ignore the normal 
ways of doing business in the Senate? If we do that, what is going to 
happen when we get down to the really difficult questions?
  Maybe the Senate wants to just go ahead and adopt new abilities to 
wiretap our citizens. Maybe they want to adopt new abilities to go into 
people's computers. Maybe that will make us feel safer. Maybe. And 
maybe what the terrorists have done made us a little bit less safe. 
Maybe they have increased Big Brother in this country.
  If that is what the Senate wants, we can vote for it. But do we 
really show respect to the American people by slapping something 
together, something that nobody on the floor can explain, and say we 
are changing the duties of the Attorney General, the Director of the 
CIA, the U.S. attorneys, we are going to change your rights as 
Americans, your rights to privacy? We are going to do it with no 
hearings, no debate. We are going to do it with numbers on a page that 
nobody can understand.
  And by the way, we are going to tell the people who are working 
around the clock today to stop that and give us reports within 2 months 
on all these areas. By the way, we commend you for the work you are 
doing, but set aside a few dozen people and the President to give us 
these certifications. Part of it seems to me to ask the Attorney 
General to report back to us right away. We are asking the President to 
report back to us right away.
  Frankly, I think the Attorney General and the President have their 
hands full right now. I commend them for what they are working on. I 
have talked with the Attorney General several times over the last few 
days. He hasn't told me that he needs this investigation. He is pretty 
busy working on what he is doing. And I say Attorney General Ashcroft 
is doing a very good job.
  I have spoken to the Director of the CIA. He has not requested that 
we suddenly turn the attention of the Senate to this legislation. I 
haven't heard from the President that he wants to suddenly have them do 
a number of reports connected with this. Maybe it would make a lot more 
sense if we gave the chairman, the vice chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, and the chairman and ranking member of Judiciary a chance to 
actually have the kind of hearings necessary to know what we are doing 
so that we do not get into some of the problems we got into in the 
past.
  If we are going to change habeas corpus, change our rights as 
Americans, if we are going to change search and seizure provisions, if 
we are going to give new rights for State investigators to come into 
Federal court to seek remedies in the already overcrowded Federal 
courts, fine, the Senate can do that. But what have we done to stop 
terrorism and to help the people in New York and the survivors at the 
Pentagon?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of talk here. But we are 
talking about giving the tools to law enforcement that it needs to stop 
further terrorist acts in our society. You want the authority? I will 
tell you what the authority is right now. We don't need a lot of facts 
and statistics.
  This publication I hold in my hand is ``Countering the Changing 
Threat of International Terrorism,'' the report of the National 
Commission on Terrorism. By the way, every one of these principles in 
this amendment, the Justice Department wants, and wants badly, so that 
they can do their job to protect American citizens.
  This National Commission on Terrorism says, just to go back to the 
original point:

       By recent statute, a Federal agency must reimburse up to 
     one-half of the cost of personal liability insurance to law 
     enforcement officers and managers or supervisors.

  Here is their recommendation, and it is not a bunch of obfuscation; 
it is pretty darn straight:

       Recommendation: Congress should amend the statute to 
     mandate full reimbursement of the cost of personal liability 
     insurance for Federal Bureau of Investigation special agents 
     and Central Intelligence Agency officers in the field who are 
     combating terrorism.

  As I understand it, CIA officers do have this. So it is not something 
that hasn't been considered or discussed by the top echelons of people 
who are knowledgeable about terrorism.
  To get back to the provisions that we are considering, a lot of 
people in this country don't realize that you cannot tap the lines of 
the terrorists without some predicate reason for doing so. They are not 
in Title III of our code. This corrects that. It doesn't give law 
enforcement agents carte blanche to go out and do wiretaps. You still 
have to go to a judge. You still have to get the requisite authority. 
You have to present persuasive evidence to a judge to obtain wire-
tapping authority.

  But this is a tool that absolutely has to be had now, not a month or 
two from now. Let me go just a little bit further. This statute does 
not change the standard for trap and trace. It only adds emergency 
authority for the U.S. attorney. All trap and trace applications are 
approved by a Federal judge. You have to make your case before a 
federal judge. It isn't some wild-eyed breach of personal privacy. It 
gives us some tools to go get the terrorists. Local sheriffs cannot 
apply for trap and trace under these new provisions. Only U.S. 
attorneys can. I get a little tired of that type of talk. I have heard 
the suggestion that anybody can go in, and anytime some local sheriff 
wants to, he can tap a computer. That is unmitigated bull.
  Let's talk about the computer situation. Currently, a judge's order 
applies only in the jurisdiction where it is issued. Typically, hackers 
go from computer to computer, leaving a trail that law enforcement has 
to follow. Investigators must go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction 
obtaining a trap and trace in every jurisdiction in order to follow a 
hacker's trail. Let's put it terms of a terrorist who happens to go in 
all 50 States. That means that, in order to investigate, law 
enforcement has to go in every State in the Union to a Federal judge 
and get authority to do what ought to be done overnight in front of a 
single federal judge. Under the amendment we are proposing, it can be 
done overnight by going to a single federal judge.

[[Page S9377]]

  These are the kinds of things that bother me. This is what this 
amendment will do.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to sit down soon because I know we are 
ready to vote soon.
  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee suggested that a prosecutor 
could get a wiretap for anything they wanted under our amendment. With 
all due respect, under Title III, a prosecutor must still go to a 
judge, just as he or she would when investigating wire fraud or 
interstate transport of stolen property. If this amendment is passed, 
the only change would be that a prosecutor could get wiretapping 
authority with respect to a terrorism or cyberterrorism offense.
  Is terrorism or cyberterrorism as important as that? Will a judge 
apply a different standard in issuing authority for those wiretaps? You 
and I know a Federal judge will not do that. I think the answer is 
obvious. Why should we dither when we know that these tools will help? 
The FBI are the Justice Department strongly support for these important 
reforms. Let us adopt them now, and fight these problems now. We are 
not altering the Constitution or taking away the people's rights. We 
are helping to give the tools to our law enforcement community to stop 
terrorism. We are helping law enforcement help us to be safe and to 
investigate the crimes like those committed this week.
  There is a lot more I could say. I understand we are ready to vote. I 
wanted to set the record clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will respond only because my name was 
mentioned in this last debate and the implication was made as to what 
my position was. Let me state my position to be accurate on the Record. 
I read this to say: If the court finds that the State investigative or 
law enforcement officer--obviously two entirely different things--has 
certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by 
such installation used is relevant to an ongoing criminal 
investigation, they get the order.
  That is what the amendment says. You could have a State investigator, 
not even a sworn police officer, come in and say: Your Honor, I certify 
that this is relevant; give me the order. It seems to me as though the 
judge has much choice. We do it to fight terrorism on computers. How is 
a terrorist defined? We know what terrorism was at the trade towers. Is 
a terrorist somebody who comes in and says: I want to come in armed and 
make a statement, carrying a legally registered, licensed weapon and 
make a statement: I should have an easier time to carry my guns? Some 
people may feel terrorized. In my State, it would be routine. Is it 
terrorist activity if somebody blocks a contractor who wants to tear 
down trees to open up a development and have sent e-mails to their 
friends about this? Is that terrorist activity? It is easy to define 
terrorism.
  It says, however, if you come in from wherever and say you are the 
private investigator hired by the contractor, you say: Hey, I certify 
this, give me the order, and you get it. Fine, if that is what we want. 
I would be a little bit concerned about our own rights as Americans.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have one question I want to ask, perhaps, 
of my friend from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have not had a chance to read this language until 
tonight. I guess that is part of the problem. It also is clear this is 
going to be adopted. I want to ask one question for the record.
  This amendment goes beyond changes in the wiretap law as it relates 
to terrorism; is that correct? The language is ``any ongoing criminal 
investigation.''
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. So it is broader than terrorism. I am not debating merits 
plus or minus. I am trying to understand what is in it since it came to 
me for the first time tonight. I want to be very clear, at least the 
way I read this, that this is not something that is just limited to 
counterterrorism, about which I think all of us would have a passion.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. HATCH. The wiretapping provision is a broad investigational 
authority. It is not limited just to terrorism, but, currently, 
terrorism is not included in that authority. It is one of the defects 
in our system. All we are trying to do is get it included so we can 
find these people, and we can do it. Even so, before being granted 
wiretapping authority, you have to make a case, before a Federal judge, 
that you have probable cause to believe that the subject of the wire-
tapping order has committed a serious criminal offense.
  Mr. LEVIN. If my friend will yield further, I understand we want to 
make sure terrorism is included in our statutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  Mr. LEVIN. This amends, though, our statutes. I am not arguing the 
pros and cons. It amends not just terrorism, but it amends the wiretap 
law and all criminal activity, including terrorism; is that correct?
  Mr. HATCH. It adds terrorism to Title III. In addition, it upgrades 
wiretap laws to include computer terrorism, cyberterrorism, even right 
down to illegal hacking.
  Mr. LEVIN. But it does not relate.
  Mr. HATCH. Because those offenses are not currently covered in Title 
III, and we need to correct that defect or we cannot resolve these 
problems with regard to terrorism.
  Mr. LEVIN. I tend to agree with our friends that we need to 
strengthen the law on that point. I want to be clear on one point: We 
are not adding terrorism to make sure we are covered. We are applying 
these new standards to all criminal activity, not just terrorism.
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct, but keep in mind, our current laws are 
antiquated laws based upon telephones, where now we are in the area of 
cyberterrorism, and we must upgrade the laws to take care of that.
  Mr. LEVIN. I make one request of my good friend from Vermont, the 
chairman, because he has raised some important questions about making 
sure we take the time to know what we are doing. We are not going to 
have that time tonight. That is obvious. I express the hope, given the 
kind of points that have been made here, that it would be possible, 
before this comes back in the form of a conference report, for there to 
be some review of some of these provisions by the Judiciary Committee.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we will try our best. We are, of course, 
under the same limitation as everybody else trying to get a lot of work 
done. I had planned in the next week or so to do a number of judicial 
hearings. I suppose we can spend the time doing this. It probably would 
make some sense.
  We do not define terrorism, but we say we are adding that. I guess 
some kid who is scaring you with his computer could be a terrorist and 
you could go through the kid's house, his parents' business or anything 
else under this language; it is that broad.
  Again, the Senate can vote for whatever it wants. I certainly hope we 
would put in, and I will support the money for the liability insurance. 
The problem, I suspect, is with several hundred million dollars. But if 
that is what we want, we should do it. Let us make sure we know. I will 
try to get the time for people to work on this during the next couple 
of weeks to try to answer the questions.
  The Senator from Michigan asks a legitimate one. We will set aside 
virtually everything else in the Judiciary Committee to get an answer. 
Had I or our staff been asked about this, we probably could have had 
those answers, but I saw it about 30 minutes ago, about the same time 
the Senator from Michigan did.
  I tell my friend from New Hampshire who asked a question earlier, I 
have no objection to voting any time the Senator from New Hampshire 
desires to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have had a very good debate on this 
amendment. We have had two people who feel very strongly about the 
issue explain very well their respective positions, and the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee indicated he will hold further hearings on 
this. He is concerned about the way this amendment arrived.
  The fact is, a lot of times legislation, as the Senator from Utah and 
the Senator from Vermont know better than I,

[[Page S9378]]

they both having served here longer than I, sometimes ends up this way.
  I hope we can get rid of this amendment at the earliest possible 
date. It is my understanding the proponents of the amendment have 
agreed to accept a voice vote. It is clear this amendment will be 
agreed to. When this bill goes to conference, the two veteran 
legislators who are managing this bill will be able to deal with some 
of the problems that have been raised tonight.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Helms be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1562.
  The amendment (No. 1562) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 satellite home viewer improvement act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when Congress enacted the Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) in 1999, I well remember, as ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee, that we amended the Copyright Act to 
authorize satellites to carry local channels into local markets. We 
knew at that time, however, that satellites would be unable to carry 
local TV stations on a must carry basis.
  To address this limitation, we did two things. First, we delayed 
implementation of a full must-carry obligation until January 1, 2002, 
so as to give the industry time to upgrade their satellites to handle 
more channels. I regret that the satellite industry has challenged the 
must carry requirement on constitutional grounds, but also observe that 
a federal court recently threw out their lawsuit. Second we directed 
the FCC to make ``final determinations'' regarding license for 
alternative technologies that could deliver local channels on must-
carry basis to markets that the satellites would not be able to serve.
  I know my friend from New Hampshire shared my interest in this issue, 
as we both hail from states with television markets that are considered 
too small to receive local channels via satellite. Could my friend 
refresh for the record what last year's appropriations bill for the FCC 
had to say about this matter?
  Mr. GREGG. I thank my friend from Vermont for raising this. As the 
Senator stated, the SHVIA gave the FCC 1 year from the date of 
enactment, or November 29, 2000, to make a final determination 
regarding licenses which had been filed at the FCC in January 1999. 
Thus, Congress effectively gave the FCC nearly two years to make a 
``thumbs-up-or-thumbs-down'' decision on these applications.
  As we were putting together last year's CJS appropriations bill, it 
became apparent to us that the FCC was not going to follow that 
statutory directive by acting on the license applications. Accordingly, 
we inserted report language into the conference report reiterating and 
clarifying the SHVIA directive. Specifically, we wrote that the FCC 
``shall take all actions necessary to complete the processing of 
applications for licenses.''

  When the November 29, 2000, deadline was reached, however, the FCC 
did not fully satisfy the directive.
  I would ask my good friend from Hawaii, who, as a senior member of 
the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee and as the Chairman of the Commerce 
Subcommittee on Communications, is uniquely qualified to share his 
expertise on this FCC matter.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friends from New Hampshire and Vermont for 
their interest in this issue. The satellite ``local-into-local'' 
problem is indeed a problem in our states, but we are far from alone. A 
new watchdog group, Equal Airwaves Right Now!, or EARN, recently 
released a study which projected that DBS carriers will not carry any 
local TV stations in 17 states next January, when the must-carry 
obligation takes effect. Ten more states will find that less than a 
quarter of their stations are carried by DBS. All told, 80 percent of 
all television markets will not have any local TV service via 
satellite.
  This is indeed a problem that the FCC should address as soon as 
possible. So I will concur with the sentiments of my colleagues and 
reiterate once again to the FCC that we expect the agency to make a 
determination on these long-pending license applications before the 
year is over.
  Only one company has satisfied the statutory directive to demonstrate 
through independent testing that its terrestrial service will not cause 
harmful interference to DBS. Thus, on this ground alone, it would 
appear that the FCC cannot hold a spectrum auction, because, with only 
one qualified applicant, there can be no finding of mutual exclusivity. 
I'm also concerned about any further postponement of the deployment of 
this service that would deny consumers the immediate savings that would 
come about with the entry of a new competitor in the marketplace, which 
some have estimated will total $1 billion.
  For all of these reasons, I think it is more than realistic for the 
FCC to issue licenses for this new service by the end of this year 
without resorting to an unnecessary and inappropriate auction.
  I believe the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee would 
also like to add some comments. He is particularly well qualified on 
this as he is also a member of the Commerce Committee, which like the 
Judiciary Committee, had jurisdiction over the SHVIA.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii. He and my colleagues 
from Vermont and New Hampshire have correctly recited the legislative 
history and I agree that the FCC did not fully satisfy either the SHVIA 
directive or the CJS clarifying directive. That said, I do want to 
commend the FCC for advancing the ball forward, so to speak, by 
establishing a Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service 
(MVDDS), after having concluded that it is technologically feasible for 
the terrestrial license applicants to share spectrum with satellite 
providers.
  I would also remind my colleagues that last year's appropriations 
bill for the FCC also required applicants who applied to share spectrum 
with DBS operators to show, through independent testing, that their 
terrestrial systems can safely share spectrum with satellites. It is my 
understanding that only one applicant, Northpoint Technology, submitted 
its transmission equipment to the MITRE corporation for the required 
independent test. The MITRE report confirmed the FCC's earlier 
determination that terrestrial-satellite spectrum sharing is feasible.
  The FCC's comment period for the independent test was statutorily 
limited to 30 days. The opponents of this new service could contest the 
findings forever, if we let them. We must insist that the FCC respect 
that deadline by promptly making a final determination on the 
Northpoint applications. It is time for the FCC to make good on the 
original statutory directive and, better late than never, finally issue 
the licenses. It has how been over 2\1/2\ years since Northpoint filed 
its license applications, and we need the FCC to complete action on 
these applications now so that this new service can enter the 
marketplace in a matter of months, not years.


                              Hydro Plants

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg and 
Senator Hollings for their help. As Senator Gregg knows, American 
Tissue has closed its mills in Berlin and Gorham with only a few 
employees keeping the hydro plants in Gorham running. These employees 
are not being paid. The mills have supported these communities for 150 
years and are the largest employers in the north country. In addition 
to people being out of work, American Tissue owes the towns millions of 
dollars in back taxes and water bills. The EDA has visited the area and 
has seen first hand how desperate the situation is and I would like to 
encourage them to do whatever they can to provide these communities 
with additional help.
  Mr. GREGG. I, too, have visited the region and they are truly in need 
of assistance. I would like to thank Senator Smith for bringing this to 
the attention of the full Senate and will work with my colleague to 
ensure this area receives the necessary help.

[[Page S9379]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. The situation does indeed sound severe. Hopefully we 
can provide some assistance.


                         Coastal Salmon Funding

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to clarify with my 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the disposition of certain 
funds earmarked by the Senate report language for the Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2002. This earmark, for $1 million within the 
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, addresses natural threats to the 
southern Oregon/northern California coho salmon in the Klamath River. I 
would like to clarify that since this earmark is out of the funds 
provided for the State of Oregon, these funds are to be spent within 
the State of Oregon.
  I can assure my colleagues that there are such overwhelming needs 
related to water quality in the Upper Klamath River Basin that these 
funds would be spent effectively in Oregon to improve water quality or 
enhance flows for the Klamath River system overall. Is that also the 
understanding of my colleague from Oregon?
  Mr. WYDEN. It certainly is. I believe it is imperative that, since 
these funds are allocated to the State of Oregon, they be spent for on-
the-ground activities within Oregon. These funds will be an important 
component of the near-term solutions that the Oregon delegation is 
trying to put together, literally as we speak, in order to assure more 
stability in the operation of the Federal Klamath Project next spring.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I think that is certainly appropriate, and I have no 
problem agreeing to such a clarification, provided it is agreeable to 
my colleague, Senator Gregg.
  Mr. GREGG. That is agreeable to me as the ranking member on the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce.
  Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that clarification on this issue of such 
importance to the State of Oregon.


                         mecklenburg county, NC

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, It would be helpful if Senator Edwards and 
I can discuss, for the record, with the distinguished Chairman of the 
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations subcommittee, 
two matters of considerable importance to the citizens of Mecklenburg 
County, NC.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be delighted to discuss these matters with the 
distinguished Senators from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the able Senator. Mr. President, I would be remiss 
if I did not start by thanking the chairman and the ranking member, 
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, as well as their outstanding 
staffs, for all of their hard work in putting this bill together. I 
know that all involved have invested long hours and that you have made 
many difficult decisions. Senator Edwards and I are grateful for the 
support that we received for several vital initiatives in North 
Carolina that are intended to improve public and officer safety.
  In particular, I am grateful for the willingness of the committee to 
agree to our request for $500,000 to help equip a new Sex Offender 
Registration Unit at the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office. 
Tragically, sex offenders are, at once, among the most difficult 
criminals to convict of their crimes and among the most likely to 
commit new offenses.
  North Carolina law requires convicted sex offenders to register with 
local law enforcement and to notify the police of their change of 
address. The safety of the public in general, and the safety of our 
children in particular, is placed in jeopardy when a convicted sex 
offender fails to comply with N.C. registration laws. Statewide, 
approximately one in ten convicted sex offenders does fail to register.
  North Carolina's largest county in terms of population, it is perhaps 
not surprising that Mecklenburg is also the leader in the number of 
registered sex offenders. Over the past few years, there have been at 
least 15 separate instances where offenders that were required to 
register were later apprehended and convicted of subsequent charges of 
molestation or the rape of a minor child. Ever one such case is one too 
many.
  The abhorrent nature of these crimes demands that we do everything we 
can to ensure that sex offenders are not able to victimize others when 
they return to our communities. This $500,000 will help the Mecklenburg 
County Sheriff's Office to property identify, register, and consistent 
with North Carolina law, track these heinous offenders after their 
release from prison.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his 
remarks. He is correct about the high rate of recidivism among sexual 
offenders. We were delighted to be able to accommodate the request of 
the Senators from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the chairman. In addition to the $500,000 provided 
for the Sex Offender Registration Unit, there is one other matter 
involving the county that I would like to address. Senator Edwards and 
I combined our efforts in support of the county's request for 
$3,000,000 from the COPS Technology Program for the Criminal Justice 
Information System. Upon receiving the committee's report, we were 
pleased to note that the money requested for CJIS was included but we 
also noted that the reference to Mecklenburg as the intended recipient 
was inadvertently omitted. If the chairman would be so kind as to 
clarify the committee's intent with respect to these funds, then I 
would be most grateful.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am glad to be able to address this 
matter. The committee was impressed by the fact that Mecklenburg County 
has already committed $8,500,000 to upgrade its criminal justice 
history information systems and intends that the $3,000,000 designated 
for CJIS be used by the county to assist in their ongoing efforts.

  Mr. HELMS. I again thank the chairman and my good friend, Senator 
Judd Gregg, for their vital support on these projects. I would also 
like to recognize the efforts of Senator Edwards and his staff who 
worked diligently to promote these initiatives.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges facing the 
criminal justice system is the question of how we ensure that convicted 
criminals do not repeat their crimes when they are released from 
prison. In my State of North Carolina, there are laws that attempt to 
address this issue in order to make our communities safer places to 
live and work. These laws require sex offenders to register with law 
enforcement whenever they move into a new county in the State, and 
require law enforcement agencies to locate and arrest sex offenders who 
fail to comply with any part of the registration laws. The 
establishment of a Sex Offender Registration Unit at the Mecklenburg 
County Sheriff's Office will enable the Sheriff to keep better track of 
offenders that move into the County, and to identify sex offenders who 
do not comply with registration laws. Funding for the Unit is critical 
toward ensuring that our communities are kept safe from individuals who 
intend to repeat their crimes and prey on some of the most vulnerable 
members of our society--our children. I greatly appreciate the support 
of Senators Hollings and Gregg for this important project.
  Also, as my distinguished colleagues indicated, the committee report 
appropriated $3 million for the Mecklenburg County Criminal Justice 
Information System. The demands of modern, large, urban law enforcement 
systems, such as Mecklenburg County's, are numerous. That is why the 
CJIS project is so important. CJIS will help local law enforcement 
agencies and court services to manage and compile information about 
their cases and to share electronically maintained subject and case 
data in real time. The end result will mean increased efficiency and 
effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Mecklenburg County and 
the surrounding region.
  Again, I thank Senators Hollings and Gregg for their generous support 
of these projects. I also thank Senator Helms for his tireless efforts 
on these and the many other appropriations projects that we have worked 
so closely on together.


                            methamphetamine

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I understand that Missouri is waging quite a battle 
against Methamphetamines.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. The Senator from South Carolina is correct. The rural 
nature of Missouri and its location in the middle of the country have 
led to a sharp increase in methamphetamine production and trafficking. 
In fact, I am sorry to say that Missouri now

[[Page S9380]]

ranks second in the nation in clandestine meth lab seizures.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. In order to combat that problem, we are including 
$1,100,000 in Fiscal Year 2002 funding for the Missouri Drug 
Eradication Initiative.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Those funds will go a long way to enabling Missouri's 
hard-working law enforcement officers to combat this epidemic. I would 
like to spell out exactly how these funds will be distributed in order 
to maximize their effectiveness:
  $105,000 will go to the Southwest Missouri Drug Task Force to 
implement a coordinated, cooperative enforcement effort to reduce, 
disrupt, and dismantle the narcotics trade in a four county area.
  $110,000 will be for the Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force to target 
manufacturing, importation, and distribution and related violent crime 
in Southwest Missouri.
  $100,000 will enable the Northeast Missouri Narcotics Task Force to 
provide drug enforcement and assistance to city, county, state, and 
federal authorities that operate within the region.
  $120,000 will be for the Joplin Crime Lab for new equipment and staff 
salaries to analyze and assist law enforcement in fighting 
methamphetamine and other illegal drugs.
  $110,000 will provide the Southeast Missouri State University Crime 
Lab in Cape Girardeau with funding to assist with relocation into a new 
building on SEMO's campus and funding for new equipment to analyze and 
assist law enforcement in fighting methamphetamine and other illegal 
drugs.
  $110,000 will help the North Central Missouri Drug Task Force to 
implement a coordinated, cooperative enforcement effort to reduce, 
disrupt, and dismantle the narcotics trade in a seven county area.
  $100,000 will support the West Central Missouri Drug Task Force's 
mission to combat illicit drug interdiction within a nine county area.
  $145,000 will go to the Combined Ozarks Multi-jurisdictional 
Enforcement Team (COMET) to aggressively investigate and seek reduction 
of drug violations that occur within the area.
  The Mid-MO Unified Strike Team and Narcotics Group--MUSTANG--will 
receive $100,000 to support its efforts to combat meth and other 
illegal drugs.
  The South Central MO Drug Task Force will receive $100,000 to target 
manufacturing, importation, and distribution of narcotics in South 
Central Missouri, including the Mark Twain National Forest.
  I am extremely pleased that these funds have been included in this 
bill. I am confident that these resources will have a meaningful impact 
on Missouri law enforcement's efforts to make our state safe and drug-
free.


THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE NATIONAL CENTERS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                       AND CORRECTIONS TECHNOLOGY

  Mr. STEVENS. The fiscal year 2002 State, Justice, Commerce bill fully 
funds the President's request for the National Institute of Justice. I 
commend the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for 
providing full funding.
  Among other things, NIJ provides support for a series of National 
Centers for Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology which test and 
evaluate new law enforcement technology and equipment for various 
purposes.
  Last year Congress provided $1.2 million to establish a new center in 
Alaska to provide cold weather testing capability. I have received 
reports that all the centers in the lower 48 States would be funded in 
the President's request, but the new Alaska Center would be zeroed out. 
That certainly is not understanding of the committee's intention, and I 
note that the committee report was silent on this point. Could the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the chairman of the 
subcommittee help me clarify this point?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It is the committee's intention that the Alaska Center 
as well as the national centers in the lower 48 States continue to be 
funded through the National Institute of Justice. There was certainly 
no intention on the part of the subcommittee to zero out the Alaska 
Center. Within the funding that is agreed upon in conference with the 
House for the National Institute of Justice, it is my hope and 
expectation that we will be able to continue funding all the centers 
nationwide at the fiscal year 2002 level. If reductions are required in 
conference, they will occur proportionally, and if increases are 
possible, they would also be spread proportionally among the existing 
centers.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee. There was 
never any intention of zeroing out the new Alaska Center. We will work 
with the Senator from Alaska to include language clarifying this issue 
in the statement of managers when we meet in conference with the House 
to work out the differences between the two versions of the bill.


                washington state methamphetamine program

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, methamphetamine production and use has 
had a devastating effect on many communities across our country, and 
tackling this problem has been very challenging to law enforcement.
  Meth has a particularly large impact on my state. We rank number two 
in the nation in meth production and use. Last year, local law 
enforcement raided five times the number of meth labs than they did the 
year before in Washington.
  The impact on our health and the environment are extensive. The 
byproducts of meth production are highly toxic and hazardous and pose 
serious threats to the public at large. Meth is produced with toxic 
chemicals and generates dangerous byproducts. Because manufacturing can 
take place in the basements of homes and other populated areas, 
innocent neighbors are often placed in danger by meth production. There 
are also serious safety issues due to the risk of fire and explosion 
associated with the chemicals involved. Furthermore, the toxins that 
are used and discarded as a part of meth production have serious and 
long term impacts on the environment, and the clean-up cost are 
substantial.
  The use of this drug can also have a severe impact on families and 
children. People who use and make meth put children and their families 
at risk of hazardous contamination and often live in unsanitary 
conditions. Meth uses also tend to emotionally and physically abuse 
those around them.
  With that, I yield to my colleague from the state of Washington, a 
member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Cantwell.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank Chairman Hollings and my colleague, Senator 
Murray, for their tremendous work on this bill and am particularly 
grateful to the Chairman for his clear understanding of the complicated 
law enforcement and natural resource issues facing the western states 
and wish to thank him for his attention to those matters in this bill.
  I believe that we are facing an epidemic in this nation that has the 
potential to be every bit as devastating as the crack cocaine epidemic 
of the early 1990s. That epidemic is the rapidly spreading abuse of the 
drug methamphetamine. Except that unlike crack cocaine, meth will not 
devastate our inner cities--it will instead primarily devastate our 
rural communities.
  I am sure that the Chairman is aware that rural areas are uniquely 
hospitable to meth production, and the paranoid users of meth seek out 
rural areas because they know that our law enforcement officers are 
spread thin, and that they lack the manpower and the resources to 
constantly find and destroy new labs. A study by the National Center 
for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia found that eighth graders 
living in rural America are 104 percent more likely to use amphetamines 
than eighth graders in urban areas.
  This is the reason that we are intent on ensuring that local law 
enforcement agencies have as much assistance as possible in fighting 
the further spread of the drug. I hope that the Chairman and the 
members of the Subcommittee can work closely with those of us on the 
Judiciary Committee as we work to assess the local need for federal 
resources in the months to come. Again, I thank the Chairman and yield 
back to my colleague from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriation 
Subcommittee, of which Senator Hollings is Chairman and I am a member, 
has responded to this problem by providing money under the Community 
Oriented Policing Services Program to

[[Page S9381]]

help local communities and law enforcement combat meth production and 
use. In this year's bill, we have provided a good number of resources 
to deal with the meth problem, including an earmark for the Washington 
State Methamphetamine Program.
  Is it the intent of the Appropriations Committee that the money 
provided for the Washington State Methamphetamine Program be spread 
among the participating counties in Washington State, which include the 
counties of King, Benton, Snohomish, Kitsap, Spokane, Thurston, Pierce, 
Lewis, Grays Harbor, Mason, Cowlitz, Clark, Grant, Chelan, and Yakima?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Committee has long recognized the problems 
associated with the use and production of Methamphetamines, and we have 
provided real money to help local communities and law enforcement deal 
with this problem. It is the intent of this Committee that the money 
made available for the Washington State Methamphetamine Program be 
spread among the counties that you have mentioned. I do look forward to 
continuing to working with the Senators from Washington on this issue 
in the future.


                  pacific coastal salmon recovery fund

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask Senator Hollings, am I correct in 
my understanding that the Manager's Amendment to the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2002 includes an additional 
$4,000,000 for Washington State's share under the Pacific Coastal 
Salmon Recovery Fund, raising the total for Washington State to 
$24,150,000 and the total for this account to $74,000,000?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from Washington State is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his assistance in this 
matter.


              coastal protection and restoration projects

  Ms. LANDRIEU. It is my understanding that of the $31 million provided 
for ``Coastal Protection and Restoration Project'' in the National 
Ocean Service Account of the Senate Committee Report of the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2002, $15 million is 
to be provided to the State of Louisiana and $15 million is to be 
provided to the State of Alaska for coastal impact assistance. This 
funding is to be allocated to and used by the States of Alaska and 
Louisiana in accordance with the coastal impact assistance program 
authorized in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill, fiscal 
year 2001.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from Louisiana is correct.


                           oregon groundfish

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Chairman Hollings, 
for accepting the amendment I sponsored to provide funding to aid 
Oregon groundfish fishers and their families. I also want to thank 
Chairman Hollings for providing this opportunity to clarify, for the 
record, how the money provided by this amendment should be spent.
  This amendment provides $2,000,000 in additional National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration funds for Cooperative Research on West Coast 
groundfish. It also provides $3,000,000 in additional NOAA funds for 
emergency assistance for the Oregon groundfish fishers suffering from 
the groundfish fishery disaster resulting in more than 40 percent drop 
in income since 1995.
  The $2,000,000 for cooperative research surveys will be used by the 
National Marine Fisheries Service to put currently out-of-work 
groundfish fishing vessels and their owners to work doing annual 
groundfish data collections. In Oregon, and along with the West Coast, 
the National Marine Fisheries Service sets harvest regulations 
regarding 83 species of groundfish but collects data on only 16 
species. They do so every three years instead of annually, as they do 
in many other fisheries. This funding for annual surveys means jobs for 
displaced fishers and reliable economical and educated labor for an 
agency that claims it can't do its work because it doesn't have enough 
money or manpower. It also means better fisheries data, which should 
yield better fisheries management and benefit the environment and local 
fishers.
  The $3,000,000 for economic assistance is provided for fishers 
impacted by the loss of the August court case in which the Natural 
Resources Defense Council sued NMFS and won because NMFS used 15-year-
old data to set groundfish harvest levels. Allowable harvests have been 
cut by an average of 64 percent over the past five years, and for some 
species it has been cut by 90 percent. This court order will result in 
further catch reductions. These folks are on the ropes; if they can't 
fish, they can't pay their bills. They need some help while they figure 
out what to do next as almost 3,000 of them try to transition into 
other lines of work. This assistance money should be used for single, 
lump sum payments to vessel owners who are suffering from these 
financial losses. The precedent for this type of payment can be found 
in the Hawaii longline fishery where fishers received $3,000,000 of 
emergency assistance through the Secretary of Commerce in FY 2001 after 
the courts shut down their swordfish and tuna fisheries.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I understand that the $2,000,000 for cooperative 
surveys is to be used for annual West Coast groundfish surveys in 
Oregon, as well as to provide work for displaced Oregon groundfish 
fishers. I further understand that the economic assistance money is 
intended for vessel owners to tide them over these difficult times. I 
appreciate the Senator bringing this important issue to light and I am 
happy to have been able to help his constituents on this important 
issue.


         new technology to aid fbi's innocent images initiative

  Mr. GREGG. As the distinguished Chairman of the State, Justice, 
Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee knows, we have provided 
substantial funds through the years to support Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) efforts to catch child predators and pornographers 
engaging in criminal activity on the Internet. The FBI's first 
undercover operation in this field of investigation, code named 
``Innocent Images,'' was initiated in 1995. Six years later, Innocent 
Images is an FBI National Initiative, supported by annual funding of 
$10 million, with undercover operations in eleven field offices.
  The FBI's Innocent Images Initiative utilizes undercover agents 
posing as children on-line to identify and investigate potential sexual 
predators. Under current practice, the FBI's Innocent Images Initiative 
relies on individual agents posing as children in on-line ``chat 
rooms.'' Thus, the effectiveness of the program is necessarily limited 
because human resources are limited.
  Recently, I became aware that a company called Spectre AI has 
developed new technology that has the potential to increase vastly the 
effectiveness of the Innocent Images Initiative. Spectre's technology 
utilizes computers that are capable of monitoring large numbers of on-
line chat rooms simultaneously. These computers are programmed to 
search for certain key words or phrases for which agents are trained to 
spot when on-line looking for child predators and pornographers. When 
such key words or phrases are identified, Spectre's artificial 
intelligence program carries on a limited, two-way dialogue with the 
potential child predator. Simultaneously with the initiation of this 
two-way dialogue, the Spectre technology notifies an FBI agent, who 
then takes over the investigative chat-room dialogue.
  This new technology developed by Spectre AI has the potential to 
increase exponentially the number of Internet chat rooms that the FBI 
can monitor. Thus, it holds the promise of an enormous leap forward in 
the effectiveness of the FBI's ``Innocent Images Initiative'' and its 
goal of protecting our Nation's children from sexual predators and 
pornographers.
  Does the Chairman agree with me that Specter AI's new technology 
should be carefully reviewed by the FBI for possible utilization in its 
``Innocent Images Initiative''?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am intrigued by the new technology that the Senator 
has described. I certainly will join you in encouraging the FBI to give 
it consideration.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings 
for considering this amendment. For purposes of clarification, it is my 
understanding that this amendment will decrease funding from the 
National Oceanic and Atomospheric Agency

[[Page S9382]]

(NOAA) Procurement, Acquisition and Construction account by $500,000, 
specifically from the ``Norman Consolidation Project,'' and add the 
same amount, $500,000, to the International Trade Administration, Trade 
Development account for International Trade Processing Center Programs 
in McCain County, Oklahoma. Is that how the Senator from New Hampshire 
understands this amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes. That is exactly how I understand the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. We are happy to accept this 
amendment.


   designation of the ft. smith, arkansas INS office as a sub-office

  Mr. GREGG. I would like to discuss the need to designate the 
Immigration and Naturalization office located in Fort Smith, Arkansas, 
as a Sub-office, with an Officer-in-Charge.
  I understand that the area serviced by the Fort Smith INS office has 
experienced tremendous growth in its Hispanic population and needs this 
designation in order to efficiently administer and enforce our nation's 
immigration laws.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. That's absolutely correct. As you know, according to 
the 2000 Census, Arkansas' Hispanic population grew by 337 percent over 
the course of the past decade, a rate of growth which is believed to be 
the fastest in the nation. In the Third Congressional District, where 
the Fort Smith office is located, Hispanics now comprise 5.7 percent of 
the total population. This phenomenal growth is shown even more 
poignantly when one considers that the Northwest Arkansas county which 
is home to the University of Arkansas, Washington County, experienced a 
629 percent increase in its Hispanic population. Needless to say, this 
influx of new immigrants is putting a significant strain on the 
provision of basic immigration services.
  Mr. GREGG. Can you give me an example of how a Sub-office designation 
would reduce that strain?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Currently, the staff of the Fort Smith office are 
processing a significantly greater number of cases than was originally 
planned and doing so without a corresponding increase in staff. Thus, 
it is common for a person's work permit or travel document to be 
unnecessarily delayed due to the fact that the Fort Smith office simply 
does not have the resources necessary to locally process the 
application. A Sub-office designation, and the Officer-in-Charge that 
would accompany it, would allow the Fort Smith office to administer 
oaths of naturalization, authorize arrest warrants, issue intentions to 
fine, and process other administrative matters.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention 
and we will look into this situation in conference.


                           fy02 scaap funding

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with a number of my colleagues 
and the Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee, the 
Senator from South Carolina, to discuss funding for the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program, popularly known as SCAAP.
  As the Senator knows, States and localities across the nation, 
especially those with high immigration populations, face extraordinary 
costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens.
  The burden continues to grow, for high impact States like California, 
for example. In February 1997, there were 17,904 undocumented felons in 
the California correctional system with Immigration and Naturalization 
Service holds. By the end of February 2001, there were 20,937 illegal 
alien inmates in the system with INS holds. California taxpayers can 
expect to spend $571.2 million this year to cover these costs.
  Over the past few years, the SCAAP program has reimbursed roughly 33 
percent of the costs incurred by State and local governments. Since 
1997, the authorization level for SCAAP has been $650 million. Funding 
for the program peaked at $585 million in FY 1999, and dropped to $565 
million in FY 2000.
  Given the rising costs associated with criminal alien incarceration, 
the legislation my colleagues and I had hoped that Congress would see 
fit to fully fund this important program at the authorized level of 
$650 million.
  I am concerned that the bill reported by the committee makes dramatic 
cuts in federal funding for SCAAP, reducing the level of funding by 53 
percent to only $265 million.
  Given the urgency of the need and the fact that all 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and more than 360 localities received 
SCAAP funding in the most recent reimbursement period, I would like to 
inquire of my friend from South Carolina if there is something that can 
be done to increase funding for this bill for SCAAP to a more 
appropriate level.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks 
of my good friend, the Senator from California, and also look forward 
to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the subcommittee to 
resolve the funding disparity in the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program (SCAAP).
  Before I begin my comments about this important program and the level 
of funding in the Senate Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill, I 
want to state my full support for the $565 million funding level for 
SCAAP in the House FY 2002 bill. Through the Crime Control Act of 1994, 
the Congress created SCAAP to reimburse states and localities for the 
costs they incur incarcerating criminal illegal aliens. Such costs, it 
has been made clear, are the responsibility of the federal government. 
SCAAP has been authorized at $650 million, although total expenditures 
of the states and localities exceeds $1.6 billion per year. Though the 
financial burden to process and incarcerate criminal illegal aliens 
overwhelms the budgets of many states and localities, SCAAP has never 
been allocated its full authorization. Over the past five years, SCAAP 
has usually been funded at levels between $500 million and $600 
million, which has provided states and localities reimbursement of 
about 30 cents for each dollar spent on incarceration.

  The Congress would be doing the right thing if it allocated $1.6 
billion. In FY 2001, the state of Arizona and its localities incurred 
costs of well over $30 million to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens, 
and received $18 million in federal reimbursement--when SCAAP was 
funded at $585 million overall.
  To reduce the total 2002 SCAAP fund from its $565 million level to 
$265 million (a $300 million decrease), is unacceptable. Should funding 
be reduced to $265 million, all 50 states, D.C., and the increasing 
number of localities that incur costs, which now receive an 
unacceptable 30 cents for each dollar spent, will receive an even more 
unacceptable level of reimbursement.
  Mr. President, I very much hope that Senators Gregg, Hollings, 
Feinstein, Graham and I can work to resolve these issues before this 
bill is signed into law.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I join with my colleagues to stress the importance of 
adequate funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. When 
our state and local law enforcement undertake the task of assisting the 
federal government in areas of complete federal jurisdiction, such as 
immigration, we need to ensure that we are not unfairly shifting the 
cost burden of this task to our state and local partners. The 
incarceration of criminal aliens, when undertaken by state and local 
governments, should be reimbursed. SCAAP is a good first step--it 
reimburses some of the costs--we should do more. But at the very least, 
we should ensure that at least the $565 million allocated in the House 
bill is available for SCAAP this year.
  Each of our states receives reimbursement from SCAAP. Our law 
enforcement community counts on this funding, and it is our obligation 
to ensure that our federal responsibility is met.
  I am pleased to be working with so many dedicated colleagues on this 
matter, and look forward to working with the Committee on an issue of 
such importance to each of our states.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for his encouraging words. As I 
am sure he knows, the SCAAP reimbursements provided in prior years did 
not nearly cover the costs states and localities incurred to 
incarcerate illegal aliens in their jurisdictions.
  In Fiscal Year 2000, the last year for which such cost figures are 
available, the cost for states and localities amounted to more than $11 
billion. Thus, last year's funding level covered only $565 million, or 
5.1 percent, of the actual costs.

[[Page S9383]]

  A cut along the magnitude of that which is included in the Committee 
bill would be absolutely devastating. The State of Wisconsin would lose 
more than $1.1 million in funding; Rhode Island would lose over 
$900,000; Pennsylvania would lose over $1 million. Thus, even states 
which have not traditionally had to confront the growth in illegal 
immigration are bearing the costs of this Federal responsibility.
  When the Federal government fails in its responsibility to control 
our nation's borders, local taxpayers should not have to foot the bill 
for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens in State and local 
jails.
  I will work closely with my colleagues in both bodies during the 
weeks to come to insure that this bill adequately funds SCAAP.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, obviously the highest priority as a nation 
is addressing every aspect of the terrorist attacks that took place in 
our country earlier this week. That is now and should be in the 
foreseeable future our primary concern as a Senate, a Congress and as a 
country. Part of responding to that concern includes demonstrating to 
ourselves and the world that we can carry on the very important 
business of our country. That business includes election reform.
  I now address the issue that will become increasingly important as 
our Nation and our deliberations in Congress return to normal. This is 
the issue of funding for election reform. I appreciate this opportunity 
to include an amendment as part of the managers' amendment to H.R. 2500 
(S. 1215). This bill contains appropriations for the Department of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
the fiscal year 2002.
  My amendment provides a $2 million placeholder for election reform in 
fiscal year 2002. These Federal dollars would be used to fund a Federal 
grant program administered by the Department of Justice to States and 
localities for election reform improvements nationwide.
  The amendment that I have crafted is identical to the provision 
inserted in S. 1398, the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. The 
Committee on Appropriations included a $2 million placeholder in the 
Federal Election Commission appropriation for administering a program 
to award Federal matching grants to States and localities to improve 
election systems and election administration for fiscal year 2002. The 
report to accompany that bill, S. Report 107-57, notes the intent of 
the committee that ``once such a program is enacted into law, the funds 
should be available to immediately begin this process.''
  My provision mirrors this language. Legislation ordered reported by 
the Rules Committee on August 2, 2001, S. 565 provides for a Federal 
grant program to the States and localities to fund election reforms, 
including funds to meet minimum national requirements for voting 
systems standards and technology, provisional voting, and distribution 
of sample ballots, with voting instructions and voting rights. The bill 
funds the grant program through the Department of Justice. The Senate 
will debate this legislation later this fall. This amendment preserves 
the ability of the Senate to fund reform through either the Department 
of Justice, the Federal Election Commission, or both.
  I firmly believe that it is the obligation of the Congress to provide 
both the leadership and the resources for election reform. The reforms 
are necessary to provide guidance to States on election administration 
and technology and to re-establish public confidence in our elections 
system. Similarly, the financial resources are essential to support 
States and localities in implementing, maintaining and weaving those 
vital election reforms into the fabric of our American democracy.
  My amendment for a $2 million placeholder is at the same level of 
support that is currently included in the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill for election reform.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment. It is essential that we include the $2 million placeholder 
now to preserve our ability to negotiate actual funding levels for 
election reform in conference.
  Further, I also urge my colleagues to support the companion provision 
for election reform in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill when it 
is debated on the Senate floor in the near future.
  I will support both provisions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this 
bill, Chairman Hollings and Senator Gregg, for accepting this 
amendment, and to thank Senators Durbin and DeWine and Congressmen Hall 
and Wolf for their leadership on this issue. I also want to recognize 
the NGOs that have worked so hard on this bill, and to recognize the 
diamond industry itself, which has come forward to work with the 
advocates and with Congress.
  I now serve as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs. I have been to the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo. I have been to Angola. And, most 
recently, in February I traveled to Sierra Leone.
  In each of these places, I have met amputees, refugees, widows and 
widowers and orphans. I have seen the tragic consequences of the near 
total disruption of a society--the malnourishment, the disillusionment, 
the desperation. And each time, I have been sickened by the knowledge 
that some people are getting rich as a result of this misery.
  I believe that our national values demand that the United States 
disassociate itself from the trade in conflict diamonds.
  But over the years that I have served on the Africa Subcommittee, I 
have also worked on issues relating to countries like South Africa and 
Botswana. These states depend upon their legitimate diamond industries 
to fuel economic growth and development. It is critical to distinguish 
between the entirely legitimate diamond exports of a country like 
Botswana, and the diamond trade that has helped the RUF and UNITA to 
sustain bloody wars.
  This legislation will help to build momentum behind the multilateral 
efforts currently underway to regulate the diamond trade and to create 
a ``clean stream'' for the legitimate diamond industry and consumers to 
rely upon. It is my hope that the action we take today will encourage 
the governmental authorities, advocacy groups and industry 
representatives gathering in London to work toward a multilateral 
solution. They must take decisive action to implement a rigorous 
regulatory regime, not retreat into half-hearted calls for self-
regulation.
  It is equally important to be honest about the fact that stopping the 
trade in conflict diamonds is not the silver bullet that will stop the 
conflicts in West Africa or the D.R.C. or Angola. These complex crises 
call for nuanced and multi-faceted policy responses. But this one 
element--de-legitimizing the trade in conflict diamonds--will make it 
more difficult, and less lucrative, for some of the most odious actors 
on the international stage to continue pursuing their violent and 
abusive agendas. It is unquestionably a step worth taking.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate voted in favor of an 
amendment I offered with Senators Bond and Collins to increase funding 
for the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers 
program from $12 million to $13.7 million, by using some additional 
funds from the Agency's Salaries and Expenses account. I thank all my 
colleagues for their support of this important resource for women 
around the country who are working for economic independence and 
working to provide jobs and opportunities for others in their 
communities.
  Today is not the first time the Women's Business Centers have been 
supported from both sides of the aisle. On April 6th, the full Senate 
agreed by voice vote to a similar amendment Senator Bond and I offered 
to the Senate Budget Resolution. Like today's amendment, that 
amendment, Amendment No. 183, increased the funding for Women's 
Business Centers from $12 million to $13.7 million.
  I am encouraged by our ability to work together and reinforce the 
good work of the Women's Business Centers. When a Center trains an 
entrepreneur, she knows how to approach a lender for a loan, knows how 
to manage her business, and understands the hows and whys of marketing.
  Let me give you two examples of women who sought assistance from the 
Women's Business Center in Boston, the Center for Women & Enterprise.

[[Page S9384]]

  Nancy Engel went from struggling to raise her family on public 
assistance to owning her own mail order and catalog company and 
creating four jobs. She not only helped herself, but has shared her 
better fortune by employing other mothers who have the flexibility to 
make it home in time to meet their kids at the school bus.
  And then there's Sarah Byrne--a computer specialist who lost her job. 
Fed up with being at the mercy of a big company, she launched her own 
computer company, Complete Communications. With the help of CWE, Sarah 
has grown her company in Wakefield, Massachusetts, to about 14 
employees.
  I think it's remarkable that the program opened its first 12 centers 
in 1989 and today women have access to training and counseling at 
almost 100 sites. I also think it's remarkable that over the past 
decade the number of women-owned businesses operating in this country 
has grown by 103 percent to an estimated 9.1 million firms, generating 
$3.6 trillion in sales annually, while employing more than 27.5 million 
workers. I want to encourage this trend.
  In closing, I want to thank Senator Hollings and his staff for all of 
their help and support of not only this amendment but for the Small 
Business Administration in general. Again, I thank all my colleagues 
for voting in favor of this amendment, and Senators Bond and Collins 
for offering this amendment with me. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       In the appropriate place in the bill regarding 
     appropriations for Salaries and Expenses of the Small 
     Business Administration, insert the following after the 
     phrase ``by section 21 of the Small Business Act, as 
     amended'': ``Provided further, That $13,700,000 shall be 
     available in fiscal year 2002 to fund grants as authorized by 
     section 29 of the Small Business Act.''

  Mr. CRAIG. I rise today to express my extreme concern about 
developments in the Republic of Korea that have far reaching negative 
implications for United States semiconductor companies.
  I am referring to the massive and unjustified government bailout that 
the South Korean government is providing to Hyundai Electronics, now 
known as Hynix.
  Today, I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on this issue. I 
am joined by my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, in this effort.
  To date, the South Korean government and the government-owned banks 
have given Hynix over $5 billion in loans and other types of financing 
which carry the guarantee of the government of Korea. This is a subsidy 
pure and simple.
  Now the Korean government is planning on giving Hynix additional 
loans to keep them solvent.
  In the year 2000, Hynix was the world's largest producer of dynamic 
random access memory--or D-RAM--an important type of memory 
semiconductor that is used in everything from personal computers to 
satellites. Hynix has captured over 24 percent of the world 
semiconductor market.
  However, Hynix achieved such a large share of the global market not 
because it is particularly good at making these semiconductor chips, 
but because it borrowed excessively and built up enormous capacity.
  Last year, Hynix became unable to service its debt. Hynix lost over 
$2 billion in 2000, and is expected to lose over $3 billion this year 
on sales of a little over $3 billion.
  By any reckoning, this company would have failed were it not for 
government assistance.
  Now, Hynix is broke and cannot repay the loans it took out to finance 
its expansion. Verging on bankruptcy, Hynix has been kept alive by the 
South Korean government through infusions of new cash.
  Far from solving the company's problems, however, these government 
subsidies are just plunging Hynix deeper into debt.
  This behavior circumvents normal market forces and has very severe 
implications for the companies in the U.S. and the rest of the world 
that are forced to compete with Hynix's illegally subsidized products.
  Over the past several months, the Korean government has given 
assurances to me, to my colleague Senator Crapo, and other Members of 
this body, as well as Ambassador Zoellick, Secretary Evans and 
Secretary O'Neill, that the Korean government will stop giving these 
subsidies to Hynix--subsidies that clearly violate our international 
trade agreements.
  Now, the Korean government seems poised to violate these assurances 
completely, destroying the U.S. semiconductor industry in the process.
  The Sense of the Senate resolution I am offering outlines these facts 
and calls upon the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of 
Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative to request 
consultations with the Republic of Korea under Article 4 and Article 7 
of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World 
Trade Organization.
  This amendment further asks that the Administration take any other 
actions that are necessary to assure that the improper bailout by the 
Republic of Korea is stopped, and its effects fully offset or reversed.
  I hope my colleagues will support this sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
and will join me in calling on the Korean government to stop 
subsidizing Hynix and to stop this dangerous distortion of the 
international semiconductor market.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill, 
Senator Hollings and Senator Gregg, for working with me to include an 
amendment I offered to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations 
bill. The amendment is the Bruce Vento Hmong Veterans' Naturalization 
Extension Act. The Act is named after my late colleague and dear 
friend, Congressman Bruce Vento. Congressman Vento dedicated much of 
his career to working with the Hmong community in Minnesota. He worked 
for a decade to ensure the passage of the Hmong Veterans Naturalization 
Act. This amendment would make it possible for all eligible Hmong 
veterans and their wives to receive the benefits they are due under 
this Act by extending the application deadline from November 26, 2001 
to May 26, 2003.
  With less than 3 months remaining before the deadline passes for most 
of those covered under the Act, only 25 percent of all eligible 
applicants have filed for citizenship. Advocates for the Hmong believe 
it will be impossible for all those eligible to file by the deadline. 
The Hmong community has faced many challenges in getting veterans and 
their wives filed. The Department of Justice did not release its 
guidelines for 2\1/2\ months and many INS regional offices were 
unfamiliar with the guidelines for a period of time after that, 
resulting in eligible Hmong applicants being turned away. The language 
barrier that created the need for the Hmong Veteran Naturalization Act 
in the first place has meant that many Hmong needed assistance from 
Hmong community advocates to understand the citizenship process and to 
fill out the citizenship application. These advocacy organizations are 
vastly under-resourced and are overwhelmed by the demand for help from 
Hmong applicants.
  I want to make it clear. This amendment would not increase the number 
of eligible applicants. It in no way would change the other 
requirements of the law. It simply would provide a necessary extension 
for existing eligible applicants.
  As the Senator from Minnesota, I am proud to represent one of the 
largest Hmong populations in America. My experience as a Senator has 
become much richer as a result of coming to know the history and 
culture of the Hmong people in Minnesota. I deeply respect their 
extraordinary efforts in support of the American people. When the 
Conference Committee meets, I urge my colleagues' strong support of 
this amendment so it may become law when this bill is passed. The 
original Act was passed because of Hmong veterans' tremendous sacrifice 
on behalf of the United States during the Vietnam War and because of 
the unique literacy challenges the Hmong community faces. It would be 
wrong to deny the benefits of the Act to eligible veterans for reasons 
that are beyond their control. Let us fulfill the intent of the Act we 
passed last year and ensure that these veterans and their families 
receive the benefits they are due.

[[Page S9385]]

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I congratulate Chairman Hollings and 
Senator Gregg for including in this appropriations measure a grant of 
$500,000 to the National Capital Area Council of the Boy Scouts of 
America for its ``Learning for Life'' program that serves 20,000 
students in Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland. This is not a new 
program; the Congress has funded it for the past two years. By 
continuing to fund ``Learning for Life'' for another year, thousands of 
young people in the Washington metropolitan area will be able to 
participate in an innovative program that helps them develop social and 
life skills, assists their character development, and helps them 
formulate positive personal values.
  ``Learning for Life'' is designed to support our schools in their 
efforts to prepare youth to successfully handle the complexities of 
contemporary society and to enhance their self-confidence and 
motivation. It prepares youth to make ethical decisions that will help 
them achieve their full potential.
  At a time when drugs and gangs are ravaging our schools and 
communities, this program is a catalyst to help stop this trend. 
Teachers use age-appropriate, grade-specific lesson plans that give the 
boys and girls in our schools the skills and information that helps 
them cope with the complexities of today's society. By making academic 
learning fun and relevant to real-life situations, the core values and 
skills learned by the students participating in this program prepare 
them to participate in and provide leadership in American society.
  Senators Hollings and Gregg have been, and continue to be, strong 
supporters of efforts to enhance educational opportunities for the 
youth of our country. The thousands of boys and girls who participate 
in this program join me in expressing our gratitude for the continued 
leadership of Senators Hollings and Gregg.
  I am also thankful for the support of Senators Thurmond and Sessions 
who joined me in working to continue funding for ``Learning for Life.''
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to address two important 
international trade issues raised in this bill: trade in conflict 
diamonds and trade adjustment assistance.
  I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Durbin for taking on the important 
issue of so-called ``conflict diamonds.'' As we have all seen reported 
in the press, the struggle for control of diamond mining areas in 
Africa by various rebel groups have led to the commission of some 
terrible atrocities against unarmed civilians.
  My colleagues Senator Gregg and Senator Durbin have both introduced 
bills aiming to stem the trade in conflict diamonds. I applaud them for 
their efforts.
  The appropriations measure that we are considering today includes 
language that would implement S. 1084, Senator Durbin's bill to halt 
U.S. imports of conflict diamonds. Some of the measures used in this 
legislation to respond to the conflict diamond problem fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Therefore, the preferred method 
for considering this measure would be to hold a hearing and mark up the 
bill in the Finance Committee.
  In this case, however, there is a certain urgency to taking action on 
the issue of conflict diamonds in order to halt the atrocities that 
continue to take place in Africa and restore the confidence of the 
diamond-buying public in the United States. In addition, Senator Gregg 
and Senator Durbin have worked closely with me and with each other to 
make sure that the substance of this provision is acceptable to all 
concerned.
  Based on this close cooperation and the urgency of the issue, I have 
decided not to raise a jurisdictional objection. I therefore support 
the inclusion of S. 1084 in the bill before us.
  I will now say a few brief words about Trade Adjustment Assistance. 
The TAA program has been on the books since 1962 and has historically 
received wide bipartisan support. The purpose of the program is to help 
workers and firms that experience layoffs due to import competition.
  The portion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program which assists 
trade-impacted businesses operates out of the Department of Commerce 
and its budget is included in the Commerce, Justice, and State 
appropriations bill. This program helps small- and medium-sized 
businesses that are facing layoffs due to import competition to get 
access to technical support and develop business plans that help them 
adjust to import competition, become more competitive, and maintain or 
increase employment.
  The TAA for firms program operates on a shoestring. Historically, the 
TAA for Firms program creates or preserves one job for every $861 
spent. This is a bargain we cannot afford to pass up. In recognition of 
this program's track record, in every recent year the Senate has 
attempted to increase funding for this program in the CJS 
appropriations bill. Last year the amount that passed the Senate was 
about $24 million. Every year, the number gets reduced in conference. 
This is very frustrating, but certainly not a reason to give up. This 
year, however, much to my chagrin, the bill before us does not include 
any increase in funding for this program over the current level, so 
there is no basis even to go to conference on this issue.
  There is no doubt that the current funding level for the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for Firms program is sorely inadequate. Every 
year more firms are certified eligible than there is money to provide 
even the most modest technical assistance. The result is that many 
qualified and deserving firms do not get the technical support they 
need to get back on their feet and keep jobs in their communities.
  For example, right now in Montana ten companies have 25 approved but 
unfunded projects for a total shortfall of over $351,000. This includes 
several companies that have been forced to severely reduce operations 
due to imports of dumped and subsidized softwood lumber from Canada. 
The communities where these businesses are located often do not offer 
many opportunities for alternate employment and it is important that we 
help companies and communities like these to get back on their feet.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to express my profound 
disappointment that we in the Senate have not even made the attempt to 
provide a more adequate funding level for this valuable program in FY 
2002, despite its extremely modest cost and proven benefits. I will 
certainly work to see that this mistake is not repeated next year. I 
will also work to see what solutions are available to this continuing 
problem when we mark up a bill to reauthorize the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance program this year in the Finance Committee.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the good work the committee 
and the managers have done with respect to the fiscal year 2002 
appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
State. However, there is one area in which the bill is deficient; 
namely, embassy security.
  The Department of State is requesting a total of $1.3 billion for 
worldwide security upgrade activities in fiscal year 2002, a 22 percent 
increase over the fiscal year 2001 level of $1.07 billion. This funding 
is to be used to: maintain extensive security enhancements; address 
other domestic and overseas vulnerabilities; construct modern, secure 
facilities; and correct perimeter security weaknesses.
  Over the past 3 years, the Department has invested over $3 billion in 
extensive improvements in systems and facilities as well as security 
staffing to protect U.S. diplomats, employees, and dependents around 
the world. The $1.3 billion requested in the fiscal year 2002 budget 
includes $363 million to maintain these programs at their current 
levels. Examples include continued funding for approximately 6,000 
guards and surveillance specialists; maintenance of 490 explosives 
detection devices, 877 walk-through metal detectors, and 283 x-ray 
machines; and maintenance of almost 1,000 armored vehicles.
  The fiscal year 2002 budget request also includes $64 million to 
reinforce defenses against cyberterrorism, technical and human 
intelligence gathering efforts, and penetration of our domestic 
facilities. Included in this effort is the addition of 186 positions, 
86 agents and 100 other security professionals, not only to support 
expanded programs but to reduce the burden on current

[[Page S9386]]

personnel and to ensure that sufficient agents are always available to 
address any serious threat or emergency.
  The budget request also includes a total of $665 million for seven 
security-driven construction projects that will replace less secure 
embassies or consulates and U.S. AID facilities. The request also 
includes $211 million to address significant vulnerabilities in systems 
and equipment that monitor perimeter areas and control access to U.S. 
facilities. These funds will continue perimeter security improvements 
and extend the installation of protective measures to additional posts.
  I am disappointed that the committee mark does not fully fund the 
Department's priority personnel increases for improved diplomatic 
readiness and worldwide security upgrades. The Department's initial 
request had about $95 million to provide for the hiring of 360 new 
employees to support Diplomatic Readiness requirements. However, the 
committee's mark only supports about 40 percent of this new hiring.
  In order to have the right people in the right place at the right 
time with the right skills to advance American interests, the 
Department has put forward an aggressive plan to bring in over a 3-year 
period some 1,100 new employees above attrition. Funding to hire the 
full 360 employees is one of the Department of State's highest 
priorities and is supported by the authorization marks of both the 
House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, as well as by the House appropriators on the 
Commerce-State-Justice bill.
  Moreover, the hiring of 186 additional diplomatic security 
professionals, 86 diplomatic security agents, 9 security engineers, 10 
security technicians, and 81 civil service infrastructure support 
employees, is critical to the Department's efforts to improve the 
security of our overseas personnel, facilities and national security 
information.
  Finally, the reductions to the Department's overseas construction 
account, $219 million and applying $154 million in prior year 
construction balances to fiscal year 2002 requirements, will make it 
more difficult to meet the very ambitious buildings program that the 
Secretary of State has planned.
  I understand that the committee has maintained funding for embassy 
security in the diplomatic and consular programs and embassy security, 
construction, and maintenance accounts at approximately last year's 
levels. However, the failure by the committee to provide the 
administration's requested increases for additional security personnel 
and construction could severely hamper the Department of State's 
multiyear effort to improve security for American personnel serving in 
our embassies overseas. For example, within the funds that the 
committee provides for construction, funding is earmarked for projects 
not on the list of the most urgent, security-driven projects for fiscal 
year 2002, which will make it more difficult for the Department to meet 
its security-improvement goals.
  I am also concerned that the funding allocated by the committee does 
not appear to extend to the protection of U.S. AID employees, an 
oversight that should be quickly addressed.
  We cannot in good conscience leave the manifestations of the American 
presence abroad, namely, our embassies and consulates, inadequately 
protected. The terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon were 
preceded, it should be remembered, by attacks on American embassies in 
two African countries just a few short years ago. U.S. embassy security 
abroad deserves the same degree of attention by authorizers and 
appropriators as homeland defense.
  I would urge the managers of the bill to revisit this issue in the 
conference with their House counterparts and, at minimum, agree to the 
administration's request with respect to the embassy security account. 
Indeed, in light of the recent acts of war perpetrated against the 
American homeland, it would only be prudent, in my judgment, for the 
conferees to consider a major increase over the administration's 
request.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Hollings and 
Senator Gregg for working with other senators and me to accept an 
amendment that will ensure that eligible beneficiaries may receive 
compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA).
  Over a year ago, Senator Hatch and I worked together to update RECA 
to ensure it took into account the latest scientific evidence and to 
extend benefits to new groups of workers, including uranium mill 
workers and ore transporters. In addition, we extended eligibility for 
compensation beyond the group of five States identified in the original 
law, to additional States where uranium mining occurred, including 
South Dakota.
  Due to the concerns about the amount of funding available for this 
program, language was included in both the fiscal year 2001 and fiscal 
year 2002 Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations bill limiting the 
payment of compensation to the original RECA beneficiaries. While I 
share concerns about the limited amount of funding available, I cannot 
support this approach to the problem. Those added to RECA in 2000 are 
now legally entitled to compensation and should have their claims paid 
along with original beneficiaries.
  We simply must do a better job of funding RECA in the future. Last 
year, many beneficiaries received IOUs from the Federal Government 
because inadequate funding was available to pay their claims. To ensure 
adequate funding over the long term, I already have cosponsored 
legislation to make funding for RECA mandatory. I am committed to 
working with my colleagues to secure the passage of this legislation in 
the near future.
  I appreciate the willingness of the chairman and ranking member to 
accept my amendment. I also want to thank Senators Bingaman, Domenici, 
Hatch, and Reid for their support of this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment to 
the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriation bill regarding the Title 
XI Loan Guarantee Program. However, in light of the events of the last 
several days, I believe the Senate needs to quickly move onto the 
consideration of legislation that will aid our Government in addressing 
issues resulting from the devastating attacks on our Nation earlier 
this week. Therefore, I am going to reserve the amendment for another 
time.
  I am very concerned that the Title XI Loan Guarantee Program is in 
fiscal peril due to recent loan defaults and ongoing construction 
problems with other guaranteed projects that could soon lead to further 
defaults that will cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars. I 
encourage all my colleagues to review the merits and cost of this and 
all programs which provide taxpayer-funded support to special 
interests. We should carefully weigh the needs of those interests 
against the needs of our Nation as a whole. We are going to have to 
make some very difficult budget choices in the weeks ahead and I hope 
that we can come together to ensure those choices are in the best 
interest of all Americans.


                noaa laboratory in lafayette, louisiana

  Mr. BREAUX. First, I'd like to thank Senator Hollings and Senator 
Gregg for all of their help over the last four years in trying to 
establish a strong NOAA presence in Lafayette, Louisiana. Their efforts 
are most appreciated by me and by the State of Louisiana.
  Many of my colleagues may not realize that Congress appropriated 
close to $14 million in the 1991 Commerce, Justice, State 
appropriations bill to build a much needed multi-agency, federal 
laboratory in Lafayette for the study of coastal problems in the 
Northern Gulf of Mexico. While the building was completed long ago, it 
is still eighty percent vacant because of a political disagreement. 
Report language was included in 1995 C,J,S appropriations report that 
NOAA says prevents it from ever occupying or using these state-of-the-
art facilities. I have worked since 1998 to remove this restriction 
with little success.
  In the intervening years, the problems in the Gulf of Mexico 
originally identified for study at this facility have grown 
progressively worse and are having greater and greater negative impacts 
on Louisiana and the nation. Our wetlands continue to disappear, many 
important marsh lands have mysteriously died, and the size of the so-
called ``Dead Zone'' has grown to 8,000 square miles.

[[Page S9387]]

  With over 3 million acres, Louisiana is home to 40% of the coastal 
wetlands in the United States and is experiencing over 80% of the 
nation's wetlands loss. Our state is lowing 25-35 square miles of 
coastal wetlands per year. The United States loses one acre of 
productive coastal wetlands in Louisiana every 24 minutes. In the next 
ten years, Louisiana will lose wetlands equal to the size of San Diego.
  These wetlands play a critical role in our national and local 
economy. As much as 28% of the nation's fisheries harvest comes from 
Louisiana's coast. These shrimp, crab, crawfish, oyster and finfish 
fisheries (over 1.1 billion pounds per year landed in Louisiana alone) 
are dependent on our coastal wetlands. Louisiana's fisheries alone are 
comparable to the annual catch on the entire Atlantic seaboard.
  Louisiana's coast also provides wintering habitat for over 5 million 
waterfowl every year, nearly 20 percent of the entire winter population 
of ducks and geese in the United States. The extensive coastal oil and 
gas infrastructure that this nation relies so heavily on is also at 
risk as it becomes increasingly exposed to greater storm energies 
without the protection of the marsh.
  The national economic benefits of Louisiana's coast include:

       $30 billion per year in petroleum products;
       $7.4 billion per year in Natural Gas (21% of the nation's 
     supply);
       $400 million tons per year of waterborne commerce;
       $2.8 billion per year in commercial fishing;
       $1.6 billion per year in recreational fishing;
       $2.5 million per year in fur harvest (40% of the nation's 
     total; and
       $40 million per year in alligator harvests.

  In the years that we have been waging the political fight over the 
NOAA laboratory in Lafayette, my state has experienced a number of 
other devastating problems which have a major impact on these resources 
and desperately need to be fully studied. Last year we lost more than 
30 square miles of salt march grass in an unprecedented phenomenon that 
could mean an advanced rate of loss for our coast in the years to come. 
These threats to our coastline and our fisheries are compounded by the 
horrific growth in the hypoxic zone, or Dead Zone, where extremely low 
levels of oxygen suffocate shellfish and drive out all other forms of 
marine life. Each summer, the Dead Zone increases in size and covers an 
area off of Louisiana's coast that is roughly the size of the State of 
New Jersey. I'd like to submit for the record to following Times-
Picayune story which shows that this oxygen-deprived zone continues to 
grow.
  While this issue has attracted attention and resources from the 
federal government, there remains a serious shortage of research in the 
Northern Gulf. The problems are astounding and solving them is critical 
to the economic and cultural future of the State of Louisiana and this 
nation. However, these problems are not fully understood and we will 
not be able to effectively solve them until we do.
  That is why I rise today to respectfully request that $1.5 million be 
added in the FY 2002 C,J,S appropriations bill for planning and design 
of a new research facility in Lafayette, Louisiana to be occupied by 
NOAA for the study of coastal and fisheries problems in the Northern 
Gulf of Mexico. Let me be clear, I would prefer for NOAA to occupy the 
current facility. I want to thank Senators Hollings and Gregg again for 
helping me to try to do this, but time is running out. Louisiana and 
the nation can not wait yet another year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the interest of all Senators, we are 
about to have final passage on this bill. I congratulate our two 
managers. This has been quite an ordeal. I congratulate them on their 
successful completion of the bill.
  We have a number of nominees I want to be able to consider and, if 
necessary, have votes on the nominations. During this vote, we are 
going to be consulting with certain Senators about whatever 
requirements there may be on a couple of these nominations. If 
necessary, I would like to have these votes tonight if they are going 
to be required, but we will be able to make that announcement shortly 
after the vote, or perhaps during the vote, for those who are 
interested.
  The other outstanding piece of business I would like to be able to 
complete before the end of the week is, of course, the supplemental 
appropriations bill. If the House acts, we will then be in a position 
to act on this side. I do not know yet the status of that particular 
piece of legislation. That may require a vote tomorrow morning.
  As I said in our joint caucus this afternoon, my hope is that we can 
avoid having votes after the memorial service tomorrow afternoon. That 
is not only my hope, my expectation, with the caveat, of course, we 
have been able to resolve these matters successfully.
  I urge colleagues not to leave after this vote until we are 
absolutely certain that no rollcall votes are going to be required on 
the nominees that I would like to consider yet tonight. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Dodd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The bill (H.R. 2500), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendments and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses and appoints the following 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton) appointed Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
Inouye, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
Byrd, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Domenici, Mr. McConnell, Mrs. 
Hutchison, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Cochran conferees on the part of the 
Senate.

                          ____________________